If we can't support Kamala Harris or democrats like

[onecaliberal]

Her then we deserve to lose. The purity tests are bullshit. And NO I'm not talking about supporting people who will take rights away from women or any other group. Bigotry should not be a Dem value.
Until citizens united is overturned, we must play the game. If we continue to lose, nothing ppeople in this country need will ever be accomplish. We will watch the great experiment in democracy completely slip away. We will stand on the sidelines while republicans destroy the ability to survive on the planet.
This is NOT 2016. Let's get over ourselves and work together, a traitor is occupying the White House and republican leadership is neck deep in Russian PAC money. We have no time to lose.

[SHRED]

1. There is no candidate I agree with 100%

Including her.

However, the alternative (Republicans) is unthinkable.

[MineralMan]

10. And there never will be.

The President is our only national candidate. We are way too diverse a country, politically, to elect a President who will please anyone 100%. The sooner we recognize that, the more likely it will be that we win.

[SHRED]

51. I concur wholeheartedly.

[WhiteTara]

2. Beyond the Russian bots

I think the people who don't like her are probably misogynistic. They're fine with women in general, but when one steps out of line and into the arena...she's suddenly tainted beyond repair.

[Not Ruth]

4. Are they still misogynistic if they support Warren?

[Caliman73]

6. Don't know... can a person be racist and have that one Black friend?

you know, one of the good ones.

Context is important. You can prefer Warren to Harris because of how they explain things, voting record, stances on policy, etc...

The problem is that there are attacks on Harris right now, from supposed Democrats that are based on incorrect information but persist in saying that she is not fit to be a Democratic candidate for President.

[brush]

15. Part misogyny and part unconscious racial bias. Harris would be a great candidate

And we have a deep bench this time — Newsom, Kennedy, Warren, Gillibrand, Villaraigrosa, Brown, Castro, Patrick, Becerra.

We're rolling in viable candidates. Let them all make their case without trying to destroy them before it even gets started.

[mr_liberal]

23. I think its the opposite.

Some people on the left are supporting her just because she's black and a woman. If she were a white man they never would because they'd consider him too moderate.

[brush]

24. Ok, that's your opinion. IMO some are opposing her for the same reasons you state.

[mercuryblues]

76. Some of those same people are saying

that women must accept anti-choice candidates for the sake of a win.

I am willing to wager some people who are slamming Harris, but are fine with Warren, will change their tune if Warren ever says she is running for president. As long as she keeps saying she has no interest in being president she is there champion. If she ever declares to run she will get the Harris treatment.

[WhiteTara]

21. We'll see if she runs for President

Remember Hillary had very high approval ratings BEFORE she announced. After that, she tanked.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

37. This is the left blindly lashing out at centrists, not misogyny

I hope she runs, but I suspect she won't.

While I generally can't stand the radical left and would like nothing more than to send them on a manned mission to explore the minor moons of Neptune. I don't think attacking their character by implying misogyny and racism is helpful since on matters of gender and race there are no real differences worth articulating.

[mcar]

3. K&R

[progressoid]

5. The vast majority of Democrats support Kamala.

This is a small group of people making a lot of noise. And the media loves it. Conflict, whether real of not, boosts ratings.

[lark]

8. Russian bots are all over this.

There are millions of them on drumpfs twitter feed an who knows how many of those are also on FB and other important social media, lying and pretending to be Dems and sowing strife and dissension?

[Skidmore]

79. There is a small group

interested in destroying the party too and not all of them are what they claim to be. We saw what happened last cycle and it is starting to have a similar whiff. I am particularly skeptical of people demanding progressive purist tests veiled in the language of right wing grievance. When good Dems are targeted in this manner, you lose me at the get go. I also do not buy into insistence that a candidate has messianic qualities. We need look no further than the malignant cult figure in office now to understand how dangerous betting on a a person able only to bellow loudly about the grievances of a few.

Governance is real work and not accomplished by force of personality alone. Tried and true candidates who demonstrate that the understand the issues that affect a broad coalition and have a good grasp of how to forge alliances across communities will get my attention. We have good people in the party who can do this. Harris and Booker are among them. Lieu, Schiff, Swalwell, Klobuchar also have my attention. First, we have midterms to do and th message of the platfom still in place to get out.

[Me.]

123. There Is A Whiff In The Air

And they are a small group who think they are a lot bigger and more important than they are. Everyone/group has a meet-up with reality sooner or later...theirs is coming, pedestals crack.

I like Kamal Harris because she is STRONG & FEARLESS, she can lead. Newsom & Klobuchar also have my attention. And can you believe M. Zuckerberg hired David Plouffe? His head is way above the clouds.

[leftstreet]

7. I can't wait til this primary is over! n/t

[WoonTars]

85. Right? Holy shit people it's 2017...way too early for the circular firing squads...

...and demands for fealty oaths...

Let's try and take back the House first, yes? We can kill each other over our favorite candidates later. You know, after they've actually announced they're running maybe?

[dragonfly301]

112. Absolutely agree!

The endless posts on presidential candidates that haven't even announced are distracting - maybe that's their purpose.

[tonyt53]

9. I'm with you 100%. Also, I'd never vote for somebody that agrees with me 100%.

They would be scary as hell - and nuts.

[TNNurse]

11. I have never encountered another human being with whom I agree 100%

I dearly love the man I have lived with for 39 years, but we do not always agree.

I have dear friends and family who have said and done things that angered or bewildered me...but they are my friends and family and I love them.

If anyone can name a politician with whom they have never disagreed, I would love to hear about it.

[mr_liberal]

12. I agree. We need to bring back the DLC and Third Way. That's how you win. nm

[onecaliberal]

13. Thanks for the textbook example.

[mr_liberal]

17. Im being serious. I think the best possible Democratic candidate for Pres

would be socially liberal (pro-choice...), but also reasonable on gun rights, and moderate on economics, taxes and spending. Cory Booker seems to have about the right mix. Bill Clinton is the gold standard.

[onecaliberal]

19. My point is we aren't going to agree 100% with everything and everyone.

We have to stop fighting each other and work together.

[mr_liberal]

26. Youre always going to have the left complain. It happens every election.

Its how Bush beat Gore with Nader siphoning votes. And played a big role in Hillary losing because of Stein and Bernie or Buster's sitting home because Hillarys too moderate. They don't know the difference between their own beliefs and what kind of candidate can win a general election and how you have to run to win a GE. You watch, it'll happen in 2020 too.

[David__77]

46. I think people will vote for who they want to win.

If given a choice, I'll vote for who I want to serve S president.

If someone supports the death penalty, wants to restrict legal access to abortion, supports "regime change" in Syria or elsewhere, I'll take that into account.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

168. "We have to stop fighting each other and work together." +1 . . . nt

[yallerdawg]

16. That was in response to 12 years of Republicans in the White House. It was grim.

On the other hand, 6 months of Trump (and the fact he 'won') would suggest we need to grow the party, not break it up and isolate factions.

[mr_liberal]

18. I don't think you grow the party by going left though.

You reach out to moderates and independents. Someone on the far left (Bernie) is never going to win a national election.

[Ligyron]

34. and that is a shame.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

62. Bernie developed a huge following. There are a number of reasons why.

I obviously don't know all the pieces of the puzzle but a couple things strike me as pretty obvious:

First--He spoke courageously for "Ordinary People", and the role of social inequality/economics in our downward slide. People are desperate for a strong leader who says "I am with you". Which he did.

Hilary did too but her message wasn't able to get out because of the damn media. She also knew how to interact with corp interests as well as clearly supporting and writing policy that cared for Ordinary People's needs.

However, her comfort in the corporate world made her persona non grata for too many Lefties who didn't look at her stated policies and goals to help Us.

Second--The media basically ignored him, in the beginning and then the story was his amazing rise.

IOW, he wasn't struggling against constant slagging by the damn media, and old false narratives attached for the past 30 years and NEVER refuted publicly, broadly, and consistently enough, as Hilary faced.

When the media finally did take notice of Bernie, he already had a huge following....the story was how amazing it was that he "suddenly burst upon the scene out of nowhere".

[Tumbulu]

92. Agree-well stated, thanks!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

101. Thank you! I'm glad that made sense!

[moriah]

174. The issue for me is not compromise itself, but compromising values.

And there's a difference.

2018 is sooner than 2020, and we need to be using the strategy you mentioned in choosing candidates. There were THREE unopposed Republicans my state (Arkansas) sent to Capital Hill in the House with only Libertarians running against them in 2016, when before 2010 we had only one district that went Republican and both Senators were blue.

We need to run Dems here. But some districts just aren't going to accept a "California liberal" -- there are demographics here we can reach with a unified message, and people who we can run who at least agree to uphold the law of the land regarding Roe v Wade regardless of their personal opinions on abortion.

[snort]

14. Small things can grow.

Amplification is easy when many are easily duped. Are we a Nation divided or a Nation being divided? We are being fucked with.

[onecaliberal]

20. No question. I can see the Russian bots all over DU and twitter again.

[DinahMoeHum]

22. Thank you. The "Nothing-For-The-Best-For-The-Oppressed" bullshit. . .

. . .attitude among the purity princesses among us is fuckingly IRKSOME.

You wanna "take over the Democratic Party"??? Can't do that until and unless you become a member.

Be a member and get involved on the local level.

As our candidate for County Executive says: "to get to Berlin, first you have to get to Normandy"

[onecaliberal]

27. I am a lifelong democrat a former elected member of my county central committee

You don't know me so spare me the same old defeatist crap that put republicans in the house, senate and White House. Enjoy my dust bin.

[Old Vet]

31. My troll meter is going off

[Brother Buzz]

35. MIR team's troll meter is working well, too

Hat tip the the MIR team!

[uppityperson]

29. welcome to DU, word of advice. Calling other duers trolls is not ok

[Old Vet]

39. I disagree sir, Going down the road of name calling such as corporate dems on the first post is

At the least, In bad taste. IMHO.

[johnp3907]

33. "Is oncaliberal a troll?"

No.

We know how to spot trolls.

[Kogaratsu72]

28. In Belgium...

We have what is called the vote-test. Different newspapers (with different ideologisch) set up a set of questions to which you respond. The results give you the party which comes closest to your personal views. Just as a guidance to what to vote for. Mind you, in Belgium we have at least eight leading parties. Anyway, we did the same test on both american parties... The democrats ended between our far right and extreme right parties. The gop did the same. Home of the brave, yup...

[Ligyron]

38. interesting.

[OilemFirchen]

78. Like connerie.

Interesting until you realize what you're being fed.

[Hortensis]

194. Personalities are the true test of orientation, not issues imposed by the era.

There is no way Democrats average "extreme right" in political personality orientation, and our extreme right would be first to agree. But it's well known that on fixes for economic issues, for a long time but especially following the major drag right of the entire nation over the last 40 years, both our main parties average well to the right of Belgium's. Nothing to do with "bravery," everything to do with length of work week.

[Jakes Progress]

30. Too many on the "left"

are just as susceptible to being duped by stupid lies from social media and pure propaganda. It killed us in the last election, and judging from the hysterical cries and silly rants here, it will kill us again. Many on the "left" seem just as ignorant at most of those on the right. We decry the trump voter's lack of thinking. A little self-reflection is called for. They're going to do it to us again.

[ZX86]

32. Purity tests are not bullshit.

Dismissing other people's deeply held beliefs is a recipe for disaster. Everyone has different experiences and different priorities. Some people the most important issue may be animal rights, or environmental concerns, or healthcare, or economic issues. Denigrating their concerns and blaming them for political losses is divisive and counter productive. Everybody has their own deal breaking issues.

[onecaliberal]

36. Their deeply held beliefs put trump in the White House. You can't possibly be arguing

That any republican policy is good for anyone but the 1%. I have deeply held beliefs as well. I am a moral person, however, my mama didn't raise a fool. It's time to LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE. A psycho has possession of the nuke codes, one that is controlled by RUSSIA.

[mvd]

43. Exactly

It is very important that we elect a Democratic President. But people will always have their issues they care about the most. It appears I care about economic issues more than the OP does. So in the primary, I will support the most progressive that way barring concerns about other important issues like choice and equal rights.

[FairWinds]

40. Dear OneCali . .

It would help your cause immeasurably if you included Ms. Harris
views on the issues of concern to Democrats.

How about giving us some actual REASONS to support her?

(I'm not being snarky here - I really want to know)

[onecaliberal]

59. #1 reason. She IS a Democrat. She was just an example. Everyone will have different opinions

As I stated before and will state again, all the purity tests and infighting gave us trump. If you don't think what is going on right now is reason enough to support the Dem on our ticket then I don't know what to say for you. The rest of us will go on fighting for good things and democracy. A Russian owned 3 year old is occupying the White House.

[FairWinds]

65. Your answer confirms my support . .

for Elizabeth Warren.

Joe Liberman was a so-called Democrat too.

You're setting the bar pretty low.

[onecaliberal]

66. Lieberman was NEVER at the top of the ticket. If his state saw fit to send him to D.C.

That was their choice. We've NEVER been at this place before. If warren is at the top of the ticket that's great but if she isn't, you're helping republicans. End of story. And I'm not proving anything to you. You seem to have a pre conceived narrative that you're following.

[FairWinds]

69. Deflection alert . .

who said anything about "top of the ticket"?

Only you.

And this statement makes no sense . . " If warren is at the top of the ticket that's great
but if she isn't, you're helping republicans." Whaaaaaa ?

[onecaliberal]

74. I didn't say if SHE I said if you don't vote for the actual candidate (top of ticket)

Then you ARE helping republicans.

Have a wonderful evening.

[Ninsianna]

150. Isn't it good enough to support her in her work for the only office she's interested in

the one's she's got, because she's standing up to Republicans and asking the right questions?

You seem to forget that a certain faction of faux leftists have decided she's a threat in a potential run for an office SHE has not stated she's running for.

How about supporting her for what she's visibly doing in Congress on CSPAN every day, is that not reason enough?

Something about her has got some people worried enough to trash her just in case she might decide to run for an office in 3 years.

[DefenseLawyer]

41. Haven't we learned anything about having party loyalists annoint a nominee?

I'm not against Senator Harris, but I'm certainly not ready to say she is the obvious choice in 2020.

[mvd]

44. Right. She is a possibility, but..

too early to say she would be my preference. I would hope that if someone like Sanders is nominated, he/she would get the same calls for unity.

[onecaliberal]

61. Maybe you should read what I wrote. I said Harris or OTHER Dems like her

[DefenseLawyer]

67. Like her in what way? n/t

[mcar]

182. Democrats

[Raine]

153. Yes, exactly! nt

[David__77]

42. If we can't support Bernie Sanders, we deserve to lose.

...I think this statement is just about as useful as the one you made in your first sentence.

[Progressive dog]

45. I want my Democratic candidates to come from the Democratic party

Kamala Harris does.

[FairWinds]

63. Bernie comes from the FDR wing . .

of the Democratic Party.

To paraphrase Ray-gun, Bernie did not leave the party,
the party left him.

[OilemFirchen]

80. Yes indeed.

Equate Sanders with Reagan. There are remarkable similarities.

Great strategy!

[The Polack MSgt]

81. Unlike Bernie, Reagan was a Democrat

Before he ran for office.

[Tumbulu]

91. Oh baloney, he is not a Democrat

The Democratic Party was very gracious to him.

But look what we got in the end. A total disaster and we have only begun......

[GulfCoast66]

97. I am calling BS.

Bernie came to age in the 60's for goodness sake. When republicans were like todays centrist Democrats and the liberal Democrats were Bill Moyers types. Bernie was a proud socialist and had nothing to do with the Democratic party. Hard to come from the FDR wing of the Democratic party when he was not a Democrat.

Perhaps when he was 18 he registered as a Democrat, although I have seen no evidence of it. But since he has been a politically active adult, he has eschewed the Democratic Party. Well, until he needed it to achieve his goals.

This is a fact based community.

[Progressive dog]

161. No he doesn't

Bernie's hero is Eugene Debs, not FDR.

[FairWinds]

184. I've been scammed too many times by the country club democrats . .

in our area (of Ohio) - the kind of people that are all smiles when
they want you to work on their campaigns; but who won't give you
the time of day after they are elected and you ask them to back
labor rights, health care for all, or women's issues.

It makes my blood boil just thinking about it.

Bernie is a better Democrat than any of them.

[Iggo]

47. I've voted for Ms Harris six times: three primaries and three general elections.

For comparison, I voted once for Mr Sanders in the 2016 primary, and I voted once for Ms Clinton in the 2016 general.

Doesn't follow the narrative, but there you have it.

[onecaliberal]

64. Of course it does. Once the primary was over you voted for the ticket. That's what I'm saying.

[TDale313]

119. Ditto.

But people seem determined to create the mythology of a Harris Wing and a Bernie Wing. I agree with them both on many things and disagree on a few things. Supported Bernie in the primaries. Still think he's generally right policy-wise and in his vision for the future of the party. Have also really liked what I've seen from Harris, particularly since becoming Senator. She could potentially be a really strong candidate next time. I would love to see her explore running, as well as many other Dems.

[aikoaiko]

49. Almost everyone on this board and elsewhere is fine with giving every Democrat a chance

Everyone has special issues that are near and dear their hearts.

[jimlup]

50. I agree

I don't know if we should really say how vigilant we need to be in opposition. We must support every candidate with a "D" by their name once they have become the candidate on a non-primary ballot. We can rest easy in knowing that 90% of them are who we really want anyway.

The Republicans must be opposed at every turn. I feel the situation is almost out of control. And I don't say that lightly. We need to make some gains in '18. If not, all may literally be lost.

We are essentially in a state of "cold civil war." I'm not sure if it is OK to say it but I am beginning to feel that it is true.

[hrmjustin]

52. The purists are why we have president Trump now.

And it is amazing how vehemently they are going after Harris, Booker, and now Patrick! A pattern is emerging within a faction of the left.

The purists destroyed 2016 and now they are working hard to destroy 2020.

[tiredtoo]

56. beg to differ with you

We have trump now because he saw a need and filled it. The people of America were crying out for change. The status quo was offering no change. Much like that wrestler got elected governor of Minnesota, trump promised to shake up the system. His promises/lies were never valid but he convinced enough people in the correct states to win the electoral college.
Personally I have no opinion on who i will support in next election's primary. But I will support the eventual winner no matter what!
Stop blaming each other for the loss.

[BeyondGeography]

77. Who did Trump defeat by 74 electoral votes again?

Please.

[roody]

53. The Sanders campaign proved that

you don't have to play the game of corporate and PAC money. You have to have a message that people like.

[YoungDemCA]

55. You do if you want those who control power and access to support you.

We definitely saw that last year.

[Tumbulu]

58. It most certainly did not prove that

In fact it proved the opposite. The only reason he was a Senator all these years is that he lives in such a progressive state that he was safe, not constantly attacked by the big moneyed interests. Everyone else has to fight for their life and take money any way they can just to stay in the fight.

Which is a profound difference between various states.

And any woman has it much harder. Bernie had the luxury of being able to be pure. Not many have such a good fortune.

[YoungDemCA]

68. Yeah, e.g. Kamala Harris has to fight for her life in notoriously right-wing California.

[Tumbulu]

90. California is not a cheap place to run a campaign

It is not only the political situation, but the financial one. And all women have to prove that they can raise money, men don't need to prove that.

And Kamala Harris has been up against the right wing hate machine from day one. How convenient that they can just turn and attack from the left now.

I remain utterly disgusted by the whole ridiculous argument that just because Bernie pulled something off, that everyone else can.

It would be wonderful if it was true for others, but there are very few states when money does not matter very much.

[Me.]

135. She Does In The Senate & On Committees

Where it's ok to shush women senators and when there is also a barrage of alt left articles bashing her

[JCanete]

155. I agree, it didn't prove it. It may however have opened the door for others to try the same approach

Sanders circumstances are certainly unique and afforded him a seat in-spite of his uncompromising approach to money in politics because he became entrenched in a small state at a time when such a thing was possible.

But just because that didn't prove that this is a winning strategy, our long-time approach has certainly brought into question whether taking big sums of money from industries actually helps our message. It certainly hurts our ability to push issues that could inspire the american people and force the GOP to own being the party for the rich. It certainly muddies those waters. It certainly affects the quality of legislation that we can ultimately pass ENTIRELY on party lines, to the point that we actually politically shoot ourselves in the foot by making what could have been unimpeachably popular legislation, problematic and a political weapon to be wielded against us.

[hrmjustin]

70. in the end it wasn't a winning strategy.

[liquid diamond]

88. He lost.

[YoungDemCA]

54. I'm out of the loop on this one.

Can someone please explain to me what this is about?

[Iggo]

57. It's about Divide-And-Conquer. (n/t)

[marylandblue]

72. Harris got some positive reviews since she came to Washington

Enough people like her that some wealthy Hillary backers want to help her. This caused a backlash among the various "X-bots" who want to tear her down because she is too centrist, or maybe too impressive, too black or too female. Or maybe the Russians are afraid of her.

[Tumbulu]

94. Thanks, I missed it as well.

And they ( right wing hate media) have been attacking her from day one in CA.

For a good 15 -20 years now.

I am a big fan of hers, and she is far from being a centrist. She may have had to act like one, though.

[oxbow]

60. Don't fall for the bait, y'all...

Just keep your head down and ignore the drama. The fate of future generations depends on our ability to effect change now. Stay united for their sake...

[Blue_Tires]

71. I hope DUers are taking notice

of this hysterical Kamala hate bandwagon, and what they all have in common...

[onecaliberal]

75. Check that. Good observation.

[leftofcool]

164. Never happen. She just isn't pure enough, doncha know?

[58Sunliner]

83. +1,000

[JHan]

89. Edit: I thought you quoted from the link

When you came up with that fifth columnist BS all by yourself ...

Yeah....cool story bro.

[Tumbulu]

96. I find your points to be ridiculous

and racist and misogynistic. Very typical of the people who claimed to be so so progressive and such purists to the left that they could not vote for Hillary.

Goody goody for Sanders that he was able to run a great campaign on small donations. No one else had in the past, everyone else has had to suck up to the corporate tit or stand no chance of being heard. Oh but yes, blame all that have survived this miserable feat for being so corporate. Wow, how original.

What Obama and Hillary have actually done to make my life and the planet's health better are substantive and I remain grateful for their work every day.

Especially now that we see what the Republicans throw at us all.

[58Sunliner]

82. "we must play the game"-Really? It's playtime people.

Why don't we focus on voter fraud which is actually a problem. Or bots. Because it feels like these posts supporting, defending, have a real goal, which is to make any criticism of someone's candidate a political liability. I remember when people where trying to shove CB down peoples throats by actually posting that criticisms of him were "un-american", etc.., and that anyone criticizing him must Russian bots or trolls. Talk about un-american. I ignore what may be politically motivated trolling or speak to the issues being brought up. But these posts that characterize anyone who is critical as racist, misogynist,purists who will destroy the party etc.. are a means to their own end and it smells like propaganda. Even if unintentional.

[Ninsianna]

87. Well, voter fraud isn't a problem, voter suppression is.

Which candidate is that exactly? Kamala Harris hasn't announced a candidacy for anything, but she's being vilified in the nastiest ways possible by people who are terrified that she might someday run against their favorite.

When there is a concert of online accounts tweeting the same thing, at the same time with the same bad English, and they do nothing but attack Democrats and seek to sow division, AND we know that there are indeed bots, that there are Russians, and that many are trolls, calling it what it is accurate.

Literally nobody was trying to push anyone down anyone's throats, but some seem to be very aggressively trying to destroy the Democrats by lying, pushing propaganda and right wing idiocies like the "vote fraud" thing down everyone's throats and getting awfully upset when they're called out.

When one is using racist and misogynistic attacks, it shouldn't be a surprise when it's correctly called out for what it is, as it was when Booker, Harris and pretty much any and all other POC who dare to take the lead.

The smelly posts chock full of propaganda, racism and misogyny really need to be called out for what they are, and seeking to stifle those who correctly name it for what it is, is intentionally allowing those bad actors to go on unchallenged.

The post that's being enthusiastically seconded here is one such smelly propaganda filled screed, that link posted by our new member seems pretty intentional and pretty geared towards spreading propaganda.

[58Sunliner]

116. Voter fraud is voter purging, etc...

I agree with calling out posts that seem to be propaganda or the work of a troll, but attaching a third rail to critiques of her past policies, etc.., unless the critique is based on race or sexism/misogyny, IMO is the same end as a troll. It is meant to shut people down. Sorry, I missed the post you refer to, and if the poster who initiated this thread was referring to it, it would be helpful to have it referenced.
As for the older CB thread, yeah, people were posting in numbers against people who had policy critiques against him, and these people were posting that Russian bot/trolls must be active. It looked coordinated, and designed to shut down dissent. It was one of the most egregious examples of abuse of a board by long-time posters. And no one specified race, on that particular thread, but the people who were quick to try to shut other people down, did. Race and little children.

[Ninsianna]

125. Voter fraud is fraud perpetuated by voters.

She didn't have "past policies" and pretending that the lies being told about her past without regard to context or facts is what the trolls are doing.

The critique is a bunch of lies being hurled at her due to her race and gender. They don't accuse men of sleeping their way up the ladder, do they? What they're doing is meant to shut people down, we've seen this playbook before, and we will not be shut down again. These are trolls and you're calling out the people who are calling them out for what they're doing, and for pointing out why they're doing it.

Right, the Cory Booker stuff wasn't about policies either, it was propaganda against only the black man and none of the cosponsors of his bill. You need to look at what's being said, why and why the targets of the propaganda are chosen and if they've got an actual point. They don't with Kamala and they didn't with Cory Booker. The same people, doing the same things, with the same end, to shut down certain people.

They're also the same people dissing Maxine Waters, Joy Reid, Jonathan Capehart etc. etc.

The trolls are actually active, they're in lockstep and they surge when things happen in other areas of the news. It is coordinated and it seeks to shut down dissent, but their targets are Democrats, apparently we cannot speak out and call out what is happening.

We saw this happening all over the internet, Democrats, women and POC being attacked, doxed and abused to shut them down for daring to say anything. One need not specifcy race or gender to launch an obviously racist or misogynistic attack, let's not play that game, and leave that to the Stephen Millers and the Bannons of the world.

They're don't even try to conceal what they do, with their newly awoken sleeper accounts and their newly minted accounts and the echos from numerous such accounts. On platforms where pictures are common, there is an eerie echo of familiarity from stockimages etc.

We're quick to identify them because we've seen this before, we know what they're about and we bother to look at what they're saying, do our homework and see what their rhetroic and their links are truly about.

They need to be called out, we saw what happened when we let them run wild and held out toungues. We're not doing that again.

[58Sunliner]

131. Voter fraud is also perpetrated against voters.

"She didn't have "past policies" and pretending that the lies being told about her past without regard to context or facts is what the trolls are doing."
I don't know all her past policy decisions, but this blanket statement about "lies" because they do not take into account what you may see as mitigating circumstances or context, sounds somewhat subjective. Criticism may not meet your threshold of validity, but it does not make them a troll. And I don't think it warrants attacks.
"It is coordinated and it seeks to shut down dissent, but their targets are Democrats, apparently we cannot speak out and call out what is happening."
Sure you can, but don't expect everyone to be in agreement about every single objection. I could write the same statement about what I see as some posters on this board attacking people who have criticisms.
Trying to attach a third rail to shut people down is propaganda, and then censuring people after the fact is an attempt to crush "dissent". It is always a hassle to walk a fine line between your rights and someone else's but it is necessary. You are entitled to your opinion, and so are others.
" One need not specify race or gender to launch an obviously racist or misogynistic attack, let's not play that game, and leave that to the Stephen Millers and the Bannons of the world."
No, but assumptions as to motive on the part of a poster who does not reference the above is speculation. No matter how cynical I am, I understand that my assumptions are about me, most of all.

[Ninsianna]

140. No, it's not, because words have meaning.

Well the "blanket" statement is based on the points made that attack her, and have been circulated by various groups with the same talking points, which are not based in fact. When what's being said is not fact or evidence based, making a blanket statement dismissing it as "subjective" seems like another issue with understanding definitions. Criticism needs to be fact based to not be subjective, and when it's limited to deliberate distortions, it shouldn't meet any reasonable, honest threshold of validity, and when the "criticism" in question is echoed verbatim from various new entities, and is mostly ad hominem, it kinda makes them a troll. Calling out trolls for their obvious subjective, dishonest trolling is not an attack.

Oh, no I fully expect the trolls, the racists and the misogynists to dig in and deny that the trolls are doing what they're obviously doing and to attack the facts and continue distorting them, we have, as I explained seen this before.

There is no third rail, and shutting down propaganda is not propaganda, censuring those who defend the trolls and the propaganda is not doing anything to "crush dissent", on the contrary those seeking to make false accusations at those pointing out the propaganda are the ones trying to crush dissent, and silence those who seek to call out the falsehoods. This is a tool often employed by the trolls and propagandists, it's how they actually drown out dissent. Anyone is entitled to an opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts, nor do they get to succeed in shutting down anyone pointing out their lies.

No assumptions are being made. There is no speculation required to see gendered attacks for what they are. No matter how cynical one is, they need to understand that facts are what they are and the defense one uses to deny the obvious speak loudly about what one's "assumptions" are.

These are baseless attacks which are clearly racist and misogynistic, being leveled at a woman has not indicated she's interested in running, by people who are terrified of her and her colleagues and the threat they pose to their chosen older white male candidate. It's a convergence of the right wing and their twins on the supposed left.

[58Sunliner]

180. I meant electoral fraud. Yes words do matter. And so does jumping to conclusions.

"When what's being said is not fact or evidence based, making a blanket statement dismissing it as "subjective" seems like another issue with understanding definitions."

But that isn't what you said in the original post. And now you want to change the context of your statement.
"when it's limited to deliberate distortions, it shouldn't meet any reasonable, honest threshold of validity,"
Sounds pretty subjective to me. In fact, when I combine your previous statement of about posters not including context that now becomes limited to deliberate distortions, I see a rationale that could excuse a lot of things, but may or may not justify an action. If they don't post what you consider mitigating circumstances, it is an invalid post. And you assume deliberate distortions.
"This is a tool often employed by the trolls and propagandists, it's how they actually drown out dissent."
People calling anyone, who posts criticisms a troll or some other insult or insinuation, are doing exactly that.

"No assumptions are being made. There is no speculation required to see gendered attacks for what they are."
There are assumptions necessary if gender is not actually raised as an issue.

I am certain there are attacks that are both racist and sexist, but that is not what I am talking about. But you conflated the two as if there was no other context for a criticism.
And judging by the response to what should have been on my part, an innocuous reply to a thread, I have proved my point. Or rather you have.

[Ninsianna]

189. Yes, I explained that the terminology was incorrect, and I agree leapuing to conclusions is

really wrong, so is attacking Democrats, but the people attacking Harris seem to wish to do so anyway.

But it is what I said in the original post. I'm not changing the context of anything, that's again what you're doing with the voter fraud versus electoral fraud, it's literally not what you said, I corrected you and now you're saying something totally different.

Yes, when one admits they don't know the facts, I can see how they might "sound subjective" to someone, kind of like someone who has decided to combine parts from different posts to distort context, which is the definition of "deliberate distortion"

I see a rationale that seems to be trying very hard to change goal posts, distort things to "excuse a lot of things", it's an odd tactic that doesn't seem to be working well.

The projection of strawman arguments where my post is invalidated because it doesn't match your personal opinions, even after my comments are willfully distorted is a poor rhetorical construct. I assume nothing, I observe deliberate distortions, lots of projection and not a little bit of dishonesty.

So calling out propaganda and outright lies is somehow propaganda itself exactly how much does one need to contort themselves to make that distortion appear to have any coherence? Do I need to scramble words from other posts, jumble them up and get out a special decoder ring?

There are no assumptions here, just an observation of what's being said, why and the desperation of the distortion that's required to defend the indefensible.

Of course, why talk about the topic we're talking about, when we can talk about something else entirely? I conflated nothing. Please try reading in context without whatever distortion tool is being used to create content that wasn't present. Put down the decoder ring and read what was typed.

Actually, you proved my point, that there seems to be a lot of subjective distortion going on here, because people do not like being called out for what they're so deliberately doing. Projection is sad, but to those viewing it, it's pretty clear what's going on here.

[58Sunliner]

192. I don't need a decoder ring. I just have to quote you.

"I'm not changing the context of anything, that's again what you're doing with the voter fraud versus electoral fraud, it's literally not what you said, I corrected you and now you're saying something totally different."
No I am not, look up electoral fraud. I have seen voter fraud used in context as electoral fraud. Incorrectly perhaps. And please read my post for actual reference.
"even after my comments are willfully distorted is a poor rhetorical construct. I assume nothing, I observe deliberate distortions, lots of projection and not a little bit of dishonesty."
Where did I distort your comments?? I quoted you. Which is not something you are able to do because it would not allow you to stretch your rhetoric to your own conclusions.
I'm done. You may believe that you can see an intent beyond what a poster actually posts, and respond to your own triggers, but I don't think that it validates your argument. And I think the number of people who converge on a poster proves my point that it is coordinated, abusive, intentional and has an agenda that goes beyond the subject.

[Ninsianna]

193. Sadly that's not working too well as a tactic, since the words don't say what you

say they do.

You used the wrong term and then doubled down on it, admit your mistake and move forward, why is that so hard?

You were incorrect. Your actual posts were incorrect, all of them where you quote me and then pretend that I said things that you made up.

Where did you distort my comments, where you said I said stuff I didn't, that you made up.

I'm truly sorry, but you quoted me all right and then you said I stated things that my words did not convey.

I'm not the one who thinks they can see an intent beyond posts, that's literally what you were doing and continue to do so. Responding to your own triggers, based on whatever it is you had wished I wrote, as I have stated, it invalidates your own argument.

I have no idea what this delusion of persecution is all about. Are you literally saying that other people who have read your posts and seen the flagrant distortions and outright fiction you keep creating are somehow coordinating to plot against you? I think you're proving my point about where all the projection is coming from and exactly who is triggering themselves here.

Lying repeatedly and then accusing people of some strange things is intentional, and abusive, one wonder what the agenda is that is served by such blatant lies and such obvious paranoia.

You were done awhile ago, when you were corrected after making a mistake and then when the deliberate lies and distortions were pointed out, but yet you still go on and now with this post that seeks to make false accusations and personal attacks, while going on and on about some group that's somehow out to get you, by pointing out what you're doing literally.

I have been polite, despite the abuse I've been subjected to by someone who is literally lying about what I said and how they claim I've said it. That is not the case with the person who is accusing me and some imaginary group of persecution. This is even more disturbing than the deliberate and continued hostility and dishonesty.

Has no one told you this is a public forum and that if many people are responding to your public post and pointing the distortions and dishonesty that the fault is not with everyone else but the content of the posts themselves.

Just ... wow.

[BainsBane]

160. No, get your terms right

That's the GOP term to try to justify voter disenfranchisement. You've been corrected. Don't insist on using terms that feed into the GOP's attacks on voting rights.

[58Sunliner]

175. Yes I did use voter fraud when I meant electoral fraud.

[BainsBane]

178. Voter suppression

Just omit the word fraud. People will think you're a Chris Kobash-type.

[58Sunliner]

191. No, I did mean electoral fraud. Feel free to look it up.

The only one suggesting I am a Chris Kobash-type is you. it's not just voter suppression.

[JHan]

93. the attacks on Kamala Harris are bullshit...

it's ratfucking..

You know what ratfucking is right?

[Gravitycollapse]

95. Reasoned concerns are not bullshit.

Kamala Harris is not entirely unsullied and the moment we recognize that is the moment we can move on to the task of actually analyzing whether she's a viable candidate.

[JHan]

98. They are not "reasoned concerns" ... that doesn't fly...

the criticisms don't come from a place of sincerity.

She is being specifically targeted, the same way Booker was targeted, and others - to paint them as traitors to liberal causes, to paint their public service in a poor light.

Kamala is a strong democratic politician. She has not announced her run for 2020, and if she does, she will prepare herself to go through a primary process where her views on a plethora of issues will be hashed out and debated.

So miss me with the fake concern of the NeverKamala critics and contextualising ratfucking as "reason".

[Gravitycollapse]

100. A critique is a critique. Either address the concern or step aside.

I'm not going to get into a spat with you about the legitimacy of a critique purely because you don't like how it brings skepticism against your chosen candidate. Harris has a questionable past on several issues and the concern that she is not onboard with things like prison reform and justice movements is a serious issue in Democratic and leftist communities.

[JHan]

104. That's a cute way to misinterpret my post...

but it still doesn't fly.

I don't expect I will agree with any politician 100% of the time, and I am VERY passionate about criminal justice reform but I will call out a smear when I see it..

......and by the way, she is currently working on a criminal justice reform bill.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-are-rand-paul-and-kamala-harris-teaming-up-on-a-bill/2017/07/25/c18a7ed6-7082-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html?utm_term=.ac19f6729676

[Gravitycollapse]

105. Already plenty aware of her current efforts. That doesn't erase her past...

What's past is prologue. She needs to fully address her past actions and she has yet to do that.

[JHan]

106. Ah yes, beat her up on her "past" .. make her "past" forever relevant..

the bits of her past that aren't acceptable to you regardless whether she evolves, regardless whether she had to make decisions in less than ideal circumstances, slivers of impurity are enough to castigate her and legitimize smears against her character.

Yeah you have fun with that.

[Gravitycollapse]

107. If you don't address your mistakes, you're still complicit in them.

I do this for every possible candidate. Equivocating for genuine injustice is a sign that you're not an ally to marginalized communities. If she did it in less than ideal circumstances, it's because she was opportunistic or cowardly. She needs to fully address these concerns and work exceptionally hard to right wrongs. She is showing signs of doing this but it's nowhere near enough to undo what she's done.

[JHan]

110. I doubt you do it for every single candidate..

... unless you know of someone who has a perfect flawless record according to your own litmus tests.

And I am dealing with the present, Kamala is strong and shows great promise - she's proving herself to be a strong voice in the Senate and her working on bills to counter the machinations of Sessions are important as of RIGHT NOW.

Personally, I would like to see an end to the drug war, very few Democrats have spoken plainly on this, but I understand it can only be dismantled over time. Obsessing over past statements or decisions or being selective in how you gauge a candidate's sincerity on issues is a fool's errand. I won't join you.

[Gravitycollapse]

111. I don't care if you doubt my actions. I do it for literally every candidate from the top down.

I'd suggest you do the same.

[JHan]

113. I'm fine with how I assess candidates.

you didn't need to explain to me how you assess politics, I already sussed that out several posts ago.

[Gravitycollapse]

114. You basically called anyone with concerns with Harris a liar and a troll.

Congrats on contributing to the very divisiveness you claim to be countering.

[JHan]

115. I made clear distinctions:

between ratfucking and having an honest discussion about a politician's position and discussing those issues.

I also typed in clear english.

If you have difficulties, #NotMyProblem.

[Gravitycollapse]

117. You never made any distinction. You essentially said any criticism was an attack.

And made that even more obvious when you attacked me despite myself saying I had genuine concerns.

You've shown your cards.

[JHan]

118. I specifically mentioned the "NeverKamala" crowd..

and those who smear her as a traitor to liberal causes, and all the other names they've conjured up to dismiss a candidacy she hasn't even announced yet..

I did not attack you, and if I did there's an alert button........................................................................................

[Gravitycollapse]

122. You literally attacked me in every single post.

You questioned my knowledge, my position, my ideological and voting consistency. All because I dared bring up the fact that there are legitimate concerns with Harris. If that's you not attacking me then I'd hate you truly be on your bad side.

[JHan]

124. I gave you great advice just now...

there's an alert button.

[Gravitycollapse]

126. I only alert egregious violations because I actually care about discussion this board.

[Ninsianna]

127. Where was this done?

It seems that making false accusations is what is contributing to the divisiveness that's being called out. Self congratulations are in order.

[Gravitycollapse]

133. They literally called critics of Harris ratfuckers.

But you already knew that.

[JHan]

136. Keep trying.

And I am amused that you haven't used the alert button because you only save it for an "egregious" disregard for the rules of engagement on DU.

According to you I called you a liar and a troll, that's serious stuff,

but here's what - in the interest of honest discourse, all I've done is point to those "assessing" a candidate who is not a candidate, who has not announced a run and vetting her relentlessly as if she has, going so far to create a "NeverKamala" hashtag on Twitter.

Kamala won her senate seat last year, if I follow the logic of those ceaselessly vetting her record, maybe she shouldn't have won it since she's so problematic - and such a traitor to liberal causes.

[betsuni]

139. Omg, we are told we must "learn to recognize legitimate concerns" (#103)

[JHan]

143. lol. Lol lol to be fair it could have been worse...

......I could have been provided with a definition of "legitimate" and "concern" and a copy of "How to Assess Candidates like I do - Limited Edition"

[leftofcool]

165. Didn't we go down this path just recently?

[Ninsianna]

141. They literally did not , but if you believe they did, please

point out where that happened, if I missed it. I asked a question, which you failed to answer,but you already knew that. Is it because there was no such attack?

[BainsBane]

166. How about Bernie?

Have a link?

The operative word is candidate. Harris is not a candidate. If you're not one of her constituents from California, she owes you nothing. And if you are, the time to ask was about her past was in 2016 was when she was running against Sanchez. Now is when people ask their senators about current and future legislative efforts.

So why Harris, of all sitting legislators, have you decided owes you explanations? Why not any of the other hundreds of Senators and congresspeople, or governors, from around the country? Why is her character and past of such grave concern to you?

You don't even point to one specific action or position. You make contentless allegations about injustice, that she is responsible for not accepting responsibility for something you can't even bother to specify. That isn't about issues. When people care about issues they talk about issues.
you have not raised a single one.

Everyone can see what's going on here, and it has f all to do with issues.

[heaven05]

181. gravity collapsed there, finally

+++

[BainsBane]

137. A candidate for what?

Her Senate candidacy was in 2016. She's not up for relection for 6 years. She hasn't declared or hinted at a candidacy for president. One assesses candidates when they run for office, when they seek people's votes.
This is about ensuring she never becomes a candidate, to clear the field of even potential competition.

I have yet to see evidence of holding "every possible candidate" accountable for past missteps. When we see so much effort to clear the field of potential rivals for someone who has yet to acknowledge a single mistake or even accept responsibility for their own voting record, I remain less than convinced.

In the event you do not know what you are participating in, you should figure it out and accept some responsibility of your own.

There are all kinds of injustices in life. Holding candidates of color to standards for which white men are not only given a pass but excused and covered up for, strikes me as one of them.

[JHan]

138. +++++++++++

[brer cat]

157. +1000 nt

[betsuni]

144. Senators who voted for the 1994 Crime Bill surely must be suspect because of such a history

to people who are so very very concerned about Harris' position on criminal justice reform. Or not...

[JHan]

145. Very transparent isn't it?

Sigh

[betsuni]

146. Very.

You must be practically collapsing from annoyance-fatigue. Here, have a nice cold libation.

[JHan]

148. cheers!

[BainsBane]

167. You haven't offered a critique

Allegations of moral injustice do not constitute a critique.

[melman]

108. "her views on a plethora of issues will be hashed out and debated"

As if that will be tolerated then when it's not even tolerated now.

[Gravitycollapse]

109. Bingo.

[JHan]

121. I read a thread several days ago about civil asset forfeiture ...

Last edited Sun Aug 6, 2017, 01:02 AM - Edit history (1)

where Harris' own record was discussed and situations where it is abused, and situations where it may be necessary.

Not a single hide in that thread as far as I know, of if there were any, very few.

A calm, civil discussion that did not involve smearing Harris as a stooge of special interests.

Pity you missed it.

[BainsBane]

162. What issues?

where did you or anyone be else in this thread raise issues? I see a lot of name calling. Desperate efforts to clear the field of potential competition, but no isues.

[heaven05]

187. Tolerated by whom???

now? The people who are damning her for political decisions that are no worse than any past candidate that we have fielded in the last 8 years? They really have shown their cards EARLY and thankfully so. They can be gotten around with logical reasoned approaches that don't ignore everyone not white and centrist RW/LW male. Have to leave those types in the dust...ball and chain to drag us all down.

[Ninsianna]

128. Indeed, however the attacks on Kamala are not reasoned, they are however

BS. The point at which we stop insisting on perfection from women and debating how "sullied" they are, is the moment when we recognize the folly of these gendered and unreasonable attacks and start actually analyzing why anyone is attacking her when she's not even spoken a single word regarding seeking a position she's not expressed an interest in.

Less with the perfection and the attacks and more with the actual reason, please.

[Gravitycollapse]

134. I'm not attacking Harris. I'm critical of her actions.

I'm concerned with what she's done.

[Ninsianna]

142. And which actions might those be?

What concerns you so? And why attack fellow DUErs of things they're not doing?

[betsuni]

149. I wanted to ask these question as well. Futile as it is.

A viewpoint based on a philosophy of "It's not a lie if you believe it" and "It's not me, it's you."

[Ninsianna]

151. This is getting repetitive. They really need a better gameplan, but I guess they

figure if it worked once, why not try it again?

[BainsBane]

163. Which you have said absolutely nothing about.

Not one action, issue or specific. Zero.

[JHan]

173. Just some general shit about her past or something..

See why I can't take this shit seriously.

[OilemFirchen]

170. There it is.

Straight from the Purity Police Officer Candidate's textbook.

Well done!

[mcar]

183. What actions?

You have not noted any in this thread.

[George II]

129. When did she declare her candidacy? Did I miss that?

[JustAnotherGen]

158. A candidate for what?

She's not running for anything and has a clear mandate as one of the Senators representing California.

She won with 61% of the vote and her term ends January 2023. With 61% of the vote last November, if there is an issue with the Senator - give the folks who voted for her the side eye if her background concerns you.

[heaven05]

179. straw argument, no politician is "unsullied", period

even ALL candidates from last election. Some even shot themselves and us all, true liberals and progressives, in the foot by denying certain issues affecting millions were not important enough to address, even though murder was being perpetrated against those non-important people/issue in the streets by agents of the state and RW thieves of voting rights.

With Senator Harris, WE ARE, trying to move on to the task of removing the RW stain governing our country now and slowly poisoning the left as evidenced by these asinine, self-righteous and truthfully RACIST attacks against a viable candidate that is not white and male. We are moving on in spite of those still fighting the primaries and causing dissension in our Party.

Haven't taught anything, so far. Is there more? From everything I've read, well....

[58Sunliner]

120. What specific "ratfucking" are you talking about?

Or are you just trying to attach a third rail to any critique? I agree that critiques based on race or gender are inappropriate. I also agree that it is important to note a concerted effort of disinformation. But beyond that, criticisms are within a posters right.

[JHan]

130. It's a ruse, because Kamala has not announced a run

Unless those who are now finding all sorts of problems with her think she should not have won her senate seat- since she is so problematic according to them.

[MoonRiver]

84. Kamala can unite the Hillary and Bernie crowds!

The more I see her the better I like the idea of her as our candidate!

[yuiyoshida]

86. I support Kamala Harris

[Tumbulu]

99. I love her and attacking her is quite obviously the right wing hate media

Using new tactics. And stupid "purists" falling for that once again.

Just living this daily/hourly republican- nutcase nightmare is not enough for them. Those that long for their idiotic "revolution" ......

[Gravitycollapse]

103. Conversely, there will be no party unity unless you learn to recognize legitimate concerns.

This battle between leftists and centrists within the Democratic Party continues largely because neither side recognizes the legitimate concerns of the other. We need pragmatism but we also need to address how centrism inadequately addresses the needs of vulnerable and marginalized communities on the left.

[Lil Missy]

102. Only purists and/or trolls would say KH doesn't deserve their vote.

Edit to add: Thinking like that is what got us dumbya and the orange jackass.

[RussBLib]

132. is Harris a "corporate" Dem? as in, one who can raise lots of cash?

is that what the antipathy to Harris is about?

I've been out of touch.

[Quixote1818]

147. To be honest, I haven't seen too many direct attacks on her but a lot of folks are just curious why

the establishment is lining up behind her. A lot of democrats are skeptical of the establishment so when they start to push a candidate some people begin to wonder why. There may or may not be anything to be concerned with. That is just my take based on what I have seen so far. As far as I am concerned, lets not pick anyone now, lets let the process work itself out and see who is left standing. If it's Harris I will gladly support her but I don't like being told to get in line now when we don't know squat about so many potentially good or bad candidates.

Edited to show some search results on DU for Harris. Nothing but positive OP's so I am not sure what this is in response to?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Kamala+Harris&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

[Raine]

152. I'm not committing my vote to anyone until I see all the

candidates. It's way to early, I want to see lots of candidates entering the fray so the the best one who can win is selected!

[JCanete]

154. "until citizens united is overturned we must play the game." You think playing by those rules

will ever give us an opportunity to change them? The people putting money into the system like those rules. I'm sorry, just going along and keeping our head down on that issue will not ever resolve it. Letting it fade into the background as business as usual is not going to address it. Instead, its going to keep us in the minority, occasionally tipping into the majority and while we're there, watering down our proposals so as not to offend our least progressive members that edged us into that tenuous grasp of power.

Rather than posts telling us why we MUST do something, I'd rather just see the justifications for why this or that politician is deserving of our full-uncritical support.

[BainsBane]

169. She's not a candidate

The attacks are to ensure she never becomes one.

Harris hasn't asked for your support or anyone outside of the state of California. A group of people are working to ensure that she never becomes one. When people know they can't acquire power through consent of the electorate, they turn to insults, character assassination, disinformation campaigns, and bullying. It's called dominance politics.

And we're supposed to pretend we don't notice that all of those they target are people of color and women. And naturally calling a black woman unfit to represent her race or accusing her of sleeping her way to the top isnt racist or misogynistic. They're thoughtful "critiques" and heartfelt concern about "issues."

[onecaliberal]

172. But never winning again will fix everything, right..

[JCanete]

185. I think our "pragmatism" has gotten us here, which frankly makes it not that pragmatic.

Damn straight, winning without the money is an uphill battle. It requires inspiring the people with a new political paradigm that our whole party advocates. I'm not saying it is doable, but if it isn't doable, we're fucked either way.

[onecaliberal]

186. We are completely and totally fucked now. We don't even know if our votes counted.

[JCanete]

188. that is quite possible, but if that is true, playing the game as it is rigged is certainly not doing

us any favors.

[onecaliberal]

190. Neither is voting third party or staying home. Those two options are losers for sure.

[BainsBane]

156. It has nothing to do with purity

There is nothing pure about her attackers. Harris isn't running for anything. She isn't up for reelection for 6 years. People have heard rumors some in the party may want her to run for president. That's it. She hasn't been "anointed" to anything. She hasn't asked for their votes. This is about savaging her because they fear she may run and thereby represent competition to their own candidate/s and agenda.

It's time to make clear that we see through the attempt at gaslighting. As you note, bigotry is not a Dem value. Those who advance it or draw upon it are not pure or leftists. What we are witnessing is decidedly un-leftist, akin to white nationalism, in attacks on Harris and other Democrats of color (and women), whether politicians or voters. Case in point: Harris and Rand Paul cosponsor legislation on criminal justice reform. Harris is a corporatist whore who slept her way to the top, we read on social media, while Paul is a hero.

Just because people throw around terms associated with leftism doesn't make them purists. The Club for Growth has adopted the same language about corporate power. Would anyone in their right minds believe they truly oppose it? Of course not, so why should this be different? The language is a smokescreen to advance power and wealth for white men, just as the Club for Growth's language us a smokescreen to advance capital. What matters is not the buzzwords they use but what they seek to do.

Don't mistake my post to say anyone who doesn't love Harris or really want Bernie to be the president in 2020 is a White Nationalist. That's not what I'm saying. Democrats can and do have all kinds of legitimate differences on candidates, issues, and policies. But most people with respect for democracy have done in the past is make those decisions when candidates actually seek election. They don't systematically savage every woman and person of color they think might represent competition. That reveals a very different agenda. And to the extent that this pernicious element has inserted itself into groups of Democrats, it's incumbent on members of those groups and the rest of us to call them out. Those who do not want to see a country where being white and male is a requirement to hold office, have rights or economic opportunity bear a moral responsibility to denounce these tactics and not use the people engaging in them as convenient allies because they say they support a politician you do. And if people fail to denounce it, they become complicit.

[GoCubsGo]

171. Yes. This, exactly. n/t

[LBM20]

159. Let's focus on 2018 and yes, there should not be purity tests.

[Turbineguy]

176. Never underestimate the generosity of

the right wing hate machine. It will be cranked up to a fever pitch and any potential Democratic candidate will be attacked.

[dlk]

177. This is Just More Misogyny

It really won't matter which female candidate moves to the forefront, Harris, Warren, any other woman. She will be maligned by the misogynists just like Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. Until the misogyny is addressed, nothing will change.