If you're backbiting at Biden, Garland, Kamala, or any other lame duck you're defending the past, not the future

[bigtree]

...does it really need to keep reminding that there are people who want Democrats to fight each other instead of the actual republican opposition that is set to take power and control?

Yes, I guess it needs reminding. We need to be preparing for our future opposition against republicans, not Democrats. Let's do that.

[Autumn]

1. We spent the last four years fighting them. That went well. Ya think?

&t=15s

[LexVegas]

2. Who is Garland? nt

[BannonsLiver]

34. A very well paid wallflower.

With apologies to wallflowers.

[edhopper]

3. Did you just throw in Harris and Biden

who aren't being attacked here, to defend Garland, who fucked up big time?

[Cha]

4. Gov Shapiro Is being "attacked" Here...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219808759

[edhopper]

6. Nothing to do with the OPs

efforts to defend Garland.

[Cha]

8. It has to do with This in the OP..

Yes, I guess it needs reminding. We need to be preparing for our future opposition against republicans, not Democrats. Let's do that.

[edhopper]

9. OP

Is just defending Garland from the rightful criticism.

[BannonsLiver]

35. Yes.

[Autumn]

37. Attacks on the best Democratic president of our lifetime are not happening here. But the stretch is

Biden appointed him ergo Biden and Harris are being attacked.

[bigtree]

41. this is you, not seeing or acknowledging anything but the Garland derisions

...keep up.

It isn't all about Garland. He's not the only lame duck being blamed for the election loss as if they're going to be here to fix the future.

[edhopper]

53. Please stop gaslighting

Don't lump Biden and Harris in with Garland. Your post is transparent.
Garland was an awful AG, and deservesvto be criticized
We can never repeat such inaction in the face of such a threat.

[bigtree]

56. you missed the point of the post

...and projected this bull about my intent from your ostensive unawareness of the blame and false attacks and ridiculous expectations cast on Biden and Harris since the election.

You're just focused on the Garland thing, and ignored the point of the post which was about dealing with future participants in our politics instead of expending all of the ire on lame ducks.

But yeah, Garland's right up there in the absurdity of these backbiting posts and expressions. It's completely apathetic and sad, like despair.

Maybe do something more productive to confront the actual people assuming power over us.

[edhopper]

62. All I see is another failed attempt

to defend Garland by sticking him in with Biden and Harris.
I also don't see the Democrats acting in a brave manner these days.

[bigtree]

65. nothing in the op 'defended Garland'

...better reading comprehension needed here.

Not conflating what's in your head with what I wrote, for instance.

Nothing in that says I can't or won't defend his prosecution of Trump, or his term as AG in total using facts as my reference and guide.

[Hekate]

5. So true, Thank you, bigtree.

Hope your holidays go well.

[choie]

7. Dems need to learn from our mistakes

Garland was a mistake. It’s possible that Biden going for a 2nd term was a mistake. We can do both at once; confront the mistakes and move toward the future.

And.. if Garland doesn’t release Jack Smith’s report, that will be a huge mistake. One which he’ll probably make. It would be on brand.

[ancianita]

12. 3-2-1... the 20-20 Hindsight Opus...

As if we here haven't chewed on this for over a month.

[choie]

14. Yeah and your post shows some of us haven't

learned shit.

[ancianita]

16. Do tell.

Yes, do tell us all what all we shoulda/coulda/woulda learned by now. Take all the time you want.

[Scrivener7]

26. Maybe the lesson here for some is that their

view of the situation was faulty, and they seemed to need to fight viciously with those who disagreed with them. So, when those people AGAIN get the impulse to insist on their viewpoint in a vicious or nasty or condescending way, they should consider that they might be wrong again.

Because what you insist is hindsight was seen clearly by
MOST of us years ago.

[bigtree]

32. what fucking good was hindsight?

...what fucking good did it do?

All I saw was a drag on the investigation. And when charges were brought forward, nothing but cynicism and derision from the very same people who claimed in front of everyone that NO charges would be brought.

Then they proceeded to blame the DOJ for every instance where republican judges or the perps delayed the prosecution. Then blaming prosecutors already in court for voters effectively cutting them off.

Tell me how this is opposition to the people who actually delayed the cases in court until the election. All I see here is opposition to the people working to hold him accountable.

[Scrivener7]

46. Well, you are still defending Garland. You haven't reached the hindsight

stage yet. Maybe someday.

[Scrivener7]

24. OK. This actually made me laugh.

"We've shit on people for years, but that's over now and OK we were wrong. But no one should refer to it! And those who do are bad Democrats!"

Same old argument, slightly different slant.

And for some of us, it isn't hindsight. We were pointing it out all along.

[newdeal2]

10. People are either lazy or scared

Democrats attacking Democrats, especially those who will be gone in a month, is easy work.

Putting yourself out there against Trump and MAGA is hard and requires courage.

Putting together an agenda and messaging that actually reaches voters will be even harder work.

[ancianita]

11. Thank you! What good does this mindless habit do for either the Underground or its new forum

on the Future for Democrats. This place can't become some bitchfest or grievance venting site.

You can't love your party or country only when you win.

[choie]

17. Oh my god

what a feeble trope. If you do the same thing over and over again, you get the same damn results. It’s been only a month since the election. I think the Democratic Party can both look at their mistakes and plan for the future. That’s loving your party.

[ancianita]

18. Do tell us what the same thing over and over again was. Lay all the mistakes out so we can learn to

love our party as much as you.

[iemanja]

23. The point is to win

Love being out of power all you want. The rest of us will focus on changes necessary to win. If the party took your advice, the GOP would hold all three houses permanently.

[Scrivener7]

27. For a start, is there a need to reply to that perfectly reasonable observation

with sarcastic condescension?

[berksdem]

42. thank goodness you are not running the party

[Sympthsical]

33. "love your party"

That's some interesting verbiage.

I don't love my party. I am a Democrat because I'm a progressive type who believes the party and the politicians within it will pursue the kinds of policies that I think are better for people individually and the country as a whole. We have two viable parties in this country, and they're my choice.

Love does not enter this equation. It is strictly transactional. "I will vote for you as long as you are passing legislation and enact policies that align with what I think should be done."

I think there should be more transaction and less love, frankly. "Love" is how people begin to paper over, excuse, and defend problems and flaws until situations get out of hand. "Love" is how valid criticism is perceived as "bashing!"

There is a difference between supporting a politician as a mean to policy ends and being a part of a fandom for them. I support Democrats. No one said I had to love anyone.

[Cirsium]

13. That already happened

Progressives put aside any disagreements with the more conservative Democrats and got behind the ticket like never before. People chipped in money and time like never before. The result was a catastrophic failure at the worst possible time.

How many times were progressives lectured and told "we can deal with your issues later, right now we need to win an election." OK. We did that, as requested.

This disaster is on the party leadership and those who defended the leadership and demanded total loyalty from all of us. The time for blaming the progressives is over. The progressives, and all of the working class people who have been left out and left behind are now going to be heard.

This "we need to pull together" ruse has been played out. It has always meant "you progressives need to shut up."

[Skittles]

15. believe me, I CAN DO BOTH

yes INDEED

[ecstatic]

19. garland is not a Democrat

garland failed our nation and he's still fucking up as I type.

[bigtree]

31. no, he was an AG who prosecuted over 1200 republican, white supremacist Trump supporting rioters and their leaders

...on charges up to sedition.

And the man who hired the SC who brought forward TWO multi-felony indictments against a former president and was in court in the election fraud case when voters pulled out the rug.

Not into fantastical accounts of the past. Prefer the facts.

[dchill]

20. Here? There? Neither?

Merrick Garland is not officially affiliated with any political party; he is an independent. However, he was nominated for the position of U.S. Attorney General by President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

[iemanja]

21. Garland?

We’re in this position because of Garland. Demanding fealty to him is outrageous. You might as well chastise us for criticizing Trump.

[Felicita]

28. What about McConnell?

Should have removed the mf from office after the insurrection (or better, after the first impeachment). Then we wouldn't be here, Garland or no Garland.

[iemanja]

29. Yes. And?

[Scrivener7]

22. Lol! If you're STILL defending Garland, you should stop doing the

republiQans' work as they try to gaslight us.

It worked. It's over. Garland did the job he wanted to do, and trump is elected.

And this OP is doing exactly what you're insisting others shouldn't do.

[bigtree]

30. haven't read a word of criticism from you for the Trump judges who delayed the prosecutions

...not one word.

Just this scapegoating of the people who were working to prosecute Trump.

Tell us how that does anything to help the party as republicans take power. Don't just project the same derision over and over. People need to talk about the future under republicans, and stop boring people with this backbiting of people who were working to do the right thing.

Stop the attacks on Democrats who won't be here to cast blame on like it's some sort of magic cudgel that produces more than more backbiting derision. It's silliness, and it's a distraction, if not a diversion, from what republicans have done, are doing, and are going to do in the future.

Scapegoating is like despair. It stirs up emotions without preparing anyone for what's next. It keeps people mired in the past, instead of looking to the future.

You do you, though.

[Scrivener7]

47. Still at it. It's sad at this point.

But also, quite self-serving. Your "stop backbiting" is nothing but a rebranding of your, "Marcy Empty wheel says all is going as it should, Garland is hard at work behind the scenes and will save the day, so stop disagreeing with meeeeee! If you disagree with meeee, you're a bad Democrat!!1!"

None of that was true, Garland sat on his thumbs and you were wrong.

Now treat us to your wall o' words that actually SHOWS that Garland. did nothing, but that you insist says the opposite.

As I said, quite sad.

[thebigidea]

50. I've had enough of Marcy Wheeler's bullshit

I don't understand what was the appeal in the first place. She never had any kind of special insight. Or any relevant experience whatsoever.

But man she was good at IMPLYING.

[Scrivener7]

51. She was the only one saying he was doing anything.

Which position she based on faulty supposition and inuendo.

But she was the only one who agreed with the Garland fans so they acted like she was the Delphic Oracle.

[bigtree]

55. I made a broader point about lame duck pols and others who are being discussed as if they're consequential to the future

...which they are not.

You're debating the Garland issue as if that's your only interest. I have broad knowledge on this issue, and despite your derisions of that interest of mine, and my willingness to share what I know, I won't be dissuaded by false, nonfactual, and misleading responses.

Just writing 'Garland' isn't an invitation to all of that dragging of the man who prosecuted over 1200 white supremacist trump supporting republican rioters, and hired on his own volition the SC who brought forward TWO multi-felony indictments, one of which was actually in court before voters effectively pulled the plug.

Garland isn't consequential to anything going forward, except this backbiting hobby some folks have made their thing ever since the days they were claiming no charges would be brought at all.

It won't do a thing to confront the republicans that will begin rolling over America in a few weeks. In fact, the backbiting against the people prosecuting Trump did nothing whatsoever to confront the Trump cabal. I mean, absolutely nothing.

It didn't bother to even mention the evidence put forward that so many claimed was so important to them. Not a post or a word about it. Just these derisions and misrepresentations of the investigations and prosecutions to serve this 'Garland bad' Garland late' canard.

It does nothing but provide cover for the actual judges and justices who were the actual people holding up the trials. That's all it accomplished.

You attacked the people working to hold Trump accountable in court as if those derisions did something more than obscure those appeals judges and Supreme Court justices who delayed the hearings and trial dates.

All of this 'Garland sat on his thumbs' as if that provably false derision represents some kind of opposition to Trump.

I'd guess he'd laugh at the way people were attacking his prosecutors. I mean, just who else do you suppose is downplaying the arrests and convictions of over 1200 Trump supporting republican Capitol rioters?

Who else ignored and downplayed the turning of dozens of the riot leaders, advantaged by Garland's SC in the very indictment that was in court when voters pulled the plug; cooperation cited in the very last filing which pointed to the responsibility Trump bore for the rioting; citing his PHONE RECORDS which Garland's prosecutors were STILL fighting before Judge Chutkan to make them admissible in the trial?

Who does that, claiming concern over the prosecution of Trump.

Who skips over details like the fact it was Garland who not only collected the most evidence used in the DUAL indictments, but was the one whose prosecutors defended all of it through successive appeals through several courts with dozens of often trump and republican appointed judges?

Who does that?

(obviously, I don't care that you won't read this, any more than you cared to read anything about the actual facts of the investigations and prosecutions. Who does that, claiming concern about the investigations and prosecutions? Who does that?)

[Scrivener7]

57. Wall o' words. Justification o' nonsense. Waste o' time.

[bigtree]

58. I have a library full of words that won't be read by anyone still alive

...that the world we live in today.

So many people on tangents without a clue or care about the actual details or history of what they're on about.

I'm guessing we're supposed to go with the uninformed takes, and bury facts underneath nonfactual derisions as if we're helpless, or we can't be bothered to take 'time' to discern the actual truth?

Count me out of all of that silliness. It's in a language that I refuse to learn.

Here we are with not only access to the most information we've ever had available in our history or lifetimes, and most of the social media impetus is toward supplanting all of that with our own supposition and cw.

And people wonder why we're an uninformed nation. It's because so many of us invite and revel in self-reinforcement of our own projections. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Scrivener7]

59. "Agree with meee!! If you don't, you're uninformed!!1!"

And yet still, you were wrong. For years.

[bigtree]

60. 'I thought something'

..."if enough people agree with me, that makes it true"

"I won't be shown facts which dispute what I claim, but you're wrong."

"Words. Phooey!:

[Scrivener7]

61. "Agree with meeee!!1! Garland is great!!1! It's everyone else's fault!!1! I can't be wrong!!1!"

Nope.

[bigtree]

64. so, projection it is

...cool.

Cool.

[Scrivener7]

66. Lol. Bigtree, you know that makes no sense. But I imagine

you'll insist it does. Or something.

So you go ahead and I will wish you a lovely day.

[bigtree]

67. this is what I'm responding to from you:

"Agree with meee!! If you don't, you're uninformed!!1!"

"Agree with meeee!!1! Garland is great!!1! It's everyone else's fault!!1! I can't be wrong!!1!"

I'm not going to pretend those are sensible responses to my replies to you, or something. I mean, you used the exact script folks here used to describe freeper posts in the past. A not so clever swipe, which is really just a personal attack.

Maybe discussing something to do with the point in the op about lame ducks would have been better than this silliness.

You could have just done that, right?

[NBachers]

25. Garland? Shit, I'm still backbiting Ralph Nader

[BannonsLiver]

36. LOL

🙄

[boston bean]

38. Bull. We need a real examination as to what is wrong

with the party that we could not beat a convicted felon.

[Celerity]

39. De-rec.

I don't play kowtow games to people who demand I toe a certain 'doff the cap' line of their own construction.

You and others of similar type do not get to control the terms of debate here, sorry. You are trying to inject a chilling effect on discussing things you personally do not like.

I have seen these types of gambits employed here on DU ever since I joined in mid 2018.

Self-reflection and internal critique are profoundly necessary to avoid losing in the future.

[BeerBarrelPolka]

40. Absolutely

There tends to be sycophancy to a degree here and on other websites that are topic specific. I will never be a sycophant. I see a lot wrong in the Democratic party, and I will not personally turn a blind eye to it.

[berksdem]

43. Is there a way to unrecommend a post?

asking for a friend.

[Initech]

44. There's unfortunately nothing more we can do about Fuckface but wait for the Big Macs to do their thing.

So yeah, until that happens, we shouldn't be blaming each other. Let's focus on taking back the House and Senate. JD Vance will be much easier to impeach than Fuckface.

[thebigidea]

49. er... why? Why the fuck would the current GOP ever, EVER want to lose power?

Why would you think impeachment was a possibility with the GOP?

[Initech]

54. They are drunk with power and out of control.

They need to be taken down several pegs, but how? Voting can only go so far. Fox "News" still exists.

[thebigidea]

48. if you're wasting time defending a used condom like Garland, you will never get over the past

[MineralMan]

52. Indeed!

[Intractable]

63. Why would you even create this OP?

Because you love fighting about this.

You are the one "defending the past," unwilling to examine why Dems lose elections. It's all just fine with you.

It is quite acceptable, even necessary, to examine the decisions made by "Biden, Garland, Kamala" for the purpose of learning from mistakes and doing better next time.