Remember these convention disrupters the next time .....

[CajunBlazer]

.....another candidate comes along with these asshole in tow.

They have made a latrine of their own nest. They have made it clear that we don't need them to win.

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. Oh, indeed

I'm going to "need to be persuaded" and receive gentle handling for "my grieving" next time they are backing a candidate, fo sho.

[geek tragedy]

2. !!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512321681

[Brickbat]

15. ^^

[stopbush]

3. This was their one and only shot.

They used the naive Sanders campaign to gain access. That won't happen again.

If anything, the DNC will look to tighten up the rules. Look for them to demand that anyone wishing to run for the POTUS nomination must be a D in good standing for the past 3-5 consecutive years leading up to the day they declare. Look for delegate requirements to also be tightened.

[CajunBlazer]

6. I think you're right

Many in their number regarded Sanders as "a chance of a lifetime", an opportunity they thought they would never have. And they may be right. Sanders will be too old to lead them next time and if Hillary wins in November no one is going to take the nomination away from here in 2020.

Who but Elizabeth Warren will be able to lead them in 2024? They have already thrown her under bus for not coming out for Sanders during the primaries and they won't forget her for vigorously supporting Hillary now through November. In addition, maybe it is simply because of the role she has taken on in the campaign (Trump basher), but I haven't found Elizabeth as inspiring as I thought I would.

So who is going to lead the REVOLUTION going forward. Who is going to be the young unknown socialist who will come forward to pick up Bernie's fallen baton? Only a few states will elect someone on the far left to a national or state office where they will be visible enough.

In addition, if Hillary's administration can continue to make incremental steps in solving the country's problems, there will be less call for radical change.

So while I don't think that that the revolution will die, I think that at best it will simmer in the corner for many years before perhaps emerging again.

[Blue Idaho]

18. Unfortunately the disrupters have made it harder

For anything like a Sanders campaign to ever happen again in the Democratic Party. Their antics will no doubt cause my party to demand more from its potential candidates and the deligates attending its conventions.

This wasn't 1968 - but it was enough to cause the party to re-evaluate its wide open door policy.

[CajunBlazer]

24. You are absolutely right

Hence my statement that they have made a latrine their own nest.

[stopbush]

22. Oh, I think the Sanders revolution is quite dead.

His was a personality driven revolution, and unless you're Mao or Castro, personality driven revolutions are short lived. The vast majority of his revolutionaries were armchair revolutionaries who couldn't even show up to vote in the primaries.

The revolution supporters among the delegates showed that they are a herd of cats. Sanders couldn't really control the monster he created. They ignored his pleas to act like adults, which displayed a lack of discipline, and any movement needs discipline to sustain itself.

It will all depend on discipline coupled with organizational skills to see if this revolution survives. The "revolutionaries" this time around didn't even have to organize anything. They simply showed up at events that someone else planned, be it a Sanders rally or the DNC. And we all saw how disciplined they weren't. The highlight of their organizational skills was holding a fart-in.

I give them a one-in-ten chance of surviving as a movement.

[NanceGreggs]

4. We've never needed them to win.

I guarantee you that people like that never vote. They are too busy finding fault with every candidate who ever ran for any office anywhere, at any time.

They would rather stand on the sidelines and complain than get off their asses and get involved.

We can't "lose" their votes - because their votes never existed, and never will.

[JaneQPublic]

14. Yep -- The Perennial Backseat Drivers of Politics

Even if Bernie DID get nominated and elected, you can bet 3 months in they'd toss him aside and brand him a sellout because he hadn't yet achieved all his campaign promises, just as similar types did with Obama.

[Skidmore]

21. This.

Spot on.

Hey, Nance. Good to see you.

[lovemydog]

38. Yup, they run down most every candidate

while bemoaning that we don't have universal health care.

I doubt they voted in last the midterm congressional elections, when democrats were trounced by republicans.

They still don't understand - and fail to learn - how bills become law.

[rjsquirrel]

52. ^^so damn true^^^

[Gothmog]

5. We had a sanders supporters tear off his shirt

Last night i rode back on the bus with a Clinton delegate from Harris county. She was mad at a sanders supporters who was acting irrationally and was shaking as if he was on drugs. There wasa VIP seating area behind our delegation who complained about this idiot. A couple of female sanders whips tried to talk to this idiot and he screamed at them. This idiot appears to be a bernie bro on steroids

The party talked to this kid and had the head of the sanders texas csmpaign watch this idiot. The bernie supporter got mad and tore off his neon shirt and left his seat. Some of these sanders supporters have issues and the sanders campaign did not vet their delegates.

This should be less of an issue next cycle because there will be a difficult process to primary a sitting POTUS.

[NurseJackie]

7. "...there will be a difficult process to primary a sitting POTUS..."

But that's not likely to keep other Bernie-types (or perhaps even Bernie himself) from suggesting or encouraging it.

Whatever measure of good will and respect they hoped to gain, it was all frittered away with the behavior of those delegates (and a few high profile spokespersons, in both official- and non-official capacities).

Those delegates represented, and highlighted, the worst traits. The loudest and most obnoxious delegates helped to reinforce the negative stereotypes. They did themselves, their cause, and their candidate no favors.

(I'm just observing, not complaining or expressing concern.)

[Hortensis]

11. This type never had my good will, NurseJackie. I ODed on

toxic extremist behaviors back in the '60s and '70s and recognized their marks on Sanders' movement long ago. Readings about extremist movements since then makes me think it's critical that this type never, ever gains real power. So if they did badly damage their brand before the nation, great!

That said, they do perform a valuable function if they're mostly kept out of government, never join with their counterparts on the far right to cause real trouble, and are limited to their right to free speech as citizens -- which, after all, those too radical to accept Sanders's leadership any longer mostly have been here. I think of that function kind of like the forces that cause pond water to turn over.

[rjsquirrel]

53. Me too

Saw in in my hippie youth, smelled it this year as the stink of misogyny.

[Hortensis]

58. Interesting. Hmmm. I didn't really think about that,

but obviously should. Guys and gals, and whatever, there, and I just assumed their hostility toward Hillary reflected the usual escalated antagonism toward an opponent, opportunistically glomming onto the "normal" misogynistic load Hillary's hauling up that mountain. No end of nasty material to copy in.

I guess I was relatively sheltered in those days by my boyfriend, a very easygoing guy who got along with everyone from the nation-burners who loved to talk about the day they'd storm government offices in a cleansing (i.e., murderous) revolution to mellow peace-man potheads, and he was friends with all the girls too.

[Hortensis]

9. What fun for all of you.

The pros are undoubtedly all too familiar with both unrealistic and misinformed idealism that can lead young people into counterproductive behaviors and also with the whackadoodle hostility of some on the far left that is always with us, not just always so visible. Probably the last time was in the 1970s, and likely at least some leaders today see themselves in a few of these. Not that guy, of course.

In any case, the door will of course be open for those who become willing and able to contribute productively by working with others. After all, the dozens of people on the DNC don't all agree ideologically, any more than our representatives in Congress do.

[Armstead]

17. ---------------------------------------

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2322927

[Hortensis]

20. Yet another mischaracterization of liberals?

Your statement: "The characterization of the "far left" as being anyone to the left of a Clinton or Obama is Bullshit."

Yes, it certainly would have been. But that is imo a downright silly, at best, mischaracterization.

"Extremists," radicals, far left, etc., are identified by a collection of behavior traits that lead them into reactions and behaviors that are outside what are considered the spectrum of normal for society -- and that's a pretty generous spectrum in a nation of over 300 million. See if you recognize any of these:

* Extreme belief in the righteousness of their "movement."
* Conviction that only their movement can save others from themselves.
* Rigid, narrow thinking.
* Profound indifference to and intolerance of the views of others.
* Inability to compromise to achieve goals.
* Demonizing of opponents -- and, worse actually believing it.
* Ruthless tactics in pursuit of goals, oh yeah--extremist as hell.
* Vulnerability to authoritarian leadership.
* The self-deception and dishonesty required to maintain their views.

Other traits have been identified. But as you see, none of these have anything at all to do with specific issues. My own issues positions as a strong liberal can actually be well to the "left" of some left-wing extremists.

In this case, it's their behaviors, not any of the actually mainstream liberal goals they supposedly espouse, that define this particular group of break-away former Sanders supporters as either extremist/prone to extremism or, as is probable in some cases, gullible young people influenced by extremism.

Btw, both Obama and Hillary are considered moderate liberals overall, Hillary a bit to the left of Obama. Probably a third to a half of all mainstream liberals average to their left.

[CajunBlazer]

28. Extremely (pardon the pun) well said

See my replying post below - it tracks well with yours

[L. Coyote]

8. And ignore them now. Bad enough Trump suckkks up all the oxygen, but

people are smart enough to see who is the sane candidate and who is the blowhard.

Let's focus on overthrowing the Republican Congress now. If Bernie wants to go after them next, far out.

[auntpurl]

10. I'm focused on Trump.

The past is the past.

I won't forget, though.

[Sunlei]

13. focus on Republicans, let their leader stain them all.

[Sunlei]

12. Very few truly bad apples with big mouths, didn't spoil the convention at all.

(D)convention was the best ever!

[Armstead]

16. I fear some people's definition of the "far left" is too damn sweeping

The characterization of the "far left" as being anyone to the left of a Clinton or Obama is Bullshit.

It's like 1999, when there was a huge grassroots movement against those awful trade deals and deregulation con jobs that were being shoved down our throats. It was small compared to the larger population, but it was substantial and it was mainstream over all.

There were people from a wide spectrum who opposed those scams and correctly warned against the damage they would cause-- Bernie included as well as less firebrand types like Sen. Dorgan and even conservative Dems like Sen. Hollings of SC as well as unions and progressives who would be defined by some here as the "far left" but who were totally reasonable. ....There were also some who were REALLY far left such as hard-core anarchists.

There were large protests and campaigns to prevent these deals such as the WTO demonstrations in Seattle. Most protesters stayed in the boundaries of acceptable behavior. But because a few on the real fringes did things ranging from politically naive (mimes, etc.) to destructive (black block anarchists) the Establishment was able to paint the whole anti-"free trade" movement as the "far left," thus setting up the waves that continue to this day.

So Corporate America and Wall St. got their blank check.

And -- even though the critics had been correct in the 90's -- every time people complained about that, they were characterized as "the fringe far left."

Fuck that propaganda. Any movement with millions of people involved is going to include some who are not likable and prone to bad behavior. That's life.

Bernie's campaign proved there is a Yuge constituency that has the beliefs of what is called the "far left." It's mainstream. That has been proven. Get used to it.

[forjusticethunders]

19. Then maybe the "far left" should police our own instead of whining about the bad impression

that our unproductive hippie element gives. We need to stop tolerating and coddling these types because they time and again, prove destructive to all progressive movements. Leftist movements are about the working class, not the bohemian navel-gazer class, who are either living off trust funds or bilking naive leftists out of their money with their maximalist tantrums, and yet we've allowed these types to become the face of leftism. Same thing happened with Occupy where leftism finally got a national stage and it descended into self-congratulatory masturbation rather than actually making positive progress.

[CajunBlazer]

23. There are plenty of people to the left of Obama and Clinton who aren't zealots

This is my definition of a zealot, not just a left wing zealot, but any kind of zealot (Bythe way, this agrees with the thoughts expressed by Barack Obama in a recent interview).

Zealots consider themselves ideologically pure.

They consider those of the same ideology as themselves, but who are not devoted to their cause, are uninformed, tainted, or even members of an opposing ideology.

Because they are so firmly entrenched in to their belief system, they can almost never bring themselves to compromise so they rarely get anything do in the political world.

Because they rarely are able to get anything done, they feel that the deck is stacked against them. So is common for them to resort to conspiracy theories to explain why they are not able to make progress in the political world despite their pure cause.

Because they believe that only their cause is totally just, they can justify their actions which trample on the rights of others if those actions are to further their cause.

Again, this describes zealots of every type and description, of every ideology and every cause. They are usually few in number compared to other believers in their cause, but they are often the most vocal, the most most likely to visible to the public, the most likely to be identified as wackos. (See the Horseshoe Theory of political science.)

The are often driven by physiological needs of some sort. It is not uncommon for zealots to be driven by a feeling of powerlessness in and of themselves so they seek to be part of a movement larger then themselves. (See the book, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" by Eric Hoffer.)

[Maru Kitteh]

31. far-left zealots - Thank you. I've been searching for a term that fits and that is perfect.

I myself am VERY left.

I understand the need for a strong military but believe ours is patently INSANE, and I think it gets way too much "exercise" for the sake of the same.
I believe every single aspect of our social system falters at the edge of death and needs to be robustly enhanced and expanded.
I know little about large financial systems, but how much does one need to know to realize that those parasites feeding off the rest of us have set up the system to ensure they can keep gorging?

What I also know is that getting things done in a democracy is not easy at all. It takes sustained, dogged effort over time, and a really frustrating amount of pragmatism in the real world.

Most Democrats are very left; but there is an element that sucks us backwards every time we catch glimpses of light ahead by making a stinking show of themselves in front of every camera they can find. All protestors are not zealots, but zealots are present at almost all protests and some protests are almost entirely comprised of zealots. They help NO ONE. Those are the far-left zealots. Green tea-publicans.

[CajunBlazer]

44. I agree with most of what you posted, but I must take issue with one statement:

Not only are most Democrats NOT very far left, several polls show that when you combine the Democrats who self identify as moderates with those Democrats who self identify as conservative, they out number Democrats who self identify as progressives. And then a only a segment of those who self identify who identify as progressives, self identify as very progressive.

So only a small percentage of Democrats (maybe 15%) say that they are very progressive or very left. And only a small percentage of that group are the zealots I am referring to. But remember, those in that category are the most involved, the enthusiastic, the most dedicated to their cause. They are therefore the most noticed by others so their numbers often appear to be larger than they are.

[Hortensis]

42. Good explanation of what distinguishes zealotry.

I like these brief descriptions from Eric Hoffer of a fundamental difference between liberals and zealots. At least it holds true for me; we may retrench 14 steps back for every 15 forward, but the movement has been forward.

“The liberal sees the present as the legitimate offspring of the past and as constantly growing and developing toward an improved future: to damage the present is to maim the future. All three then cherish the present, and, as one would expect, they do not take willingly to the idea of self-sacrifice.”

“The radical and the reactionary loathe the present. They see it as an aberration and a deformity. Both are ready to proceed ruthlessly and recklessly with the present, and both are hospitable to the idea of self-sacrifice.”

and

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. - Louis D. Brandeis

Gee, why is this coming to mind?

[CajunBlazer]

45. Excellent!

It has been at least thirty years since I read "The True Believer" - I remember only the major points.

One think that what impressed me when I was a young man reading that little book as part of a required college class was the true believers of every ideology and cause (Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Catholicism, etc.) were so much alike personality and behavior wise despite the vast differences of their belief systems.

I even remember Hoffer pointing out in the book the ease in which some true believers converted from being a zealot in one cause - say Communism - to being a zealot in another totally different belief system - like Catholicism. This was to point out that it wasn't the so much he cause that is important to these people, it's the involvement in a movement that is bigger than than themselves.

[auntpurl]

34. Maybe you'll find this article interesting

http://peoplesworld.org/the-left-needs-to-stop-self-marginalizing/

It discusses what the left must change in order to become major political players. Some of the suggestions:

* A habit of looking for political purity which might exist in theory, but has never found a place in broad coalitions - the only reliable vehicle of social change - where people of varied views and interests gather, contest their views, but in the end struggle against a common foe.

* A penchant to elaborate tactics - that is demands, forms of struggle, attitudes toward compromise and alliances, and so on - apart from a concrete estimate of the balance of class and social forces at any given moment.

And I think most pertinently to the just-finished primary:

* An underestimation of the importance of the fight for equality in general and racial equality in particular. The search for common ground and a common program of action is not in contradiction with the fight for equality. In fact, the common ground will be wider, deeper and more durable to the degree the broader movement vigorously fights for equality in all of its forms.

While in recent decades vast political, economic, social and demographic transformations have occurred, the fight against racism retains its overarching importance.

Anyone who devalues this struggle limits the sweep of any victory at best. At worst, it provides an opening to the most backward sections of our ruling class to gain ascendancy. And racist filth has ramped up since Barack Obama's election five years ago.

A firm and broad rebuff to this counteroffensive is imperative. White people, in particular white workers, in their own interests should be in the middle of this fight.

[rjsquirrel]

54. It's not that yuuuuge

And certainly not enough to win on its own.

[PatSeg]

25. The disrupters are a small fraction

of the Bernie supporters. I know quite a few Bernie supporters who are politically savvy, open minded, and passionate about the issues. When we demean the behavior of a few, we should be careful not to paint a broad brush that would include so many of our Democratic friends and relatives.

It would be better to direct this energy towards the republicans. Meanwhile, Bernie and his supporters pulled our party further to the left where so many of us wanted it to be. I really hated the disruptions at the convention, but I am sincerely grateful to what Bernie did for our much too moderate party.

[DemonGoddess]

29. The Busters are a small group of loonies I think

they certainly do NOT behave in the way the REST of Senator Sanders supporters have been. Most of you are quite reasonable and rational. Worlds of difference between you and a Buster.

[CajunBlazer]

30. Note: I didn't mention Bernie supporters - I used the term "disrupters"

But we all know who those few zealots supported at the convention.

[DemonGoddess]

32. Yes, which is why Bernie supporters here

are saying to be careful about using too broad a brush. I know who you're talking about, you know who you're talking about, and in point of fact, so do they. BUT, by making it very clear that it's a small group of jackasses, not the vast majority of his primary supporters; makes it so those who look who DON'T know what you're referencing, don't get pissy with ya.

[CajunBlazer]

41. Alright then

[Maru Kitteh]

33. Those zealots at the convention supported Trump, aka "Jill Stein"

Several of them, on OUR convention floor no less, said this when they were interviewed.

They should have had their credentials stripped and been provided an escort to the door, that minute.

[PatSeg]

36. I was not a Bernie supporter

though I certainly support his ideas. Meanwhile, I have close friends who have been active DUers for many years, but they won't come here anymore. The anti Bernie rhetoric can be pretty brutal. I know what it is like to put your heart and soul into a candidate and then see him/her lose. It takes time to recover, and ridicule and derision doesn't help the process. Hillary supporters from 2008 should understand this very well.

I don't condone the behavior of a few on the convention floor and I wonder if there were some who weren't even Democrats. Such people have always been with us, but they do not reflect the Bernie supporters that I know.

We are in the General now and we have a new DNC chair. I think we need to let this go. There are so many interesting things happening right now. Hopefully some of the friends that I know will be able to mend the fences that have been damaged from this primary. We used to be such a close political family.

[liberal N proud]

26. It bothers me that these people were at the convention and causing so much disruption

When there are others who would have loved to have been part of history last night.

Spoiled brats who don't know a good thing in spite of themselves.

[awake]

27. The convention disrupters are more in love with creating chaos than backing a candidate

do not blame that candidate for the acts of disrupters who tried to hijack a cause, their actions did more to help Trump than anything else.

[workinclasszero]

35. Close the primaries and end the caucus system

Then these people can go form the Purity party and disappear.

[CajunBlazer]

37. Yep, because the vast majority of the zealots are too pure to be Democrats

[workinclasszero]

39. They even threw Bernie under the bus at the end

These types will never have a positive impact on society.

They insist on group-think. Any deviation and you become satan to be burned at the stake.

Bernie found this out as did Senator Warren.

But they are smart enough to take what they have started and build on it instead of burning down the house in a fit of self indulgent whining!

[CajunBlazer]

40. I think you meant: ...

But they are NOT smart enough to take what they have started and build on it instead of burning down the house in a fit of self indulgent whining!

[workinclasszero]

43. I meant Bernie and Senator Warren

They are all in to get Hillary elected. The Busters are going to that anti vax nutcase Jill Stein or Trump himself.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

46. Are you talking about BLM shouting thru the moment

of silence?

[CajunBlazer]

49. BLM?

[Boudica the Lyoness]

50. Yes.

The Bureau of Land Management, shouting about the next planned wild horse round up.

Motherfuckers.

[Barack_America]

47. Yawn. Let it go.

[CajunBlazer]

48. If it is boring don't read the posts

[cherokeeprogressive]

51. Y. A. W. Fucking. N.

[Vattel]

55. No more war!

[CajunBlazer]

56. No more war - is that an absolute statement?

What about a situation where our solders are attacked at a base in another country without provocation - should they be allowed to fight back?

What if thousands of Americans are killed in another attack here in the homeland and we have excellent intelligence that the the plot was hatched by leaders of a terrorist organization located in a lawless territory in a failed country. Should we be allowed to hunt them down before they can execute another attack?

What if a foreign government decides to commit genocide on a sizable portion of their native population. Should we be allowed to intercede to protect the innocents with military action if necessary.?

What if in the future what if a foreign power attacks a our territory and kill both military and civilians - are we are allow to defend our self?

What if your friends and/or loved ones are next in line to be attacked, is our military allowed to defend them with force of arms?

Simple slogans sound good, but they usually fail when confronted with reality.

[Vattel]

57. No justice no peace!

[CajunBlazer]

59. Empty slogans no substance no meaning

So obviously you have nothing meaningful to contribute

[Vattel]

60. USA!