Is Nancy Pelosi an effective leader? -- Bernie says...

[SkyDancer]

Link to tweet

100% on target and BULLSEYE!
Video embedded in tweet.

[Snotcicles]

1. Crickets. nt

[hlthe2b]

3. Interesting, that....

hmmm.

[Pauldg47]

23. Yep! Crickets on your crickets. Bernie is a positive person .

[wallyworld2]

34. I'll cricket that too!

[Hekate]

35. You waited three whole minutes to announce that no one cares. Three minutes! Why not immediately?

[sheshe2]

46. I noticed that, Hekate.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. Is that a new record?!

[NurseJackie]

63. Ha!! :-D

Maybe someone doesn't realize that the messages are TIME STAMPED and that WE CAN READ!!!

[treestar]

83. Hehe

Yep.

[babylonsister]

2. Bravo! Yep, I agree on both counts. nt

[JaneQPublic]

4. Good for Bernie!

I rarely say that, but he earned it this time.

[DownriverDem]

19. Agree with Bernie on this

If only Bernie were a member of the Democratic Party. I'd cheer him 24/7. Too many of his supporters do not seem to know we have a two party system.

[LiberalLovinLug]

39. His supporters are quite aware there are two parties

It's not OUR choice how Bernie chooses to position himself. We simply support him because we support his unflinching progressive principles. And of course that he works with, and is by all intents and purposes, a Democrat.

Would it be preferable if he were signed up? I'll bet most Democrats that supported him last primary would prefer that. But he's a stubborn grumpy old man and not about to switch now. In fact there are some advantages to have an I candidate plug for Democrats during elections.

He still is, if not the most, a very popular Senator. Why would rank and file Democrats not want to at least take advantage of that at least? Even if for some reason you detest the man.

[Raine]

72. TOTALLY on point

Thanks!

[lapucelle]

107. BS didn't make the "most popular" list in the latest Harvard Harris poll.

The last time he made the list was in January.

According to the latest poll, Chuck Schumer is the most popular senator.

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Final_HHP_Jun2018_RegisteredVoters_Topline_Memo.pdf

[SammyWinstonJack]

119. +1000000!

"Even if for some reason you detest the man". That's it really. He had the audacity to run against Hillary. Shame on him FOREVER!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

126. Right on the money!!

[KPN]

42. We have a two party system now. We don't have

a law requiring just two parties. That in itself is one of the criticisms some (if not most) deliberate non-voters and 3rd Party voters have. That’s the crux of the issue. Too many people don’t view either party as responding effectively to their needs, issues, etc., and do not buy into the “vote for the lesser or better of two evils” notion. Arguing that we have a two party system is not an effective tact with them. Instead, it would be far better to respond genuinely to their concerns.

[Snotcicles]

65. +1

[LiberalLovinLug]

90. Well said

[hurl]

108. We don't have a law, but a "law"

While it's not legally codified, there is a principle arising from our "winner takes all" plurality voting setup that systematically enforces only two viable parties. Unless and until that is changed, it matters very little what these people 'buy into.' The results on the ground are subject to forces stronger than their buy-in. IMO, they ignore this reality at all our peril.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

[KPN]

128. I disagree. It matters a lot what these people buy into.

The 2016 election is an obvious example. If we want to have lasting success in winning over voters who reject our two party system, we need to do far more than resort to a fundamental argument that we are the better party.

As an aside, it strikes me that our party system IS changing. The GOP has been in a civil war that is already breaking it apart since, well, Gingrich really. And we are in the early stages of an internal debate around economic justice issues and trends that could well result in something similar. There is also the growing number of registered independents who are essentially people who have decided that they will not vote simply along one of the two party lines.

[brush]

127. All well and good but most sentient beings know that the worse Dem is better than any repug

Makes little sense to me, especially now with trump and the repugs trying to instill fascism while kowtowing to Putin, why there is any question of which party to vote for in general elections—the cheating/traitor repugs, or the Democrats who are much closer on policy issues to you.

There is of course, always the third party choice, but a vote that way could have a disastrous effect on the outcome of the election—see 2016 and the orange pustule's stolen victory.

[KPN]

129. I think there are enough voters who would agree

with you that Dems are better than Rs especially now as you say that we will make significant gains in 2018 and probably win the House. Above and beyond that, I’m not so sure. As far as lasting success, I’m pretty sure not.

[brush]

130. If we win the House and are sucessful in blunting trump and putting impeachment...

Last edited Fri Aug 17, 2018, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

on the table, after holding hearings, investigations and subpoenaing witnesses of course, the Dems should take back the WH in 2020.

We outnumber the deplorables, and with a sizeable number of left-leaning independents we will defeat trump.

He's such an idiot, and the intelligence community, the admirals and generals are speaking out now on his kissing up to Russia and embarrassing the country.

Mueller's investigation is a wild card now. It might be what we hope it is but who knows for sure.

[KPN]

131. I agree 100%. Lets get it done!

[emulatorloo]

5. Well said, thanks for posting!

[NurseJackie]

6. Directly attacking the Republicans is a nice change. I hope...

The Republican party is bankrupt intellectually.

Directly attacking the Republicans is a nice change. I hope I see more of it... EXCLUSIVELY.

What I'm saying is that it serves no good purpose for anyone to smear, malign, and denigrate Democrats or the Democratic Party. I encourage him to continue to focus his contempt and insults at the GOP!

[JCanete]

45. yeah...its a change....come on. And yes it does serve a purpose. You have to talk about issues and

distinguish on issues in order for issues to be what campaigns are about. Otherwise politicians play it safe and we get far less idea what they stand for. And sure, that makes sense....the way a big studio will make as uncontroversial a movie as possible to appeal to the biggest audience as possible, but its not good for pushing forward good policy. Democrats can stand some criticism, and promoting these ideas loudly and forcefully makes them more familiar and palatable to the American people, and thus main-stream enough for our major candidates to champion. But it also takes putting some pressure on them to do it, because, yes it can be painful to take those chances.

[NurseJackie]

48. Oh, good Lord. GMAFB!

Democrats can stand some criticism,

Oh, good Lord. GMAFB! What he typically does is NOT "some criticism". It's blatant LIES and SMEARS. What good purpose does it serve to accuse the Democratic party of being the "party of the one-percent"... or that Democrats do not represent workers interests... or that Democrats are "feeble" and "corrupt" and "ideologically bankrupt".

All I'm saying is that no matter how many unnecessary words and irrelevant examples used to try and justify his divisive smears (movie studios? seriously?) nothing will change the facts that his attacks are divisive and create distrust and resentment. That divides us. That weakens us.

And yes it does serve a purpose.

No it doesn't.

A divided and weakened Democratic party ONLY BENEFITS THE GOP... and in turn that benefits RUSSIA! Why would anyone want to do (or say) things that ultimately benefit Russia?

[JCanete]

50. No he doesn't blatantly lie or smear. You don't like his characterizations, I understand, but

we are probably not going to see eye to eye about what is a lie here when it comes to characterization of our system and those operating within it.

As to movie studios, I actually think its a pretty good analogy, sadly.

Also, it hasn't divided us...so if you'd like to address how Sanders voters coming out for Clinton in the GE proves divisiveness and that this accusation isn't in itself lies and smearing...I'm all ears.

[emulatorloo]

55. "Bernie Sanders' Campaign Manager Just Blamed Hillary For ISIS"

Please no revisionist history. Thank you.

Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Manager Just Blamed Hillary For ISIS
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-campaign-manager-just-blamed-hillary-for-isis/

Bernie Goes Full...Trump? Blames Hillary For Russian Interference"
https://thedailybanter.com/issues/2018/02/22/bernie-goes-full-trump-blames-hillary-for-russian-interference/

Glad to see him coming out strong for Pelosi today. Was a great statement.

[NurseJackie]

56. Yes he does.

No he doesn't blatantly lie or smear.

Yes he does. None of those things are true. His lies divide us and drive supporters AWAY from Democrats and the Democratic party.

You don't like his characterizations,

You mean "lies". Not characterizations... LIES. No need to sugar-coat it.

Also, it hasn't divided us..

Who, after listening to Bernie, would want to be associated with the "corrupt" and "ideologically bankrupt" organization like the Democratic party? He causes great harm and division with his lies. He fuels distrust. It divides us because I cannot trust anyone who defends or excuses his awful lies about the Democrats "feeble" and being the "party of the one-percent".

if you'd like to address how Sanders voters coming out for Clinton

Oh, no you don't. I'm NOT going to take that obvious bait and rehash that. I'm smarter than you think I am. This is 2018, not 2016. Time to move on. Besides, this topic has been discussed at great length already, and there's only ONE reason you want to guide me down that path. No thank you very much.

[JCanete]

58. Well, I listen to bernie and I share his concerns. And I voted Clinton. It isn't a contradiction.

We know who the enemy is.


By the way, that accusation of yours regarding my intentions is bogus as hell(if I understand it). I don't believe in our jury system censoring topics by well meaning democrats of every ilk. I almost never vote that something has crossed over the line, and I typically go easier on posters who are negative of Sanders and lefties than I am of posters being flagged for saying something about the more mainstream party members.

[NurseJackie]

60. I think you're just angry that I figured out what you were trying to get me to do...

that accusation of yours regarding my intentions is bogus as hell

I think you're just angry that I figured out what you were trying to get me to do, and that I wasn't willing to rehash a previously discussed topic. Make if it what you will. I know a trap when I see one.

What you claim as a personal philosophy, and the actions that others actually do for themselves are two entirely different things. Do not think you can lure me to the edge... to walk out on thin ice... under some presumption that everyone feels the same way you do about particular things. (See? Right there... division. Distrust.)

All I'm saying is, at this late date... seeing that it's 2018 and not 2016... it's already been hashed to death. There's nothing of value that anyone can add and no minds are going to be changed. So why should I take an unnecessary risk just to entertain you? It simply makes no sense.

We know who the enemy is.

So do I. I'm not stupid you know.

[JCanete]

61. No, I'm not. You want to go through my posts and see everything I've ever said about the alert

system here and I've been consistent, and I've offered my sympathies to those who I disagree with who have been alerted on, because it is bullshit, and I have never alerted on anybody myself. I wish that were a statistic that were listed on our profiles, frankly. But believe what you want. I mean, if it makes you feel better to create a black and white world of white hats and black hats, and only black hats disagree with you and they are evil and have bad intentions, well whatever gets you through the day.

[NurseJackie]

62. Don't care. Doesn't matter.

I have never alerted on anybody myself

Don't care. Doesn't matter.

if it makes you feel better to create a black and white world of white hats and black hats,

The division isn't being caused by me. Nor is it being caused by those who stand up to the lies and smears of the Democratic party. The person who LIES about the Democratic party and refers to it as the "party of the one-percent"... the person who calls Democrats "feeble" and "corrupt" and "ideologically bankrupt".... that's the BLACK/WHITE smearing of the party. But I guess it all depends on who is doing the smearing. If Ann Coulter or Dick Cheney said these same things, it's not hard for me to imagine how outraged you'd be. But when it's Bernie saying these lies, the response is a big "enhhh" and sugar-coated justifications.

well whatever gets you through the day

Charming. Nice backhanded insult. (Figures.)

[George II]

66. Just for you!

by coincidence Mark David Chapman is up for parole for the 10th time this week.

[JCanete]

69. hilarious in the context of you impugning my motives that you find my comment the insult.

[NurseJackie]

73. I raised children of my own...

I raised children of my own, and I could always tell when they thought they were being clever with their word-games, and when they thought they were outsmarting me.

[heaven05]

79. ha!

so true Obvious, it is..

[JCanete]

92. So you would make assumptions about their motivations and stick to those assumptions....great.

[NurseJackie]

99. Some things are so obvious that...

... nothing needs to be assumed. It's just there, plain as day.

[betsuni]

78. The Strange Case of Impugning My Motives.

[JCanete]

91. hi betsuni, keep enjoying your inside joke and sharing that you're enjoying it. nt

[betsuni]

124. When I make banana bread I always bake the bananas first and add sour cream.

[tonedevil]

85. She has a very colorful imagination. /nt

[NurseJackie]

87. Oh, how charming. Another backhanded insult...

85. She has a very colorful imagination. /nt

Oh, how charming. Another backhanded insult. I'm not stupid you know. The euphemisms being used do not disguise the malicious intent.

[tonedevil]

89. Wow an eye rolling Gif...

I can't begin to describe my personal devastation at such an intelligent retort. How shall I ever recover.

[NurseJackie]

98. You'll manage.

[heaven05]

75. there is only one faction

of our Democratic Party that runs around our country tearing down tried and true Democrats. Wittmer(Michigan), Davis(Kansas) come to mind immediately. The person you are responding to is on the typical rant about our Party not being all it can be. And how their 'new' policies will further that goal of Democratic Party while it has always/is the goal of our Party. To protect the 99%.

These 'new' programs of the SDA faction are the same old schtick used since the late 60's-early 70's when the SDA came up on my political radar. Their 'new' programs are politically and ideologically proven unworkable in this system of governance. SDA members are a needed faction but unwanted in the sense of the divisiveness, confusion and lies sown by designed to tear down instead of build up and improve our Party. Since the early 70's it seems a faction always ready to say stupid RW talking points such as our Party represents the 1% and tear down our Party with similar lies, "corrupt", feeble"," ideologically bankrupt". Look to the GOP/WSP and they say the same thing.

I have been following this faction of SDA in our big tent Democratic Party since the 70's. Same old spiel dressed up as new during every election cycle and always tearing down our Party, which has ALWAYS, in spite of flaws, REPRESENTED, the 99%.

The condescension and insulting manner of the person you are responding to is disgusting.

[NurseJackie]

81. It's not the first time...

The condescension and insulting manner of the person you are responding to is disgusting.

It's not the first time I've had to deal with this type of thing. Thanks for your kind words.

Thanks also for sharing your knowledge and insights and for explaining how the things that have come before have influenced (and control) the things we see happening today.

And can I just quickly add: FUCK THE SDA! (And fuck the Greens, fuck Stein, fuck Sarandon, and anyone else who supports or defends them and who opposes/undercuts/undermines/attacks/smears the Democratic party.)

[heaven05]

84. yep

fuckem.....

[George II]

103. There was also Srinivas Rao Preston Kulkarni in Texas, who was attacked for several bogus things....

....most ridiculously for "changing his name" since he goes by Sri, not Srivinas. That's as silly as accusing Bernard Sanders of changing his name because he goes by "Bernie"!

[Gothmog]

113. Sri is being called an Indo-American Carpetbagger by the GOP

Sri was born in Houston and went to the University of Texas for his undergrad degree. The local county party is really going after him

[heaven05]

115. I expected it

the truth hurts them badly. Thanks.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

111. SDA is Seventh Day Adventists? Singapore Democratic Alliance? Social Democratic Alliance (UK)?

[heaven05]

114. It's how I read threm

and I do not care how you see me or the socialists in our Party. I think I have made that clear to you countless times, sda, socialist-democrats(small d) of america. A very minor faction, with minor leaders of the Democratic Party. And I will not stop, comments from you or anyone else from that very minor faction blowing a lot of smoke, arranging mirrors everywhere and still showing nothing new of substance to help our Party.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

116. Try this: What do the letters of SDA stand for? It's a TLA I have not encountered before here.

[heaven05]

117. I don't think so

have a good one

[Bernardo de La Paz]

118. ?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

120. Anyone else? What do the letters of the acronym SDA stand for?

heaven05 is unable to decode the acronym for me.

[LiberalLovinLug]

94. Very well said

So sick that every damn OP that is not only a negative Sanders OP, but even the positive ones, get littered with the same few, but loud, divisive critics.
They can't even see how divisive they are acting.

There are no Sanders supporters on here, like Sanders himself, that are advocating NOT supporting the party. Sanders even ran as a Democrat FFS. Yet they advocate not supporting one of our, yes our (read the DU rules) most popular and active Senators.

Sanders and others in the party like AOC and Warren, that share the views that we could do more to address the 99% ARE NOT THE ENEMY. They are in fact drawing in new voters.
Infesting every Sanders thread with angry negative insults is very divisive and I wish they'd just stop.

I don't alert either. I think it's also very telling to see who is willing to debate even tough issues and who can't deny they frequently run away to the alert nanny when the conversation gets uncomfortable.

[heaven05]

76. We do attack and distinguish issues

that directly affect the 99% that the Democratic Party has always represented.

I ask. What are you doing tearing down Rep. Pelosi and is this strategy of tearing down our Party instead of building up and improving going to continue? This strategy of trying and destroy our Party in favour of a minority factions ideas that have continuously proven to me to be unworkable in our system of governance since your faction became apparent to me in college in the70's is divisive and filled with untruths about our effectiveness as a Party that is and has always represented the poor, downtrodden and if not for us, unrepresented segment of society that the RW would ignore and prefer to go away and die. We are standing against the fascist, racist sexists ruling our country now as the Democratic Party, not the socialist-democratic party.

It is ALWAYS the SOS always dressed up as 'new'. Nah. Take it back, rework and let's try again and maybe our Party can incorporate SOME of the SDA's ideas. Okay

[JCanete]

93. It hasn't always. I'm sorry there are too many examples of it not fighitng as a whole. Maybe at

any given juncture you can point to some democrats, or a plurality of democrats espousing interests that align with helping the poor, but then you have just enough that jump ship and screw the poor or the middle class or the marginalized in favor of some big check writer, and I'm sorry, but that's our record as a whole. Those are long-lasting devastating results. And when one or two of our democrats breaks with the party and votes to confirm Trumps federal judges, and soon, his Supreme Court pick, you come back and tell me that this is all about fighting for the poor. That the party can proudly hail itself that way 100 percent.

I have no problem saying that the party is better than the GOP on every issue. I have no problem saying that our politicians are smarter and have an empathy that is clearly lacking across the republican spectrum. I refuse to blow smoke up my own ass or yours about our record as a whole. I refuse to live in that world of propaganda. That is not how you make the democratic party what you say it is, by simply airbrushing the warts.

[heaven05]

95. I understand your blind spot

I have never airbrushed anything about our Party or it's missteps and mistakes. Our Party is still afloat so those you say allegedly jumped ship must have been from a faction in our Party and DID NOT cause any sinking of our Party, thank god.


I just don't like the manner in which it seems a small minor faction with minor leaders in our Party keep making these bombastic claims of being right and sponsoring programs that Democrats have been fighting for our members for a long, long time. Not as socialist-democrats but Democrats of the Democratic Party.

When that faction's members and leaders are flying all around the country tearing down our tried and true candidates and Party, my state candidates included, unsuccessful by the way, that does not stand as loyalty to our Party when the faction is so small as to be almost inconsequential in affecting direction of our Party and not have been able to effect change because the Democratic Party members back and have always been backing what said faction has claimed as new and improved. Also shown as not true. I noticed for a couple of generations now, at least with my introduction to the SDA in college, in the 70's it has always been the SOS dressed up and lipstick put on it.

Divisiveness and denigrating our Party does not help in these perilous times which certain factions and leaders seem to want to exacerbate by trying to drag down our Party instead of uplifting our Party as the majority members of our Party ARE doing. Bye bye

[JCanete]

96. There is nothing loyal to the party about refusing to talk about our flaws, presumably always

because of some pending election. That betrays our party. It doesn't make it stronger. It doesn't make us what we pretend to be by just saying so. We have to ensure that that is what we are and that is by maintaining accountability, by not simply putting on a partisan hat but one of ideals. We can be honest with our criticism and simultaneously be clear about where the GOP stands by comparison.

Which, presumably is why, as angry as Sanders supporters might have been about some issues with the DNC, we predominantly got out and voted for Clinton.

[heaven05]

97. okay

I just don't agree with you and NEVER WILL. Keep tearing us down. Your big problem from a minor, small faction of our big tent Party, the Democratic Party. Not socialist-democratic party. Just make sure to vote in November.

[JCanete]

105. Fair enough. I won't make as bold a claim as yours, but obviously currently I don't agree with you.

maybe some evidence in the future will get me to understand the calculus differently.

[NurseJackie]

102. That doesn't excuse his current attacks and lies...

... who you did---or did not---vote for is completely irrelevant in the context of 2018 and the lies and insults and smears that are being said now. These are lies that harm, not help, the party. His lies divide, not unite, the party.

[JCanete]

106. We disagree about whether he is lying, obviously. I get that you don't like it when he says mean

things about our party. For my part, I can take his characterization and see things through that lens and still quibble with it, but he's not far out in left field. My perspective of course.

[NurseJackie]

132. Be honest.

We disagree about whether he is lying,

So you also assert and believe and agree that the Democratic party is the "party of the one-percent"?

He's saying in his "clever" way that there's no difference between the Democratic party and the GOP... because the GOP actually IS the party of the one-percent.

And you agree with that? Be honest. Do you agree with Bernie's assertion that there's no difference between the parties?

[JCanete]

133. I believe those interests have continued to win, evein within our party. Not that that's where

the heart of our representatives is, but for every step we take forward, a few dems will defect to help the GOP take that and 3 more back.

[NurseJackie]

134. Ha!! :-D ... Avoiding the question, exactly as I figured.

So, do you agree with Bernie when he says that the "Democratic party is the party of the one-percent"? Do you agree with his suggestion that the Democratic party is the same as the GOP and that there are no differences between the two parties?

I say he's lying. You say he's not lying. Does this mean you agree with him?

Why all the hedging? Why the word salad? It's a simple yes or no question.

Do you agree that there is no difference between Democrats and the GOP (as Bernie says?)

[JCanete]

135. I didn't avoid the question. If I see some truth in his statement but disagree with it by degrees,

I don't think he's lying. And if you accept what I just said in my last post as a reasonable assessment then you can't characterize what he said as lying either. I just disagree with his characterization. As to him thinking or saying both parties are the same, that's absolutely untrue. He makes drastic distinctions between the parties. He doesn't call Democrats morally bankrupt. He works with the Democrats and has touted their platform. So yes, I agree with him that htere are vast distinctions between the parties.

[NurseJackie]

136. You're splitting hairs with such precision... word games... synonyms... salad.

If I see some truth in his statement but disagree with it by degrees, I don't think he's lying.

You're splitting hairs with such precision... word games... synonyms... salad.

And if you accept what I just said in my last post as a reasonable assessment then you can't characterize what he said as lying either.

That thesaurus of yours is getting quite a workout. It reminds me of how Rudy says that he can't find the word "collusion" anywhere in the criminal code.

He doesn't call Democrats morally bankrupt.

He calls them "ideologically bankrupt." I have to let you know that when someone has to start splitting hairs with such care, it tells me that their position is a losing one and their arguments are very weak.

As to him thinking or saying both parties are the same, that's absolutely untrue.

He's never said those exact words (nor have I suggested that). What he is doing is giving others the that perception. In spite of what Bernie wants others to believe, the Democrats are NOT the party of the one-percent.

Saying things like that damages the party... it doesn't help. Obviously he knows this... he's not dumb. It also harms the party by affirming Nader's claim that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. THAT also harms the Democrats... it drives voters away.

Why would anyone do things to intentionally harm the party? Why would anyone do things to intentionally smear and denigrate and divide and weaken the party? And why would (otherwise) intelligent people DEFEND IT or make excuses for it or dismiss it?

That kind of behavior and his lies and smears do not actually help the Democratic party. So I think if people want to better understand what motivates people to do harmful things to the Democratic party, we have to look closer. We must ask ourselves: "WHO DOES BENEFIT?" when the Democratic party is attacked?

Who benefits and who is harmed when Bernie says that Democrats are the party of the one-percent? (Who gets new members? Who gets donations? etc etc It's certainly not Democrats.)

Also, I'll continue to point out that a weakened and divided Democratic party ALSO BENEFITS THE GOP which ALSO BENEFITS RUSSIA.

[JCanete]

137. I don't know what to tell you. Pretending that we don't have issues that we should address is not

doing us any favors as a party. Your version of harm IS NOT MINE. Your version of help could be very potentially harmful to the party. If we dont sound like we're the truth-tellers...if we just sound like partisan hacks, people aren't going to trust us...it doesn't matter whether or not they trust the GOP less...we need them to come out for us, not remain disaffected. Sanders isn't making disaffected voters, he's giving disaffected voters something they can feel like is worth reengaging in the political process for.

I know you don't believe that. I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. We're probably not going to get anywhere, since neither of us entirely believes the other person is acting entirely intellectually honestly when it comes to tackling this subject matter, so feel free to have the last word on the subject.

[NurseJackie]

138. Oh good grief! GMAFB!

Sanders isn't making disaffected voters, he's giving disaffected voters something they can feel like is worth reengaging in the political process for.

Oh good grief! GMAFB! He's validating their fears and hatred and distrust. He's encouraging them to leave and to be distrustful of Democrats.

He won't even make a commitment to the party... that sends quite a negative message. It show what little regard he has for Democrats and the Democratic party. No wonder his faithful followers won't even bother to register as Democrats.

All I'm saying is that it's no coincidence (and certainly suspicious) that after almost every public smear and attack of the Democratic party, a Sanders-affiliated group uses that attack to raise money to benefit Sanders himself, or for the purpose of continuing to tear down and drive support away from Democrats.

Sanders lies when he says that the Democrats are the party of the one-percent.People who believe his lies have NO REASON to vote for Democrats or to join the party. He's encouraging these new, inexperienced, angry or low-information voters to NOT vote or to vote third party. He's diverting their donations and their manpower AWAY from the Democratic party.

This only helps the GOP and as a result it helps RUSSIA.

[Old Vet]

59. +1000.......Your on right on point NurseJackie

[NurseJackie]

64. Thank you!

[treestar]

86. Exactly

As if we have to defeat Republicans! Like, reality!

[Wounded Bear]

7. Republicans don't understand real leadership...

they think that yelling out commands and demanding compliance fits the bill.

[LexVegas]

8. "I think they have demonized her"...Bernie never did that to an opponent, did he?

[appal_jack]

11. No, he actually didn't.

I watched the debates. I recall Bernie saying "Enough with the damn e-mails!" or something quite similar.

Bernie ran for the nomination in the 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary. He did his best to win, but I never saw him demonizing Hillary Clinton back then. Why are you re-fighting this past primary via weak innuendo, in express violation of DU rules? It's not helpful, especially in a thread about Bernie showing support for Nancy Pelosi.

I'd rather build upon the common ground exemplified by the OP here.

-app

[lagomorph777]

21. +1

[BeckyDem]

29. +1 thank you.

[Dennis Donovan]

38. Thank you!

[Fix The Stupid]

54. Put them on ignore...dead serious.

It works.

The propagandists are paid per post and also 'views' on their posts...

The more we use the tools of this site, the more effective we can be to weed these ratfuckers out.

It works - can't exactly say how - but it does...

And it makes the DU experience MUCH better.

[appal_jack]

67. Eh, I'm here to discuss, not ignore. nt

[Fix The Stupid]

74. Good luck with that.

They have this site keyworded up the ass.

As soon as the software reads "Bernie", the bat signal goes out and the trolls pounce...and ALWAYS the same ones...

It is so obvious to anyone who spends a little bit of time here.

But by all means, continue to try and reason with these 'people'...I commend you for it.

[Raine]

70. EXACTLY

and THANK YOU for saying it!

[joshcryer]

100. Sanders: Clinton's not qualified to be president

In the city of Brotherly Love, the home of Rocky Balboa, the place where disgruntled Eagles fans once booed Santa Claus, the increasingly personal and bitter fight for the Democratic nomination took a sharp pugilistic turn Wednesday night. The issue: whether either candidate is even fit for the White House.

Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president, Bernie Sanders told a crowd of supporters packed into Temple University's arena, delivering his fiercest jab yet to the struggling Democratic front-runner.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/sanders-clinton-not-qualified-to-be-president-221666

[appal_jack]

112. Not exactly "demonizing."

I'd call that "campaigning." If your opponent is perfectly qualified, why even run against her in a Primary?

The point being discussed here is whether Sanders engaged in "demonizing," but if you enjoy carrying goal posts to new locations, have fun with that...

-app

[joshcryer]

121. Are you kidding me?

Seriously. Link one instance where Hillary ever said anything remotely that bad against him. One time. Christ she played with kids gloves against him.

Meanwhile you try to convince people that "unqualified to serve" isn't "demonizing."

What a joke of epic proportions. You are simply wrong. It is patently absurd that you in all sincerity think this is OK.

[betsuni]

125. "If your opponent is perfectly qualified, why even run against her in a Primary?"

This makes no sense.

[ehrnst]

15. Many of his fans...

Yes.

[LiberalLovinLug]

40. +1000

[NurseJackie]

49. ...

[awesomerwb1]

9. I was expecting a different answer

I'm glad my worry was misplaced.

[tblue37]

10. Excellent response. nt

[JoeOtterbein]

12. Bernie is good person,

we need more leaders like him. Not less.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

52. That's fo sho!!

[ZeroSomeBrains]

13. Great response

Nancy pelosi has done a lot of good in her time. She helped get health care reform through and the stimulus under president obama. We need to stay focused on the midterms and get everyone out to vote.

[Omaha Steve]

14. K&R!

[mcar]

16. Glad to see this

[KSNY]

17. Attacking Nancy Pelosi is a distraction technique

Bernie is absolutely right about this. They used misogyny during the 2016 election and are trotting out the same "she's a witch!" tactic. Voters will support progressive democrats based on the issues.

[Hortensis]

18. Good for Sanders. Supporting women is a winning move

on the left.

[workinclasszero]

20. Good statement

Thanks Bernie

[still_one]

22. We need to come together if for nothing else because of the midterms. For those who want a

different majority or minority leaders, wait until AFTER the midterms. We can fight it out AFTER the midterms. Now we need to focus on this administration and the republicans, and stay on message how the country is being hurt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. +1

This!

[sheshe2]

24. Good job.

[EffieBlack]

25. Perfect answer. Thanks, Bernie!

[irresistable]

37. I don't understand why people have been trashing her in the first place!

Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2018, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Running away from her because the Repubs are demonizing her is cowardly.

If we retake the house, we need someone who can get things passed. Who out there now could do a better job than she?

[EffieBlack]

43. AND let's not forget, if we retake the House, it will be largely because Pelosi

worked her badass off to make it happen.

[sheshe2]

47. Exactly, Effie.

[MaryMagdaline]

80. And she's a tremendous fundraiser

[Duppers]

27. K & R

[BeckyDem]

28. yep.

[dae]

31. Excellent response.

[Fullduplexxx]

32. Very good to hear him say something positive about the dem party

[wallyworld2]

33. Right on Senator Sanders

That's how it's done

[Squinch]

36. That was a nice surprise. Hope there will be more like that from him.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

41. I don't think Bernie realizes how divisive his rallies were.

He believes his cause is the only path for America. On Colbert last night he couldn't explain or acknowledge the losses of his and Cortez' endorsed candidates. Just said the voters want what he wants. It was weird. To me he sounded a bit demented. Yet the audience went wild.

[JCanete]

53. He made perfect sense to me. Things you didn't follow: polling on the issues- Sanders and the

Last edited Thu Aug 16, 2018, 03:25 AM - Edit history (1)

issues of the candidates he campagins with are popular with the american people, which was his point. They are all over 60 percent, typically.


Money-Sanders expressly pointed out the huge handicap that some candidates have over others that give them a huge amount of exposure and can also fund, attack ads, etc.


Unless you have a way of addressing these two points, I'd suggest you reconsider your "demented" criticism.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

68. It comes down to elections. The cause is clearly a popular one.

As for him at 76, my lips are sealed. DU is no place to discuss this.

[joshcryer]

101. He knows, he's a politician.

Of course he's not going to light the fire by hating on Pelosi in an interview.

[riversedge]

44. Thank you Bernie Sanders.

[lark]

57. Glad to hear Bernie say that.

[Raine]

71. I love Bernie and

THANK YOU for posting this!

[MaryMagdaline]

77. Good response Bernie!

Keep your eye on the prize

[treestar]

82. For once he says something good

About a Democrat!

[SkyDancer]

88. "For once"

He says things all the time about Democrats being "good".
Look at all the praise he heaps on those who are running & whom hes endorsed.

[Uncle Joe]

109. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread SkyDancer.

[Hekate]

110. Why not quote Paul Krugman? The Nobelist says she is the best we have EVER had in the US.

He goes into great detail -- nothing vague at all about his praise. Those are some pretty high kudos.

[SkyDancer]

123. Probably because I wasn't aware of it?

And Bernie's praise wasn't vague

[bluecollar2]

122. Kick...n/t