Journalists use the terms "Bernie Bros" and "Alt-left"

[SecularMotion]

to identify the forces attempting to divide Democrats.

But here come the Bernie Bros and sisters to the Republicans’ rescue: They’re sowing division in the Democratic Party and attempting to enact a purge of the ideologically impure — just the sort of thing that made the Republican Party the ungovernable mess it is today.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-bernie-bros-and-sisters-are-coming-to-the-republicans-rescue/2017/08/11/caacbad0-7e9f-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html

Perhaps you've heard of Nina Turner, one of the few notable women of color to endorse Bernie Sanders, and one of the only women in politics the alt-left doesn't have a problem with. Find something in Kamala Harris's record that they don't like and they'll gleefully try to tear her down, but they'll never say a bad word about Turner, as in this fawning profile by resident Paste Magazine BernieBro Shane Ryan.

https://thedailybanter.com/2017/08/nina-turners-inferior-donuts/

The comparison Semley draws with the alt-right is apt. On substance, Chapo upholds the democratic-socialist politics of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, but in style it is much closer to the vituperative, insulting, shock-jock tactics used not just by Twitter users with Pepe the Frog avatars, but Trump himself. The response of mainstream liberals to these tactics on the right has been to double down on the importance of civility. “When they go low, we go high,” as Michelle Obama famously said. But the Dirtbag Left has no use for civility, and instead wants to counter the alt-right’s mudslinging in kind. Their slogan could be, “When they go low, we go into the gutter.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/143926/dirtbag-left-problem-dominance-politics

[Dustlawyer]

1. I am a Progressive and support what Bernie is doing.

I support Kamala Harris, Nina Turner and ANY Democrat opposing the Republicans. In the Primaries I will support who I choose but in the General I will support whoever is the Democrat over a Republican. If we stick to this we will bury these hateful bastards. They are trying every avenue to thwart our agenda and we must fight them on all fronts. To attack others who support our agenda is to align with Republicans and TPTB!

[DinahMoeHum]

7. +1000s

[riderinthestorm]

9. + another 1 nt

[alarimer]

10. This.

I'm getting sick of the Bernie-bashing myself. It serves no purpose anymore.

[LongTomH]

20. I would like to identify myself with your statements.

As a Bernie Sanders suppoter, I find the words 'alt-left' and 'Berniebros' to be hate speech.

[Codeine]

23. Man, how white does a person need to be

Last edited Wed Aug 16, 2017, 03:34 PM - Edit history (1)

in order to consider "Berniebro" to be fuckin' "HATE SPEECH"?! That is beyond goddamned ridiculous!

[snooper2]

48. Ford F-150 Oxford White

I would say...



can't get much whiter that that

[bettyellen]

24. How would you like people to refer to "Bernie or Busters" then? Because no amount of gaslighting is

Going to get anyone to believe they are not still a thing. I have no idea how many are bots, but there are loads of purported "progressives" who cannot identify a viable Dem candidate they are willing to support. Can't name a Dem president after FDR they approve of. Trump and RT exploited and amplified their message all of last year to be divisive and they did not seem to care... until now. Now they want to use Trump's words to attack- other Dems? It's very convenient, that.

[David__77]

27. How about refer to them as "Bernie or Busters?"

That would be clear - you would then be referring to Bernie or Busters, and that doesn't include the many people on this board who voted for Hillary Clinton in November and also supported Bernie Sanders in the primary.

[bettyellen]

30. Well, it's an evolving thing. Same people had no problem that Trump coopted their rhetoric

Last year to attack Hillary. And now suddenly they're angry - and again, not with Trump but with Dems. Dems they never liked anyway. I call bullshit.

[bdamomma]

36. alt left WTF

making up names and slogans along the way. hateful talk. That is don the con changing the narrative.

I am proud to say that I am a Progressive Liberal and a Democrat.

[kcr]

45. Hate speech?

[bettyellen]

51. "Hate speech" oh hell no. Calling bullshit on that.

[NurseJackie]

54. Oh brother!

[aikoaiko]

2. I find that its pundits, news hosts and pontificates who use the terms - not legit journalists.

Except when quoting others.

[SecularMotion]

3. How do you propose we identify those who are "sowing division in the Democratic Party"?

[aikoaiko]

4. Since I've seen mainstream Democratic faithful tell people with the slightest criticisms to F-off...

...I think the phrase "Democrats and others on the left who sow division" works fine for me.

[GaryCnf]

5. I think you were moving around

phrases and accidently left some things in your OP that you did not intend.

For example, you left the words:

to identify the forces attempting to divide Democrats

in your introduction to a series of delusional and factually unsupportable editorials attacking Senator Sanders and his supporters.

I am almost sure the words "to identify the forces" were accidently left in that phrase because, if we eliminate them, the your OP reads:

Journalists use the terms "Bernie Bros" and "Alt-left" attempting to divide Democrats."

Now that is the God's honest truth, as the examples you included clearly demonstrate.

[DanTex]

6. The OP is correct. People like Nina Turner are obviously trying to divide Democrats.

[sharedvalues]

8. Yes. John Schindler thinks Russia has approached some

On the far left.
We know that Stein is an agent of Russian influence. And Greenwald.

Link to tweet

[GaryCnf]

11. Are you kidding?

Please move on from trying to make excuses for the past and take a shot at being something close to honest about the present.

Tell me ANYTHING Nina Turner has ever said that is even slightly as divisive as the venomous s**t being spewed in the three excerpts plastered in the OP.

We're not just seeing Trump's language being used here, were seeing his false equivalency being used here as well.

[DanTex]

13. Anything Nina Turner has ever said? Gee let's see.

How about refusing to back Hillary Clinton in the election (which, as we all know, is tacit support for Trump). In fact, once on TV she actually got offended because a journalist suggested that she was supporting Hillary over Trump. As far as divisiveness, that pretty much takes the cake.

And even to this day, she wants to create a single-payer litmus test for Democrats. There are plenty of Dems on either side of the single payer issue, but taking it so far as to want to get rid of the Dems who disagree is totally divisive and counterproductive.

[GaryCnf]

15. Okay, that's step one

Now compare it to what is said in the quotes pasted into the OP.

[DanTex]

18. Well, since I happen to agree with the quotes pasted in the OP, then there's not much comparison.

Those articles do a good job explaining what the alt-left is, and how stupid and counterproductive they are to their claimed "progressivism."

They actually provide examples of just the kind of divisive rhetoric that comes from the alt-left. For example, Nina Turner is quoted saying "there’s something wrong with” Democrats who won’t “unequivocally” embrace “Medicare-for-all.” And Chapo Trap House is quoted saying "However, to the pragmatists out there and the people who don’t like purity in politics, yes, let’s come together. But get this through your fucking head: You must bend the knee to us. Not the other way around."

[KitSileya]

25. Not to mention - Nina Turner will refuse to work with Democrats, but is open to Republicans.

How is that not divisive?

And Chapo Trap House - one of them joked about a rape victim and then lied, claiming that she had blocked him on twitter so he couldn't apologize to her when she clearly hadn't blocked him. Trash!

[Ninsianna]

32. But, apparently when she tells Democrats to F* off for the "insult" of

obeying the building's security and the Fire Marshall, and serving refreshments to a large group of people known for being angry and abusive, one should still blame Democrats. Despite the fact that they deliberately exited the party, attack it and are stating outright that they intend to support Republicans, if their "handout trinkets" are appealing.

[Expecting Rain]

12. Trump would not be president without the aid of the international damage inflicted by divisionists..

...on the Democratic party.

That's the truth of the matter. And the war on the Democratic Party continues unabated.

Trump serves the interests of the far-left. It is the "Hitler First, Then Us" strategy playing out in front of us.

Democrats need to resist the fascists and Nazis while fighting a rear-guard action against 5th columnists in our midsts.

[leftstreet]

14. You're saying Leftists support Nazis?

[stevenleser]

16. That's an interesting question. Indirectly, I think the answer is yes.

What makes it worse is we have examples in the past like the 1933 election in Germany, and the 2000 election of Dumbya that should always inform folks on the left as to the dangers of not uniting to oppose the election of far right figures.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. Yep. We can also look at 2008 when Fox News "pundits" on the left dragged Hillary's name through the

...mud writing article after article accusing her of being an unprincipled liar, a racist, a cheater and, worse of all, complicit in trying to get Candidate Obama assasinated.

Then fast forward to 2016 and want to blame everyone else for her 54% disapproval numbers among registered voters.

That criticism also goes for people like Keith Olbermann who produced breathless comments about HRC wanting Obama assasinated.

Then wonder years later why he negatives are so high. When THEY took part in the 25 year smear effort.

Pundits on the left who had a platform and used scorched earth tactics in 2008 own this just as much as some dimwit actress.

[stevenleser]

22. And again you reach for whataboutism and ad hominem personal attacks

Rather than addressing the points being discussed.

You have received several hides for doing this to me and several other people in the last few weeks and months. At what point do you get the message the DU community is sending you?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. I've received several hides? That's news to me. I think you may be thinking of someone else.

I've received exactly four hides over the course of the du jury system.

Never more than 2 at one time. Never been on time out. Not even close..

[Ninsianna]

33. Should we also look at the supposed denizens of the "left" who were writing the EXACT

same things about Hillary Clinton?

Cause they were. The exact same Right Wing spew. From the likes of ironically named sites like "truth out", "common dreams", and the Intercept and various people like David Sirota HA Goodman etc.

I think the wonder is that the negatives were being pushed by these supposed alternative "left" and then people get upset when they're held accountable for what they said and what they disseminated. They amplified and added to that Right Wing effort and they're still doing so today, the alt-left own their own behavior too, and they should stop whining about being held to account.

[leftstreet]

21. I don't think you want to make that argument

I'm not saying you're wrong

But you open yourself to accept that had the centrist Democrats in the US run a candidate that could have actually beaten Trump...

And by your reasoning, then we'd have to also state that the centrist Democrats supported Nazis

That's just a nasty avenue

[stevenleser]

29. Sure I do, And one does not at all imply the oher

I've explained several times analyzing state by state why Sanders would have also lost to Trump, the difference being he would have no chance to win. Hillary lost the electoral college but had a chance to win.

[leftstreet]

31. ...

I didn't suggest Bernie was the right candidate

I said a candidate that could beat Trump

But my point is the same. Let's not try to draw a connecting line between left, or center, or center left, to a support of Nazis

It's just nasty

[kcr]

34. Getting millions more votes is a good indication

of ability. Being ahead in the polls a significant portion of the time leading up to an election is also a good sign.

[Ninsianna]

50. Democrats of all stripes ran and voted for a candidate that actuall beat Trump.

But the people who were handing Trump his talking points, who were ravaging Democrats by calling them all sorts of things as eptithets like "centrist" and "establishment" (despite the fact that they're pretty much not the center and so far from the establishment of this country that it's laughable), refused to vote, or voted third party or wrote in invalid candidates.

By your own reasoning, the people sneering "centrist" at Democrats are still the same ones insisting that we cater to Trump's demographic, angry white males, who switched to Trump.

It's a nasty avenue all right but it's also reality based and factual, denying it because one doesn't like what it says, won't change what it is.

All those people that were insisting we jettison "identity politics' to cater to the identity of angry white males who all about attacking women, POC and any of the white community who were fighting hard against Trump as Demcorats, like Tim Kaine, for example, chose to that nasty avenue. They also want us to embrace these racists because they're so very angry and need us to coddle them, as if they don't wish to literally kill us, because they don't even see our humanity.

Stop choosing the nasty avenue and stop attacking Democrats for stating the obvious. Extremists are a scourge, they're the only ones who think the majority of Democrats are "centrist" and the word is something evil.

We voted for a candidate that was the most qualified in history, and people who embraced their misogyny, their racism and their ignorance still smear her. Enough of the nastiness already.

[GaryCnf]

56. So you're doubling down on "The Left cost Hillary the election?"

Let's talk about that.

First, you will notice that there is not a single ad hominem in this post. Now let's get started.

I suppose that in the 2016 election, which was decided by (let's say approximately) 70,000 votes over three states, it is technically correct to say that any factor which could account for 70,000 +1 votes over those three states "cost Hillary the election." However, when there are other factors which could also account for 70,000 +1 votes, and if those factors could have been controlled by our side, it can just as validly be said any of those other failures on our part "cost Hillary the election." If that was the case in 2016, singling out one of those factors as "costing Hillary the election" is no more valid than singling out any of the others.

Do we agree up to this point?

If we do, the first question becomes whether there were other things that we did as a party which cost us 70,000 +1 votes in those states?

How many Democratic voters in those states didn't go through the hassle of voting (and outside of the burbs it is a f'ing hassle to vote, particularly if you are black) because our campaign behaved as if the election was in the bag by pulling localized ads, not visiting the state, etc.? Does anyone seriously believe it was fewer than the 80k additional votes that fraud Jill Stein received in those three states in 2016 over what she received in 2012?

How many Democratic voters in those states didn't get out and vote after OUR spokespeople HAMMERED the meme after the Michigan primary AND ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE GENERAL ELECTION that working people (who had lost their jobs, or had their incomes slashed, or were losing their homes), people who had voted Democratic their entire lives without fail, were racists and misogynists for saying economic issues affecting their families were their number one priority?

How many Democratic voters in those states didn't get out and vote when none of our national spokespeople and none of our campaign ads talked about ditching the 1994 Crime Bill and the federal prosecution of blue on black crime after young black men were gunned down by the cops in the middle of heavily Democratic districts only months before and the states weren't lifting a finger to stop it? You may not think it was that many, but I worked precincts (yes, for Secretary Clinton) in Memphis during the general election and if you think support was strong or voters were enthusiastic after that, you'd be wrong. I can only imagine what it was like in Michigan and Wisconsin. Oh, btw, go ahead and bring that line about how it was OUR fault because WE should have known from the 1933 election in Germany that we needed to get out and vote, even after we were forgotten by the national campaign, down to my precinct.

Every one of those factors cost us more than 70,000 votes in those three states. Should we spend the next (if your bringing up 2000 is any indication) 16 years blaming THEM for "costing Hillary the election" like we are "the Left" What's more, the first two cost us way more than the 82,000 extra (expletive deleteds) who voted for Stein in 2016. If we are placing blame on DEMOCRATS' failures (and whether you like it or not, leftist Democrats are still Democrats) shouldn't we blame the failures that cost us the MOST votes?

OR, we could do something really radical and STOP POINTING FINGERS AT DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUENCIES over 2016 and start working to giving those constituencies something to be excited about in the next election and the next and the next and the next.

[temporary311]

17. Journalists inadvertantly

(or advertantly) pushing nazi propaganda isn't a defense for continuing to do so. I can understand some people here getting defensive over having helped push it, they probably didn't realize what they were doing and are maybe a bit mortified or embarrased. But now? There isn't really an excuse any more. There are better ways to put it that doesn't help out Nazis. "Bernie Bro," while sexist as it erases female Bernie supporters, is better. "Dirtbag Left" is even better still.

[kcr]

35. Never mind the fact that I've heard it claimed "Bernie Bro" is a slur

So, I don't think it matters what you call them, they'd claim offense. Trump used the term alt-left because it's the polar opposite of the term alt-right and he wanted to set up the false equivalency. And it worked in both ways he meant it to.

[JCanete]

42. it is intended as a slur is it not? What would you call it when you lump everybody who was a Bernie

supporter or who has a certain political perspective in with the small group of supporters that the corporate media tried to use already, to paint the whole Sanders voter bloc as racist white guys? We know what Bernie bros is supposed to suggest. You do too.

[kcr]

43. No, it's not.

At one point I was a Sanders supporter myself. It does not "lump everybody who was a supporter" But if you want to deny Bernie or Busters existed, what can I say to convince you?

[JCanete]

44. Everybody who IS a supporter of his message then? Is that better?

[kcr]

47. How does that alter the meaning of what I said in any way?

The term refers to those who refuse(d) to support Hillary and also aggressively attack(ed) her supporters. #NotAllSupporters.

[JCanete]

49. in the articles above its referring to all kinds of stuff, and it is mischaracterizing them to boot.

The organization Turner heads has a litmus test of support. Every organization has that. Fucking duh. To somehow conflate that and say that it is trying to get democrats who don't match that standard purged from the party is absurd. It is trying to back the candidates it believes in for the causes they support, again, like any organization would. It is supporting primarying them with candidates they prefer...okay, where's the problem here? Attempting to influence the political process is divisive but only when people on the left do it?

[kcr]

55. I'm not talking about any particular article.

To claim that no Bernie or Bust faction ever existed and then equate those on DU using the term alt-left with Trump is beyond the pale. It is gross exploitation of a tragedy. It's the kind of behavior that earned the names some are decrying.

[JCanete]

57. who claimed no bernie or bust faction ever existed, or that DU behavior is Trumpian, me? You were

not originally talking about bernie or busters either, you were talking about the term bernie bro.

[kcr]

59. I didn't just randomly pop into this thread to talk to you about Bernie Bro with no context.

Right now DU is in crisis because the claim is Hillary supporters are and have been using Alt-left the same way Trump is. Somehow there's no such thing as the alt-left and the context of Bernie or Busters doesn't exist.

[G_j]

53. they simply double down.

..a sign of that the times, I suppose.

[question everything]

37. Since Sanders is not a Democrat

never been a Democrat, has a history of actively campaigning against Democrats, I do not consider anything that he says or that is attributed to him as "dividing the Democrats."

[Blue_Tires]

38. The sick irony of Turner is she doesn't even get elected

if Clinton of all people didn't campaign for her...

[JCanete]

40. what does that mean? Is she permanently indebted to Clinton? Does that campaigning for her demand

loyalty?

[Blue_Tires]

46. It means her trying to pretend that

the Clintons are some Great Satan and the Obama Era never did shit for her is kind of disingenuous in retrospect, wouldn't you say?

But then again Turner has always been a bit crazy... Like McKinney-style crazy. But as long as she keeps spewing these grand conspiracies about how the mainstream Dems are trying to sabotage her, somebody will always give her a spotlight...

[JCanete]

39. That is a whole lot of horseshit, and is itself divisive. "Don't let people

divide us! Preemptively call them names!" Journalists use these terms because corporate media hates socialism with a passion. It is owned by huge corporations that want no part of those sorts of ideas invading American culture. Hell, they've been fighting for the last 30 years to tear down social safety nets.

[Blue_Tires]

41. Here is your emoprog hot take of the day, for illustration:

Link to tweet

[bettyellen]

52. They'll try and say it about Kamala as sure as they did about Beyonc....

Only because she is a friend of Hillary. Otherwise they could give a fuck about Beyoncé.

[betsuni]

58. K&R