Sanders tanked Clinton.

[Eko]

If you cant see that then you are daft. This is not re-fighting the primaries, this is about the GE. Sanders supporters on here said that she was pro killing little kids, it was insanity. And it spread like wildfire. Sanders has said and continues to say that the Democratic party is wrong, this is insane.
Insane.

[boston bean]

1. It is strange that stating something like this about a non dem here will cause an uproar.

[karynnj]

46. I was here during the general election and this is a lie

Any one posting something like that would have immediately out.

[stonecutter357]

56. I was here during the general election and it's spot on....

[rock]

93. Correct

Spot on. The rules for criticizing a Democrat were 'suspended' during that period.

[karynnj]

99. Actually the rules were NOT suspended in the general election. If anything they were strengthened

Once Clinton was the nominee, anything that suggested you would not support her was out of line.

[rock]

104. I'm reporting what I remember

And as I recall, that may have been the "rules" but they were not strictly enforced.

[sarah FAILIN]

250. Anything negative about Bernie was also out of line.

I believe that was something very common because of the no bashing dems rule... even though he said himself he was not a dem. I had a post hidden over it in a round-about way even though I wasn't bashing. My post was saying that I was tired of everyone getting alerted on all the time and that we needed to get thicker skin and be able to talk about what happened in order to get out of the hole we are in. I was hidden for interfering with forum moderation. The core problems are still here, but back then I was also getting asked to serve on a jury 3 or 4 times a visit here and I thought bots were doing the alerts.

[heaven05]

260. many, many trolls have

infested this site now. BS was an Independent Socialist running as a Democrat...he NEVER STOOD A CHANCE of becoming potus. And his infantile, whining supporters of a loser are setting us up to see the rabid RW gain more power because of their infantile whining over loss in the primaries. He DID NOT make it past the primaries. I tell all of BS supporters get over it...move on...quit whining..protect our Party and our DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!! Geez

[SweetieD]

88. Yeah it is a lie. I was here the whole time. I have no idea what this person is talking about.

[VOX]

177. TRUE w/PROOF. From DU on 2/22/16 "Five Children Murdered After They Were Deported Back To Honduras"

Did a quick site search on DU and came up with a signal example of what the OP is referring to. I've withheld poster IDs, but feel free to search DU yourself. Here's a start:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/12511311927
- - - - - - -
2/22/2016 DU OP: "Hillary Supports Obama 100% including his unconscionable deportation policy"
Hillary has strongly supported sending unaccompanied undocumented children back to this hell she was instrumental in creating. Let me point out that this is from John podesta's site, and as we know, Podesta is the chair of Hillary's campaign, so this very rah rah Hillary site omits all mention of Hillary's repeated calls to send kids back, and doesn't mention her role in supporting the right wing military coup in Honduras. God, I'm glad I don't have to make excuses for her. 

Between five and ten migrant children have been killed since February after the United States deported them back to Honduras, a morgue director told the Los Angeles Times. Lawmakers have yet to come up with best practices to deal with the waves of unaccompanied children apprehended by Border Patrol agents, but some politicians refute claims that children are fleeing violence and are opting instead to fund legislation that would fast-track their deportations. 
<snip>
- - - - - - - - - -
Responses to OP (Again, I've not included posters' names) Original typos included:
-Clinton is a positive and active evil for Latinos--walls and deportations aside, her little adventure in Honduras against democracy has created a narcostate and cost hundreds of lives and broken the hearts of people who've fought for human rights for decades
-And who helped the coup that over threw the Leftist President and destabilized the country - causing the blood shed still going on today as well as the immigrant crisis? That would be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. 
-She is drenched in blood from this to her cluster bomb support from Iraq through Syria and Libya 
-Is this her idea of sending a message? You know... this further demonstrates why we need Bernie to win
-This alone DISQUALIFIES HRC from being president. Hillary is not leadership material.
-Probably the worst thing she's done, but not the first time she's turned her back on kids suffering
-Hillary "Send them back" Clinton. Who will be the next hero we see fall on their sword to distract from her record?
-The 1%er is a psychopath...no empathy for anyone...ego larger than a Wall Street bank building...evil...
-I keep wanting to say that but the hillary supporters are showing no consience themselves
and I was afraid to get 4 of them on an alert. Her record only spells psychopath to me. She caused too much blood shed in so many countries and it all continues today. I couldn't sleep a wink for the rest of my life... no I couldn't live with my self if I hurt 1 person, let alone tens of thousands.
-No way to penetrate the thinking(?) of supporters of the 1%er...to get them to understand this truth...
-I think they understand but don't care. The level I've seen in them is a level I've never seen on a progressive board before.

[Stellar]

266. I was warned about posting negative post against a Dem..

And was told that it was 'just' a warning for now.
However, what a terrible story to post, and possibly fake news about Hillary and Obama. Even 'Think Progress' no longer has it on their website.

As a Bernie supporter, don't believe any of it for a moment.

[brush]

103. I was here during the general and a certain senator never officially dropped out until the conventio

And I don't mean his grudging concession that came much too late.

He was still running up to the convention just in case he could persuade enough super delegates to switch.

A lot of people don't want to remember that—all the way up to the convention.

And don't talk about the general discussion page here. 75% of the posts were anti-Clinton.

It was depressing just coming to DU.

The Bernie bros were ascendant and did much damage.

[NBachers]

255. "Immediately out?" Look at the top of the page. Verify that you are referring to DU.

It was such a seething riot of anti-Clinton hate here that I felt like I was sticking my neck WAY out by saying I was a Clinton supporter; an Obama supporter; even a Democrat.

There were a few of us, but we were greatly outnumbered by the HH8'ers (Hillary Haters.)

[karynnj]

257. In the primary, I agree there were likely more Bernie supporters,

not surprising as DU does not reflect the Democratic party, but leans left. However, rules changed when the general election started.

Anone attacking HRC would get alerted on. That does not mean everything had to be incredibly positive. There was a similar amount of concern posted in 2008 about Obama.

[Cary]

69. What's even more bizarre is the push back when one asks them to stop

It's like they want the pushback so that they can play the martyr role.

[Binkie The Clown]

2. I supported Bernie, but now it's time for him to go away and leave our party alone. nt

[trueblue2007]

10. I AGREE. if he isn't gonna join the Democratic party, he should shut the hell up

i get tired of him yapping about how the Democratic party isn't good enough. Well he isn't good enough for the Dems.

[karynnj]

102. Are you going to appeal to Schumer and have him demand that Bernie leave the leadership role

and even caucusing with the Democrats in the Senate? He is still our Senator, so I assume he is still allowed to speak on single payer, minimum wage, DACA etc. Should he cancel his public fundraising event in Burlington on a boat in Lake Champlain next Sunday?

Bernie is ONE of 48 Senators who caucus with the Democrats. He is also one of the stronger voices on some issues - strengthened by his run where he did better than any primary loser - other than Clinton 2008 - since Gary Hart in 1984! It should also be noted that there is no one leader of the Democratic party now. However, between Obama, Carter, the Clintons, Biden, Kerry, Holder, etc we have elder statesman who command respect among many ... and we have some strong younger leaders, who have been impressive, who I will not name because I would likely miss many who should be named.

[Demsrule86]

223. I already have. Only those who are members of the Democratic Party should have leadership roles...

even made up ones. He should also not have top status on any committees. Democrats should run the party and Congress.

[karynnj]

231. How petty

We need a broad base and all the strong voices we can find. I have a problem with people saying the Clintons need to retire to obsurity. Sanders could be a strong voice on SOME issues - just as the Clintons,, Obama and his cabinet, Carter etc can be. We also have many good elected leaders, including Schumer and Pelosi.

Sanders may end up like Ted Kennedy. He is a strong voice on some of the same issues. I KNOW Kennedy was a Democrat and Sanders isn't, but he has shown with the community health centers in the ACA and the VA bill that he can more things.

[Demsrule86]

233. Why is it petty? A person who cannot commit to joining the Democratic Party should have

no leadership role. How can one lead what one does not belong to?

[karynnj]

240. He does caucus with us and historically such people are

Considered eligible for leadership. Consider that if Jeffords and Sanders, at different times did NOT caucus with us, it would be harder to be in the majority.

Sanders chaired a committee, veterans, long before he ran for President and did a great job. I doubt you had any problem with him holding that position which his senority in the caucus gave him.

What changed? He ran for President and lost the nomination. Just like Clinton in 2008, he then travelled the country advocating for the nominee. Unlike Obama, Clinton lost.

I think Clinton absolutely did herself no favors blaming Sanders. First of all, ANY opponent would have questioned the paid talks with Goldman Sachs. O'Malley did in an early debate. Trump labeled ALL his opponents and it is no surprise he labeled Clinton. The label was based on memes that existed decades ago before anyone out of VT ever heard of Bernie.

I did see HRC said the speeches were a mistake and it was "dumb" to use a private server. Yet she misses that both of these things fed negative impressions. Bernie spoke of closeness to Wall Street, not dishonesty or corruption. It was not Bernie's words, but her actions.

[customerserviceguy]

202. How do you feel about Hillary stepping out of the limelight

and letting new faces with fresh ideas take center stage, at least once the 2020 campaign is truly underway?

I fully expect Hillary Clinton to endorse our eventual nominee, and frankly, it wouldn't surprise or displease me if she picked her favorite during the primary season. I just want to see the eventual nominee get as much airtime as possible, to introduce him or her self to the electorate and build up campaign funds, name recognition and enunciation of policy principles, without either Hillary or Bernie in the way.

[Binkie The Clown]

205. It's time for us old codgers to step aside and let the next generation run the show. nt

[customerserviceguy]

206. Agreed

I'll be 62 in a couple of months, and while it was a bit weird for a moment when I realized that we finally had a President who was younger than me for the first time in my life, it worked out pretty well!

[Baconator]

214. The party is almost two generations behind...

At this point, it's going to have to be more like the Queen handing off to Willian and skipping Charles...

[Demsrule86]

234. I want to see...new candidates run.

[Warpy]

3. Would you prefer party coronations?

Forget it. Our candidates slug it out in the primaries, always have since fat cats in back rooms were deprived of the privilege of picking the most business friendly candidate to run.

Personally, I don't think Sanders damaged her, not after she adopted a lot of his more popular platform positions and he started to campaign for her.

I think a hostile and corrupted corporate press damaged her by muting her speeches while endlessly bleating about fake scandals ginned up by Russian trolls, all the while giving her asshole opponent a free ride. I think Comey hammered one of the final nails into the coffin by his surprise announcement just days before the election, followed by an "oops, nothing there," too little and too late. I think it's highly likely that swing states with those easily hacked DRE machines had their results altered by Russian hackers.

Blaming Sanders is not only in error, it's just too easy a copout and I thought better of her.

I suppose it's easier to focus on a political opponent, even one who came over to your side, than it is to admit how foully tainted the 2016 election was.

[Eko]

4. Nowhere did I ever say that.

Ever.
So to reply to the rest of your screed would be an affront to dignity.

[Warpy]

5. Which means you can't.

Understood.

[boston bean]

6. The party owes an independent nothing. There are reasons for parties.

[Baconator]

215. The party said themselves that they don't believe voting to be all that necessary to the process...

... and reserve the right to pick the nominee as they like.

Very revealing court case a few weeks ago...

[Eko]

8. No, it means

that your response started with a position that I have not taken, and have never taken. Answering you back would only reinforce your original bull and given you credence. If you would like a conversation then maybe you could not engage in straw man and I would be happy to talk to you, until then it deserves no response. And you owe me an apology.

[JustAnotherGen]

62. Well written!

You handled that well.

[oberliner]

30. Usually the candidates who "slug it out" in the Democratic primaries are all Democrats

I think the point being made here is that Bernie Sanders consistently asserted that he was an independent, not a Democrat, even though he was running in the Democratic primaries.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. Anyone remember the attacks flying back & forth between Hillary & Barack in 2012?

Was tame compared to 2016.

[lapucelle]

131. Yes, but the loser handled it very differently

by conceding in early June, immediately barnstorming with the winner, and by stopping the delegate count from the convention floor to call for the nomination by acclimation of her party's presumed nominee.

That was unity, that was a Democrat who wanted the party to win the general, and, above all, that was class.

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/08/democrats-nominate-obama-by-acclamation-012895

[joshcryer]

143. Sanders technically stopped the count, too.

But it was way different than what happened with Obama. They were afraid to even let her stop the count and call for a superdelegate vote and for them to switch sides since she won, technically, the popular vote in those primaries.

But otherwise you're correct about the barnstorming. In fact, their first meeting together was in Unity, NH. It was very unifying. And she busted her ass for him.

Sanders, on the other hand, took 8 weeks and 3 days before he came out and endorsed Clinton.

She went it alone.

[lapucelle]

165. I remember Denver.

The states were called out of alphabetical order so that New York's vote (and Hillary's motion to nominate) would come early.

Sanders waited for Vermont to be called (as was understandable), and it was a great moment when Sanders made the motion.

Because it was arranged for Vermont to vote last at the 2016 convention every state's votes were noted and recorded before the motion to nominate occurred.

Gloria Allred (who led the led the California delegation) was so angry in 2008 when she was told of the plan to have New York vote ahead of California that she showed up for the roll call with tape over her mouth.

[joshcryer]

139. Actually, 2008 was extremely vicious.

Obama literally brought back the Harry and Louise ad (with none other than the original Harry and Louise) that Gingrich threw at Bill Clinton in the 90s over health care. Clinton tried to tie Obama to Tony Rezko and all the shitty politics in Illinois.

It was bad. Really bad.

But Hillary Clinton endorsed Obama 4 days after losing and went on to campaign fervently for him.

While Sanders waited 8 weeks and 3 days before as much showing a gesture, reluctantly, without any sort of pure endorsement. I feel he was surrounded by his team of people and they made him lose sight of the bigger picture.

Hillary Clinton didn't once bring up any of the plethora of dirt that exists on Sanders in any form whatsoever. While Sanders was saying she was unfit to be the President, she sat back and counted the primary votes she was handily getting in states that are being affected now the hardest by this POS president.

[delisen]

52. I think Comey will definitely be in Clinton's book.

[Cary]

70. Blaming the press?

That's rather #fakepresident-ish. Isn't it?

[Demsrule86]

73. Yes, a coronation would have been preferable than Trump.

[karynnj]

105. You are assuming a coronation would have led to a victory over Trump

This contrasts to the entire narrative of 2008, where the many debates with Clinton and others caused Obama to improve as a candidate. I also remember that the coverage of Clinton's book tour - which was pretty mixed - was excused because she was "rusty" in dealing the media having been in a different role as SoS.

It also assumes as fact, Clinton's contention that Sanders created the narrative that led to Trump's "crooked Hillary". In fact, that is really the same playbook that would have been used in 2008 had she been the nominee. Much of it goes back to the 1990s. Not to mention, it conflates two things that are NOT the same.

What Sanders spoke of were economic policies where he was a democratic socialist - something she wasn't. The Clintons were among the first DLC Democrats. They rejected the union driven economic positions of the Democratic party for a more business friendly position while retaining socially liberal values. Income inequality increased consistently over the Clinton years, but was seen differently by them. The Clintons (and many Democrats) noted that income increased for all income groups. Sanders was more likely to see that the top groups gained the most, even in percent gain. His language was language he long used on income inequality. I would have expected the Clinton response would have been to argue that Sanders was far out of the mainstream. Rather than attack him as a Democratic Socialist, she turned this into Sanders accusing her of quid pro quo - which he didn't.

Sanders avoided - for the most part - any attack on her email issue.

Trump, on the other hand, attacked her on the full array of 1990s accusations, the email, Benghazi, her stamina, her health, AND that she was dishonest -- even as he was polled as being seen as dishonet by more people. (Not to mention, a better way to test this might have been to ask who was more dishonest -- a contest he would have won hands down.)

Consider that it is easy to frame Al Gore as "exaggerating" even as his reputation until then was that he was an eagle scout. Trump framed EVERY Republican in one way or another. His choice for Clinton was easy and did not come from Sanders.

[Demsrule86]

220. I believe had their not been a primary, Trump would have lost.

And I pray that Sen. Sanders will not run in 20 or we will surely lose again.

[joshcryer]

134. Would you prefer every loser to spend 8 weeks and 3 days not campaigning...

...for the winner?

[uponit7771]

199. Yes better a coronation than Benedict Donald

[Drahthaardogs]

270. She literally faced Jack the Ripper in the general election

And lost.

Bernie did her no favors, but she would have won if she'd run a better campaign. Trump has a 35% approval rating 9 months into his Presidency. Russian handicap or no, she should have beaten him. This is on her and her own team.

[beachjustice]

7. the bad decisions came from many sides. I don't think it's fair to lay this before Sanders' feet.

I also wonder how many of those Sanders supporters weren't just false flags trying to sow discord among Trump's opposition.

[Eko]

11. I think its hightime to talk about the

elephant in the room.

[arthritisR_US]

14. I agree but any time I have the post is removed. The battle

ahead won't be won by burying facts or discussion. Sad what things have become.

[leftofcool]

12. No shit!

[melman]

13. That's absurd

Anyone can see the opposite is true. Sanders is bashed constantly but you can't say anything critical about HRC.

[Ninsianna]

35. All the cheerleaders thanking Bernie for making the sun rise is "bashing"?

Anyone can see that it's absurd to state what you have, if one is aiming for the truth. Bashing HRC, Democratic leaders and Democrats themselves is what certain absurdists engage in, on a Democratic board. It's pointless to pretend otherwise, the evidence and the testimony to the contrary is plain to see, if one opens their eyes.

[melman]

40. 'All the cheerleaders thanking Bernie for making the sun rise'

Link please. Let's see an example of this.

[Ninsianna]

168. Eh, I don't have a star so I can't search the site, but-I'm sure you can do a search

for the "Thanks, Bernie" posts, so many of them, and from the same screen names. Not exactly difficult to find. Anything any Dem did, from Al Franken to Schiff, or Harris, is littered with them.

Good hunting.

Oh and I was being facetious with the "sun rise" stuff, but not by much. So many cheerleaders!

[Bradical79]

189. Google tip for any non-star members

You can search the site by using the keyword site: Example for searching Bernie Sanders related discussion here:

sanders site:democraticunderground.com

Just put that into google search and you can find any bernie posts on here. Of course it's a hell of a lot of posts to sift through, but just a tip to make searching easier for the less google literate people.

[Ninsianna]

200. Thanks!

And yeah, I'm not doing that for someone who has been on the site is simply not willing to look at the many many many threads that I referred to.

Thanks for the tip though, for when I'm looking for something specific, it will come in handy!

[JustAnotherGen]

65. Excellent reply

[cwydro]

16. Yep.

I don't get it.

But you're right.

[Kentonio]

42. No they are not, I had a post removed yesterday that was perceived as anti-Clinton.

[BeyondGeography]

60. That was a good post

It raised a legitimate point about the Clintons. A little fiery, but we used to be cool with that here.

[Baconator]

241. I had two hidden...

Someone was triggered and alerted on all of my posts after I suggested that Clinton made mistakes and was responsible for the outcome of her campaign.

[JCanete]

22. this is bullshit. Pay more attention. People on both sides say the same thing about who

gets alerted and who's posts get removed and its just hogwash no matter who says it. Plenty of alerters to go around.

[arthritisR_US]

26. I have never alerted on anyone but the few times I've said

anything about Bernie,that isn't praise, the post got removed. I can only speak to my experience and advise others likewise. You can call it bullshit or whatever else you want, fine by me.

[JCanete]

28. but look, if you can only speak from your experience, why make a bold statement

about how things actually work around here. Of course, anecdotally, if you don't alert, and you've been alerted on, that is going to be your experience. But unless you are actually looking at whether or not other types of posts are getting alerted on or removed, going that extra mile and declaring a double standard does none of us any good.

[Kingofalldems]

72. Just on a jury for this post.

Voted not guilty.

[JCanete]

242. good. Its a dumb claim, but it may as well stay to be soundly refuted. nt

[garybeck]

112. not my experience. the opposite in fact

i have found that if I say something supportive of Bernie, it gets deleted.

[arthritisR_US]

113. We share the same experience albeit on opposite poles. It worries

me that fee speech is being attacked. Silencing dissenting opinions is not going to result in unification, resentment is more likely to set in. Sad. Sorry garybeck that you've had to experience what I have,

[USALiberal]

153. FFS, this is total 100% bullshit! n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

15. Sorry, but on some issues it IS wrong.

And it is NOT "wrong" to point that out.

[Gothmog]

17. K&R

[leftstreet]

18. People here said Hillary was killing little kids?

Guess I missed that

[Ninsianna]

36. That's a common Right Wing disinformation point, and the folks who

very poorly conceal their true agenda are *still* repeating that trash. I've seen it here as well. In some of those archives people keep talking about.

[Autumn]

92. Got a link to those archives you have seen that people keep talking about?

[MrsCoffee]

106. .

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ademocraticunderground.com+hillary+killing+children

I was actually surprised that those words brought up any hits. Then I made the mistake of looking at a couple pages of those links. Very hard to wade through.

[Autumn]

109. Much of DU was always aginst cluster bombs and war . Discussion on Hillary's votes

and her stand on war and cluster bombs were going on well before she ran for President.

[MrsCoffee]

110. Understood.

[Ninsianna]

122. Nope. You've been here longer than I have, is it that difficult to figure out how to search

the site? Are archives some great secret that long timers are shocked exist?

[Autumn]

123. Already looked. Much of DU has always been anti war and anti cluster bombs way back to

when Bush 2 was selected and got his war on . Im sure it was well before your time.

[Ninsianna]

167. But blaming that on Hillary Clinton is very much a right wing thing.

It was well before my time, but I'm guessing the people who were repeating those right wing talking points and blaming Hillary were well aware of exactly what they were doing. One would think such outrageous nonsense would not be acceptable here, on a Democratic board, but it's pretty plain that we have some long standing members who are here to work against Dems.

There was something pasted from a CON site where they were bragging about their 13 year old accounts and how they've infiltrated various aspects of this site in particular. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that some say these things, but they found a willing and credulous few who couldn't get enough of anything negative about Hillary, no matter how absurd. That's how 2016 happened. We saw this all over social media and we keep learning who was spreading this stuff, why and who was eating it up.

It's rather sad.

[Autumn]

190. Hillary, like all Senaters was responsible for her own votes on cluster bombs and the IWR.

While Bush was in office a lot of people were against those things.

[Ninsianna]

204. Yes, EVERY senator is responsible for his or her votes, but if we're going to accuse

each senator of killing children every time they made such a vote, some people will be very very very upset about how their very favorite senator would measure up. There were LOTS of votes to bomb LOTS of places.

I hope those people who were against such things when Bush was in office were also against it, even when their favorite Senator or Rep voted for such things. I've noticed that some people get a pass for anything, while others are held accountable even when they cast no such votes.

I'm glad you think that people who voted for such things should be held responsible, and I hope it's not just Hillary that standard is applied to, and those that voted for Kosovo, for example, are responsible for the 400+ civilian deaths due to that vote.

[Autumn]

218. Here's what I do know, I know for a fact that many of those people who were against

such things when Bush was in office are still against it, even when their favorite Senator or Rep voted for such things. I thought one of the best days in my life was when I caucused for Hillary in 08. But really, the best one was when I caucused for Bernie and he won my state easily.

Being new here, I bet you don't know that some of her most ardent and strident supporters today absolutly despised her in 08 and said nasty things about her. If fact I've never seen worse things said about her than what some of her supporters said about her then. Do a search on 08 in those archives and enjoy the reading, you'll recognize many of the names.

[SMC22307]

252. I hear she won them over.

Mahalo!

[Autumn]

258. Remember how nasty the 08 primary got? I'm not in Hawaii so hi. Most of the names are the same.

[SMC22307]

269. Any way the wind blows...

Hmm, must be in the mood for some Freddie.

[Autumn]

271. Anyway at all.

[QC]

263. Mahalo!

[SMC22307]

268. ...

[betsuni]

53. I've teased people spreading anti-Hillary fake news and the reply was:

"Oh, you laugh at dead children?" Because Hillary is teh monster-warmonger. It was a popular propaganda talking point. That happened here.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

161. Yeah, me too.

[Ninsianna]

37. There is a difference between a Democrat saying and someone attacking from the outside,

that helps no one but the Republicans, it's what got us Trump. Enough already.

[JustAnotherGen]

67. Synopsis of your link

Please? I don't want to waste my time giving clicks to something unless I know it's a legit resource.

[George II]

94. Don't waste any time. It's a "video" of the theme song for the governing party of East Germany...

...the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. I don't understand the connection other than an attempt to insult Democrats. Highly offensive in my opinion.

[JustAnotherGen]

111. Thanks

Tsk tsk on the red baiting

[NurseJackie]

115. Looks like it's been deleted! I missed it (thankfully). Must have been a TROLL...

... based on your description.

[George II]

116. I forget who it was, but it was a back hand slap at Democrats.

[NurseJackie]

117. Definitely a troll. Maybe MIRT got him/her.

Thank goodness for MIRT!

[R B Garr]

20. Agreed, and thanks for saying this. I see it often

in other places. Enough is enough.

[JCanete]

21. ? I never heard it, as a sanders supporter, listening to sanders supporters. I have no idea

who those people are, nor how much influence such a ridiculous story would have had. the only people who would believe it are people who wanted to already. So how much is that really worth?

He has disagreements with the Democratic party leadership and so do I. You don't have any? What is insane exactly?

[BainsBane]

23. I certainly do

Last edited Wed Sep 6, 2017, 04:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Starting with the position of outreach leader and followed by Schumer's and Perez's giving people a platform to attack the party. I fault Perez for giving Nomiki Konst a position on the "unity" commission to push her segregationist voter disenfranchisement efforts. I object to not including reproductive rights in the recent slate of priorities, all to capitulate to an undercurrent that opposes equal rights.

I also object to allowing truly reprehensible policies and votes to go unchallenged: eg. Environmental racism and multiple votes against closing Gitmo. I object to the very strong tendency to elevate men of power over the citizens, to elevate multi-millionaire media personalities over workers, the poor, and voting rights. I object to efforts to roll back civil rights and reproductive rights, to hypocrisy and double standards, and to an effort to center the party around white male privilege at the expense of the rights and survival of the majority. In short, I object to the politics of bourgeois entitlement.

[JCanete]

25. yes, I almost spoke for the supposed "real" democrats who would say something similar. So you agree

that criticism of our party and the decisions made by our leadership should not be off limits. Good.

The voter disenfranchisement bullshit is getting a little old. Opening the door for more people to vote in our primaries is NOT disenfranchising people. Do you at least have a break down of people of color to white americans who are independent voters? Is there a huge disparity here? I've looked but I haven't found the numbers.

[BainsBane]

32. Replacing primaries with caucuses is disenfranchisement

It restricts, not increases the numbers voting. Caucuses have the lowest turnout, and are by far the most prohibitive system to the poor and people of color. They are over represented by white property owners. That is a fact, demonstrated by voter data. It is Exactly like voter ID, targeting the same people for the exact same reason. Konst could push for open primaries if she wanted a more independent, and therefore more conservative, primary electorate.
Instead she is seeking to replace caucuses to ensure that shift workers, the poor, elderly, disabled, women with childcare, and people of color don't vote. The goals are identical to the Kobash commission. With one major difference. Kobash doesn't conceal the fact elections are controlled by the states, whereas Konst misleads people into believing the DNC controls them.


Minority groups are overwhelmingly Democratic. That is the most basic fact of contemporary politics. That is what the Democratic brand is, that brand that is so disparaged in certain quarters. It is the party of the poor, people of color, women, and LGBT. The "identity politics" citizens whose rights are under assault.

Independents are overwhelmingly white. But that at least open primaries are legitimate point of discussion, unlike the racist disenfranchisement effort Konst and Kobash are leading.

Voter disenfranchisement certainly is old. It dates back to Reconstruction.

Your post is very illuminating. It clarifies your failure to express a word of criticism or disappointment on the issues I raised in previous discussion.


There is nothing in Hillary's remarks about not criticizing Democratic leadership. That is a disengenous cop out. It is you who are insisting the powerful not be challenged.

[JCanete]

44. I know that minority voters are primarily democratic as opposed to Republican. Do you know what the

independent population is? BTW, I'm just interested. I'm not claiming that its at a parity with white independents.

I'm not familiar with the Konst plan...is there a voter ID component? How is it stripping people of their right to vote?

As to the rest, I've tried to figure out how to respond to you. I don't have enough time to go through every single claim of yours right now. I looked at one of his gitmo votes. Were there more? Like I said, it is hard to make a determination about one piece of legislation, especially when it is a part of a huge piece of legislation. This was an amendment to a military spending bill about preventing money being appropriated to prisons to move prisoners from Gitmo to the states. Sanders makes a statement after his vote with most of the senate not to allow this, that he is in agreement with President Obama that Gitmo must be closed as fast as possible, but perhaps he had a problem with the uncertain conditions about how that money might be allocated. he certainly had a problem with the state of the prisoners, some of which having been accused of no crime. I think there was very legitimate concern about whether or not the solution to closing Gitmo was just to import it to the US and continue to house prisoners indefinitely....problem solved right? Totally better now that we're doing the same shit, different day, on US soil. It was a question of letting 10's of millions of dollars be used for such a purpose.

If you have a deep insight on this particular amendment and why it was a particularly bad one, by all means, I have no problem with disagreeing with my politicians. I have no problem with thinking Sanders was wrong on a vote. He had justifications, but then, yes, everybody will have justifications that they tell the public. But what cynical reasoning can you ascribe his vote? What could he possibly gain from a vote to prevent the closing of gitmo? It would make sense if he were already pandering to a particular audience or industry, . It would make sense if he had lobby or financial ties to something related to gitmo. It does not make any sense whatsoever if all he has is a certain line of rhetoric on the subject that he then chooses to contradict... because reasons.
Motives matter. If you can show me a plausible motive for his vote being based upon something other than his guiding principles and his understanding of the contents of the legislation, then by all means let me in on it. When a vote does coincide with funding of any kind, trust me, I want to know it. When it relates to pandering for fear of political backlash, I want to know it. What political backlash do you foresee Sanders getting for helping to get rid of Gitmo given his rhetoric about Gitmo already. Is it simply a mystery? Is he just a wild and crazy guy?

As to the comment about criticism...I was responding to somebody who had a problem with the fact that Sanders has disagreements with the Democratic party. It was apparently wrong for him to find fault with Dem party leadership. I didn't say anything about Clinton saying there should be no criticism. I was appreciating you agreeing with me that criticism is important and necessary.

[BainsBane]

249. Caucuses disenfranchise

Voter ID is not the only voter disenfranchisement effort. It was one the GOP chose to shape the electorate in ways that favor them. Before caucuses there were literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses. Caucuses have the lowest voter turnout of any system. They take place at one night or day and voting is allowed for one to two hours. That's it. It is extremely difficult to arrange absentee or proxy voting in most states. All data shows that caucuses disproportionately favor white property holders, who are far more affluent than the rest of the population.

You must have never worked on get-out-the-caucus efforts, or you would have encountered people who wanted to vote but could not: the elderly, the disabled, people who have to work, those with childcare obligations, and voters who find the process intimidating. That is why participation numbers are so small.

I sent you a link with all of his votes on national security matters. All of them. You can look through there to see any associated bills and amendments. There was nothing selective about that list. You can use that same site, votesmart, to look up votes under other subject areas or even all votes in all areas.

Of course you have a problem criticizing Sanders. You even have a problem criticizing his supporters, as your dismissal of the points I raised about voter disenfranchisement demonstrates. In another thread you pointed to a 2009 article from the ACLS to justify votes after that date. Clearly the issue of Gitmo and what that means for prisoners rights and US national security was not your concern there; rather your and the other poster's goal was to justify votes against closing the camp.

I approach politics very differently. My views are formed by what I think is morally just. I don't reverse engineer them to accommodate a particular politician's voting record. But then, I don't define myself according to any politician's career, and I don't spend off-election years attached to them. I wait until the election period and make a decision at that time. My views don't change based on who I support, and I won't justify votes that contradict with what I believe. I opposed and protested the Iraq War before and after it broke out, not just years later as far more have done. It played a large role in why I did not support Clinton in 2008. When I did decide to back her in 2016, I didn't run around making excuses for her vote (though I know some others did). I said it was wrong. I personally don't see why that is so difficult, yet somehow it appears to be impossible for a good many people, so difficult that they contort and twist their own views in order to accommodate the politician rather that asking them to represent their concerns I will never do that because I believe that politicians are elected to represent voters rather than citizens existing in service to any politician's political ambitions.

[JI7]

29. the Gitmo issue is interesting

it was brought up to attack obama throughout his presidency but then suddenly we stopped hearing about it . those who claimed to be concerned about it and used it to justify attacks on obama even though he did try to do something stopped bringing it up.

[BainsBane]

33. 4 votes against closing it

Only to get on stage and declare it an outrage that it was still open.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

192. But those votes weren't about "closing gitmo" - they were about importing gitmo to Illinois.

With the illegal trial less status in tact.

Here (I assume you know this. It's for other readers. Feel free to ignore and keep spreading this b.s.):

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/

Recall that the ACLU immediately condemned what it called the President’s plan to create “GITMO North.” About the President’s so-called “plan to close Guantanamo,” Executive Director Anthony Romero said:

The creation of a “Gitmo North” in Illinois is hardly a meaningful step forward. Shutting down Guantánamo will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its lawless policies onshore.

Alarmingly, all indications are that the administration plans to continue its predecessor’s policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location. Such a policy is completely at odds with our democratic commitment to due process and human rights whether it’s occurring in Cuba or in Illinois.

In fact, while the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies. It is unimaginable that the Obama administration is using the same justification as the Bush administration used to undercut centuries of legal jurisprudence and the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the right to confront one’s accusers. . . . .The Obama administration’s announcement today contradicts everything the president has said about the need for America to return to leading with its values.

In fact, Obama’s “close GITMO” plan — if it had been adopted by Congress — would have done something worse than merely continue the camp’s defining injustice of indefinite detention. It would likely have expanded those powers by importing them into the U.S. The day after President Obama’s speech proposing a system of “prolonged detention” on U.S. soil, the ACLU’s Ben Wizner told me in an interview:

It may to serve to enshrine into law the very departures from the law that the Bush administration led us on, and that we all criticized so much. And I’ll elaborate on that. But that’s really my initial reaction to it; that what President Obama was talking about yesterday is making permanent some of the worst features of the Guantanamo regime. He may be shutting down the prison on that camp, but what’s worse is he may be importing some of those legal principles into our own legal system, where they’ll do great harm for a long time.

[BainsBane]

212. Relocating the prisoners and closing the camp are the same thing

Last edited Thu Sep 7, 2017, 01:36 AM - Edit history (2)

The entire issue in those votes iwas that legislators didn't want the prisoners on US soil. There is no such thing as closing the camp without putting the prisoners somewhere.

And the only proposed location was not in IL. They were proposals to send them to different prisons around the country. Congress voted those down too. And while I can hardly be surprised that the authority you site is an editorial by the White Nationalists and Trump defender Greenwald, his claims are false. Putin's chosen intermediary just coincidentally was involved in the Trump administrations' arrest of a leaker, when every other publication managed to to protect their sources, only the intercept's source ends up in prison, and of course it benefited Trump and Putin.
Legislators voted down the bills because they didn't want Arab prisoners in their states. There is no closing the camp without dealing with the prisoners. Greenwald's clam otherwise is a bold-faced lie.

You know there was more than one bill. You had to have read about it at the time. Obama tried a variety of approaches to get congress to vote to transfer prisoners and close the camp, but they voted all of them down. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-failed-to-close-guantanamo
He released as many prisoners as he could, as the NYorker detailed story recounts. It remains open because congress refused to do what was ne essay to close it.

Pretending that an excerpt from a fascist shill explains why congress wouldn't allow Arab prisoners in America is bullshit. If you oppose closing Gitmo, have the courage to say so. This smokescreen could not be more transparent.

[JCanete]

217. What? No. Relocating prisoners under the same conditions, theoretically, is not the same thing as

closing what truly amounts to unlawful prisons circumventing the rights of people to be either charged and given a speedy trial or set free. Indefinite detention is not an acceptable solution. Nor would I want any of those hideous practices imported onto US soil or money given away to what is already a crooked as fuck and inhumane prison industrial complex in our nation to continue to incarcerate people without the same rights maintained by American citizens(to say nothing of the conditions our American prisoners suffer in).

The ACLU is not Greenwald, correct? The ACLU can hardly be accused of white nationalism, correct? You don't need to read it from him. Take it from them.

https://www.aclu.org/news/creating-gitmo-north-alarming-step-says-aclu?redirect=national-security/creating-gitmo-north-alarming-step-says-aclu

[BainsBane]

248. rights are determined by courts

And their presence on US soil would mean they would be treated as any other US prisoner.
Nor does a 2009 piece by the ACLU justify congress' repeated refusal to authorize transfers after that date.
The New Yorker article I linked to above gives a detailed history of court rulings and efforts by the Obama administration, including Clinton as SoS, to get congress to authorize the closing of Gitmo. Pointing to single statements from 2009 or specious 2010 editorials by Trump and Putin collaborators does not explain the failure of US Senators and Congressman to vote to close Gitmo.

[JCanete]

264. you need to point to the specific points. that New Yorker article is impressive, but if you have a

specific vote that you have a grievance with, please point it out so i can go right there and research it in reference to Sanders. What's the bill or amendment and I'll look it up?

I'm not sure why you assume that the presence of such a prison on US soil would automatically imply what you think it would. Do you know how we maintain supposed illegal immigrants on US soil currently? I'm pretty sure that shit isn't constitutional either but it persists. Money has a way of letting all kinds of unconstitutional shit(or what should be interpreted as unconstitutional shit) slide.

Again though, you cannot dismiss those "specious" editorials without also calling the ACLU's problems with the bill specious, and I hope very much that we both have a lot of respect for the work the ACLU does.

I will say, of course the GOP had entirely different reasons for impeding such an action, and of course some of that is related to the bullshit fear-mongering about housing potential terrorists on US soil, which is pretty fucking embarrassing justification, but whatever. But I think its pretty obvious that the reason liberals in particular didn't fall in behind these proposals, is due entirely different reasoning.

[Cary]

74. One fellow that you may know well insisted that Clinton would be indicted for email

How was that helpful to Democrats?

Is that specific enough? I could give you a thousand examples of erstwhile Democrats doing Exactly what Bannon wanted. Bannon was able to manipulate the New York Times so why not go after lame antelope lefties?

Joshua Green describes this in "The Devil's Bargain."

[JCanete]

119. It isn't specific enough. Who was it? Also, that isn't somebody I well know saying he was in favor

Last edited Wed Sep 6, 2017, 04:02 PM - Edit history (1)

of killing little kids, which was the claim made by the op. Your alternate claim does not make the first one any more attributable to anybody but fringe characters. That is hardly worthy of being hung around the necks of Sanders supporters.

I looked into and found Cenk's speculation that if you have that many investigators investigating you, there is likely to be an indictment. He was wrong. I don't see anything in that exchange that suggests he claimed that she was guilty as sin. What he said, which is funny given how many people want to attribute Clinton's loss to Comey(I blame the media more than Comey-not that he didn't have an agenda), is that if Comey had a Republican oriented agenda, he might wait to indict a few days before the California primary to not disrupt the result--clinton would still win given the mail-in ballots, but to throw her campaign into chaos going into the GE, and put a strain on the Dem party. Instead, what did happen, was Comey released to the press the intention to reopen the investigation two weeks before the election, erroneously tying her to the disgraced Weiner at the same time, which, indictment aside, is exactly the kind of political meddling that Cenk was speculating about, by the exact same person. It just wasn't an indictment.

Nor did Cenk ever say that an indictment was a certainty. He said if you don't think she "could" get indicted, you are either grossly ignorant or lying." I don't see anything absurd in that given that indictments can be used as political weapons. Clinton was probably too big of a target for it to be used on her unless they had paydirt, which they did not, but what is your major beef here?

[Cary]

120. I have zero interest in anything "being hung around the necks of Sanders supporters."

My interest is in getting Democrats elected and I don't think it serves us well to succumb to "conservative" lies and smears. Cenk is an idiot. Sorry, but that's how it is.

Oh, and I think you know that particular person very, very well. I'm glad, though, that you find him to be a "fringe character."

My "beef" is that we should not fall into cons, like those created by Bannon, or Rove before him, or Atwater before him. "Conservatives" lie. The irrational loathing of Hillary Clinton was, in fact, aided and abetted by certain erstwhile leftists. I am not going to label all Sanders' supporters. That would be inaccurate. Most Sanders' supporters are not guilty and in fact many of them shared my consternation and dismay at the people like our friend "JC."

To this day he is belligerent and obnoxious about it, although he claims he voted for HRC.

[democratisphere]

24. If you believe the Democratic Party is wrong on an issue then lobby to attempt to fix it.

Don't engage with subversives that divide, undermine our cause and destroy our ultimate goals.

[askyagerz]

27. Honestly

You are all like a bunch of bickering kids. Shits getting old. No wonder this party is screwed at the moment. Quit blaming everyone and everything on not having the numbers in a numbers game. For a bunch of political junkies you have all seemed to forget how politics work.

Bernie brought newbies in who would have never voted Democrat. Never will... Quit whining because they didn't just jump over to our side. Yes there is a few whacked out Bernie supporters who say stupid shit but everyone has fringe supporters. You gonna base the majority on the few? That makes you as bad as them.

The world is hurting in so many ways right now and you are all still having a pissing contest over Bernie and Hillary? Both excellent examples of human beings so good luck with all that. ...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

38. Well said... the time is WAYYY overdue for folks to move on.

[bluestateboomer]

34. I supported Bernie

Gave money to Bernie.

Never thought Hillary was evil and voted for her in the GE.

I still think the Democratic Party needs to be more progressive and I think Bernie continues to push in that direction regardless of his affiliation. I will continue to support those ideas and if Bernie articulates them. So be it.

[Jarqui]

63. I'm close to this position

it took me weeks/a few months to come around

I was a Sanders supporter who was more anti-Trump than pro-Hillary. Anti-Trump is what brought me around/back into the fight.

If Hillary had won, I would not have been truly "happy" because I do not trust her. I just would have been greatly relieved that Trump was not president and that all the things achieved under Obama were likely to be safe (which was a significant part of my anti-Trump sentiments).

I still identify with Sanders positions far more than Hillary's in terms of where I think the Dem party should be.

If Sanders had run as an independent (like some folk imply he should remain), I do not see how that would have helped Hillary in the general election. Sanders did the Dem party a favor by not running as an independent

Any good Dem candidate would have provided Hillary with this sort of excuse so I'm not deeply buying into it. Sanders credible candidacy was a factor in her defeat but not a good excuse.

The fact is the general election featured two pretty flawed candidates. The Russians and GOP voting scams put their finger on the voting scale and that seems to have resulted in Trump being "elected" (if one can still say that after all the garbage that appears to have gone on).

Hillary had a lower ceiling that made her more vulnerable to Trump than many other candidates. I think Sanders would have beaten Trump handily because unlike Hillary and more like Trump, he would be perceived with his history as an independent by more as a outsider - someone who did not represent the status quo like Hillary did. Obama's election was a nation looking for change. I think that was a factor for Trump vs Hillary and would not have been nearly as much if Sanders was the candidate.

Having said that, I agree with those who feel it is time to move on. Neither Clinton nor Sanders are likely to be the best candidates we can come up with for 2020. We need to find that agent for change.

[alarimer]

84. I agree with this.

A more progressive, less corporate candidate is what I wish for.

[Demsrule86]

219. And I wonder if your reluctance to support Sec. Clinton influenced others to not support her.

My contention is voters who complained about not trusting Sec. Clinton on social media or just discussing it with whoever...did just that... I mean really who could have been truly happy if Clinton had beat Trump (sarcasm)? Perhaps the dreamers, women, people of color, LGBTQ and people who will no doubt lose their health insurance since McCain now supports repeal.

[Jarqui]

228. When Bernie lost, I dropped out of sight for many weeks.

I cannot recall any threads asking where I went. I doubt my disappearance had much impact.

When I returned, I kind of held my nose with respect to Hillary and went after Trump. My efforts were to encourage supporting her over Trump and that is largely what I did. I hammered Trump - under news articles around the web, etc - like I did for Obama's GOP challengers.

I'm sure Clinton supporters would have been very happy if she had beaten Trump. Although I support dreamers, women, people of color, LGBTQ and health insurance for all, etc and have all my life, I would have been merely relieved Trump did not get into office because I was one of the 60% who do not trust Hillary - I lacked confidence she would do as she promised because of her history of flip-flops on issues (LGBT for example).

I'm not going to suddenly stand in front of the mirror and lie to myself about how I feel. I came by my position honestly based upon facts and events I observed. I support Democratic causes but I have problems with candidates, on the left or right, who have multiple issues with their integrity like Hillary has. Just because she prevailed in the primary with a suspect or corrupt DNC doesn't change that. I do not think Hillary is nearly as dishonest as Trump is but I think Bernie's trustworthiness is significantly better and the polls back me up on that.

[Demsrule86]

229. I don't mean here ...I saw folks on various forums...say awful things about Hillary...or

question her motive...all sorts of things....it didn't help the cause...many ultimately said they would vote for her but how many based on their words did not? I am not singling you out or suggesting you did this...but many did.

[Jarqui]

235. I was so disillusioned, I looked around

I checked out Stein, etc but wasn't sold.

I was at a point where in good conscience, I couldn't support anyone. I did not think any of them deserved to be in the White House but since it looked like it couldn't be Trump, I'd just sit this one out.

As Trump closed the gap, I got increasingly concerned and came back.

Right or wrong, that was my evolution.

Folks can try to spin it however they want. Bottom line was as a candidate, Hillary didn't win me over - that's her fault. I'm far from alone on that count. It was my fear of Trump as president that got me back in the fight. From that point, i fought as hard as I could to prevent him from winning.

I cannot stand Trump. Never could. Worst president ever. I couldn't stand George Bush but would vote for him before Trump. I like Hillary better than Bush. I'd love Obama for another 40 years.

[Demsrule86]

236. At least in the end you voted for decency...many didn't . And I condemn everyone of them...and wish

then as much suffering as any dreamer will endure because of their vote or lack there of.

[Jarqui]

239. If Trump doesn't get us all killed or ruin too many lives,

hopefully, the horror of his presidency will teach America a good lesson.

I do not want to settle for "ok"

Whether it be in sports, medicine, industry, etc, the cream rises to the top and the best do well.

We need an election system that attracts excellent candidates for president. The job is more complex than ever. When it comes to that and the impact these men or women can have, I will not be happy with second best or worse. We have to get the best and the brightest to do this job. Increasingly, with Obama as arguably an exception (maybe Jimmy Carter though fewer others would agree - he's a case of too few figured out how good he really was), the presidents of the last 50 years haven't been that hot.

We need "great" not "good". Great will make me happy. Good will not make me happy. Just because we have a stinker now doesn't mean I'll be happy or content with a replacement who is not great.

[Demsrule86]

232. Even now with Trump, you can not be entirely behind a Clinton victory that is sad...personally,

I think she was a fine candidate and do not buy the bullshit attacks against her...I would have been delighted had she won or anyone besides Trump for that matter. As for Clinton's flip flops on LGBTQ... I see it as evolving as Pres. Obama did. If the GOP puts a few more Gorsuch's on the courts, you could see homosexuality re-criminalized. Consider that. The consequences of a Trump presidency are dire:particularly in the courts.

We are not supposed to discuss, the primary so I can't answer your in my opinion erroneous words about this, I will only say consider the vote tallies at the end, and also that caucuses are undemocratic and do not reflect the true vote in a state. Trump is not merely dishonest, he is a sociopath. And it is a disaster for this country and progressives that he was elected.

[Jarqui]

238. As I felt then, I'd be very relieved if Hillary was president over Trump

Trump has turned out just as frightening as he seemed to be. At least Hillary has a functioning brain.

But that doesn't mean I have to be "happy" about someone being president that I did not think would make a great president. I think America deserves a great President. Not just an OK one or one who merely lies less than the one we've currently got.

I have standards or expectations and Hillary didn't measure up. Trump falls far shorter. Neither make great presidents in my opinion and a great president is what I require to be completely happy about the situation.

Yes Trump is a sociopath, narcissistic, chronically dishonest and a disaster waiting to happen etc. Would you be happy with Mike Pence? He's not Trump. He's a lying asshole too. Not good enough. I do not think he could be as bad as Trump but I wouldn't be happy with him - not even close. Hillary is much better than both but I wouldn't be completely happy with her either. America deserves the best. None of these people measure up for me. If Hillary was perceived as such hot stuff for president she should have kicked Trumps ass handily. A hunk of that responsibility for her falling short lies with her - not with me.

[ihaveaquestion]

39. Nope - never heard/read anything about HRC like that.

If it had 'spread like wildfire' as you say I think I would have heard about it.

And why do you care what Bernie Sanders says about the Dem party? Is he not allowed to criticize it? Is it somehow above reproach?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

163. Me neither... seems rather odd.

[Kentonio]

41. Oh give me a break.

It's now 'insane' to say the Democratic party can be wrong sometimes? What kind of Stalinist crap is this? Was the party right when it supported DOMA? Or the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act?

As for killing kids, what people actually said is that they weren't happy that she'd supported the Iraq War and showed signs (such as calling Kissinger a great friend) of being ok with other military adventurism. How is being anti-war suddenly a strange position for Democrats to take? It's now 'insanity' for us not to tug our forelocks and just go along with whatever major party figures tell us is right?

No thanks, if I wanted to be a puppet I'd join the GOP.

[ucrdem]

43. It was clear to me that he was going to.

There was no incentive for him not to. I still don't understand what the logic was.

[jalan48]

45. I thought it was Comey that tanked Clinton.

[karynnj]

48. Comey and her poor handling of her email and the email issue

Her numbers changed as the email story happened in 2005 and her numbers tanked with the two Comey letters.

All could have been avoided had she worked to give the SD her work email in early 2013. There were already requests for some when she was Secretary. This whole issue was a self inflicted wound.

[Lee-Lee]

55. I've said that before about the emails- other people failed her

From the very beginning on it.

Reading the FBI and other reports it confirms what I already would have suspected, that Hillary wasn't very tech savvy. That is not a dig, it's the norm for people of her age.

But I doubt that when she was taking the SOS job if you asked her she could tell you one bit about the difference between an email server or a standalone system or the how-to of setting one up or getting it to your devices.

She said she wanted email to her Blackberry. People around her who worked for her made it happen and chose how they did it. I doubt they ever actually told her what the we're doing to any degree of specificity. Those people failed her and started the chain of events.

They decided it was the best course of action to run all work and personal email through a private server and then they handled how those records were turned over to State at the end of her tenure and they managed the server and how the responses were handled.

They failed her. Big time. First by not seeing how the private server idea would be problematic down the road. Second by not setting it up with a more professional system and staff. Third by not properly archiving all the work related emails to stay on record at State. And last by never keeping her fully informed on just what/how they were doing everything.

She trusted people areound her to do the right thing when she just wanted her email to work like she wanted it to work, and they failed her.

[karynnj]

98. Note that she kept that same team which made these decisions

Not to mention work emails were NOT turned over at the end of her tenure in January 2013. In spring 2014, when the fact that she had not done so reached higher level State Department people, they had to "negotiate" with her to get those records. They did not get them through the informal request, so the State Department PUBLICLY asked all former SoS for their email. They then received them in December 2014.

Other than that, I do agree that the people around her let her down. However, I would suggest that as they fought the SD on technology, they did so because she wanted them to. In addition, I can not believe that Clinton, a lawyer with long Governmental experience did not - at minimum - separate work and personal - even if they came into the same account.

In addition, it is pretty clear that when the SD found there was a problem in 2014, Clinton did NOT push to quickly resolve it. This goes to transparency -- an issue she already had had problems with.

[Demsrule86]

75. It wasn't just Comey. The bitterness during the general was horrifying.

[jalan48]

80. Don't forget the Russians. Lots to blame there as well.

[Demsrule86]

91. absolutely.

[ProfessorGAC]

49. And I Disagree!

Yeah, a few Sanders fans acted like babies, took their ball and went home!
The vast majority voted for HRC. If they hadn't, HRC wouldn't have gotten 3+ million more votes than the loser she beat.
To suggest as you do, the math shows the outcome would be improbable, approaching impossible.
So, you posted a divisive opinion piece without the slightest evidence, while ignoring the actual facts.
Nice going!

[kcr]

50. I will never forgive him n/t

[calimary]

129. Nor will I.

[Blue_true]

137. He should have united after getting stuff in the platform.

Taking things to the convention and not advising him people against causing the chaos that they did is unforgivable, IMO.

[kcr]

222. Yes. It became about Berne Sanders. He felt entitled and angry when he didn't get it.

And he wasn't going to graciously let her have it. He didn't seem to notice or care what that was going to cost the country. I will never forgive.

[shanny]

51. BS

[betsuni]

54. K&R

[stonecutter357]

57. K&R

[ornotna]

58. The beatings will continue till morale improves

[DiverDave]

59. Oh, BS!

Voter supprrsipn gave the election to that turd.
NOTHING ELSE!
to say it was anything else is just trolling.
Go away

[NastyRiffraff]

121. "NOTHING ELSE"???

You seriously believe there was one, and only one, factor that led to the monster in the WH? Really? How about:

Russian interference
Comey
So-called "progressives" who voted 3rd party, didn't vote at all, or who actually voted for Trump (yes, it happened, and the aggregate of those three was significant).
Sanders' lukewarm (at best) support for the Democratic nominee
And yes, voter suppression.

To pretend it was only the last, and ignore the rest, is being in denial. There will be many studies about the 2016 election, because what happened was a perfect storm of many factors.

[Vinca]

61. 2016 is over. Past. Can't be changed.

At this point I don't really give a shit whether Bernie tanked Hillary or Hillary tanked Hillary or Russia tanked Hillary. I'm more concerned about our collective asses being eliminated in a nuclear cloud. Please. It's time to think ahead.

[dembotoz]

64. In my state Clinton tanked Clinton

She focused on states she wanted to win and towards the end ignored where she HAD to win.

Why are we still blaming Bernie?

[LexVegas]

66. I witnessed minorities being attacked by some Sander's supporters. Here. nt

[mcar]

79. I did too

Several were alert swarmed and driven off this site. I miss their voices and perspective.

They were even alert stalked in the AA group.

[Hekate]

108. Yes, dammit.

[joshcryer]

145. Over on the crazy site minorities are attacked on the regular.

[DemocraticWing]

68. Bernie was 100% accurate in his descriptions of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party

[Demsrule86]

76. Why then are you here?

We elect Democrats.

[melman]

107. Are you the gatekeeper?

[mcar]

71. His Our Revolution wants to primary Dems who aren't "pure"

(Anti abortion is OK though.) And they will support Rs.

[Demsrule86]

78. Yes this is why I say it is not over...the same folks who tanked the general in 16 may do it again

in 20.

[Blue_true]

149. 46% of people didn't vote.

One thing about republican voters is they get to the polls extensively. I am guessing a lot of the home sitters were our people, some may have thought Hillary had it and did not bother. We need to get the sit at homes voting and tell our revolution to go fuck themselves.

On Hillary, I do think that she should have spent more time on the campaign trail, it was two days campaigning for her and one or two off. A woman candidate simply must be prepared to outwork a man, sad reality but a true one and it won't be changing until women control the halls of power top to bottom.

[Demsrule86]

224. There is a mix of conservatives and progressives who don't vote...many live in red or blue states

too...so they don't bother. There was a great deal of effort to get people to the polls. In my small city, Clinton beat Trump...however, I believe she went into the general as a weakened candidate attacked by the left and the right. I hope those who pretend to be progressive and didn't vote for Clinton pay a heavy prices...worse that those they threw under the bus.

[Blue_true]

243. The far left bomb throwers have safe situations.

They like Susan Sarandon are worth $63 million, or Cornell West who has academic tenure and a good salary, plus he can write a book and have it sell well because of his name.

They don't worry about the rent or whether the EBT amount is adequate to make the month, or how they will get to work if their old ass car breaks down. The far left bomb throwers live in a fantasy world.

[Demsrule86]

247. Yes they do..they are the entitled and the privileged mostly.

[alarimer]

77. Bullshit.

If it is true, then she was too weak. A robust primary system is necessary; otherwise we end up with candidates hand-picked by unelected gatekeepers.

The Democratic Party IS wrong and has been for a long time.

[Demsrule86]

81. A 'robust' primary system can damage the winning candidate...and it costs money and time.

In this instance we went to the general with the candidate and the party weakened...and it continues with groups like our revolution and now move on.

[Blue_true]

245. The people.

Did you read that poster's BS. The talk of elected gatekeepers. If there were 0 super delegates, the Democratic Base had decided that Hillary was the person they wanted to carry their flag. We are talking everyday working people, the maids, janitors, teachers, some cops, some firefighters, lawyers, doctors, nurses, ect. There was no damned kingmaker behind a curtain pulling levers. What the poster that you replied to wants is a primary where every candidate but the one preferred by the poster gets unfairly handicapped out of the gate. Screw them.

[Demsrule86]

246. Yes I did read it...and you are right...we had a primary and an election. We lost

Now is the time to support and rebuild the party not waste money on primarying sitting Democrats...for once could some of these folks consider the GOP more dangerous than Dems who they mostly agree with?

[Blue_true]

244. Then get the hell out and form your own party. nt

[HughBeaumont]

82. Oh STOP it with this fucking shit. NO one gets a blank check.

What's the message here?

"Progressives will NEVER get a seat at the table . . . but her loss is YOUR fault because we need your votes"??

Yeah, good luck winning with THAT logic.

[KTM]

100. +1

[Raine]

127. Yes, exactly! nt

[Demsrule86]

225. ' A seat at the table' can be defined as 'my way or the highway'...and yes if you are

a Democrat or even progressive, you should vote Democratic. Are you actually saying that more liberal Democrats should withhold their votes until the perfect candidate who reflects all their views is on the ballot?

[dembotoz]

83. what keeps getting lost is hrc was the ideal candidate for trump to run against

her weaknesses played directly into his strengths

bernie this bernie that does not matter...in the end hrc had all the appeal of a used Yugo to too many people

[HughBeaumont]

87. To your point, I think her lack of public visits to swing states killed her chances.

Obama, as a candidate AND a President, made sure to visit Northeast Ohio at public stops with great frequency. Burke Lakefront. Mall C. He drew thousands upon thousands wherever he went, and he didn't "over-promise" anything. He did the same in WI and PA.

Obama's campaign had an awesome ground game and won 22 Ohio counties (OHIO, a churchy Sea of Tea) in 2008 and 18 in 2012. Where were these stops with her? What was her campaign thinking? She only won EIGHT Ohio counties (would have been seven, but they recounted Lorain, a traditional Democratic stronghold).

The enthusiasm factor matters. Her campaign was more at ease putting her in front of $1500-a-plate fundraisers than the public.

[dembotoz]

97. yep

and the campaigns preference for the fundraisers fed right into trumps populist she does not represent you appeal

[Blue_true]

157. Good observations.

I made that point earlier. She was off the trail too much. She should have done two-three campaign stops per day and fundraisers at night, IMO. Say what you want about him, Trump was on the trail a lot, doing 2-3, sometime 4 stops a day, he spewed nonsense, but at least his people saw him and got jacked up.

[Act_of_Reparation]

85. I'm beyond sick of this bullshit.

Every fucking day some Monday morning quarterback who can't even be bothered to spell check their posts believes they've got the 2016 election all figured the fuck out and, conveniently, can package their explanation in a summary so fucking short it can fit on a goddamned bumper sticker. Well, la-de-fucking-da. What the fuck are we paying political scientists for? With anonymous internet experts abound, we clearly do not need them.

You want to know what's daft? Thinking some seventy-year-old man with crazy hair and a New York accent single-handedly poisoned public opinion against the Democratic Party. It's doubly daft given Bernie Sanders isn't saying anything even remotely fucking novel, and triply daft given the results of the 2016 election were essentially predicted back 1988 by one of those political scientists we don't need anymore because we have anonymous internet experts and that's how we're doing things now.

[mythology]

86. One minor problem with that

A higher percentage of Sanders of Sanders supporters voted for Clinton than Clinton supporters who voted for Obama in 2008.

I have problems with Sanders (as I do with every politician), but he campaigned for Clinton, he encouraged his supporters to vote for her.

[BeyondGeography]

89. As Al Sharpton once said sometimes you've got to slap the donkey

After decades of wealth redistribution to a narrow group at the top, I say here's to the donkey slappers.

If an old left/independent Senator was enough to tank someone with Hillary's resume, maybe we have bigger issues than Bernie.

[Autumn]

90. There were many things that "tanked" Hillary not just Bernie Sanders and his supporters

Some pople who supported Bernie were not Democrats,many of them are the ones who I believe went on to vote for Trump. There are always third party voters, there have been in every election in my life.
Hillary won. I don't know what else to tell you. She fucking won by over three million votes. Those voters who voted for Trump in the end didn't matter. She won, she got more votes than Trump, she could have won by 6 million votes but she didn't win the EC votes. Those were the votes mattered.

I never saw any Sanders supporter here on DU say that Hillary was pro killing little kids. Got a link? The Democratic party is not infalible and it's insane to think they are perfect. Bernie has always caucused with the Democrats, he's been a reliable vote and he has worked hard for the Democratic party's values and principals.

[Arazi]

96. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, Russian meddling, Comey etc tanked Hillary

Laying this on Bernie is such bullshit. This feud must stop if we want to win in 2018

[0rganism]

114. i think the summary word is "overdetermined"

and yes, we need to stop the backbiting and infighting if we want to win in 2018.
however, it seems that there are many who would rather revel in recrimination than win in 2018.
2018 is our last shot at this whole democracy thing as far as i can tell, last gasp of the Old Republic right there. time to win or get ready to leave.

[Eko]

125. Sounds good.

June 9th.
During his speech, he repeatedly criticized the Democratic Party, calling it an "absolute failure," and blaming it for the election of President Trump. "I’m often asked by the media and others: How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopular presidential candidate in the modern history of our country, won the election?" Sanders said. "And my answer is that Trump didn’t win the election; the Democratic Party lost the election. Let us be very, very clear: The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/bernie-sanders-lambasts-absolute-failure-of-democratic-partys-strategy

“Some Democrats have lost their souls,” Turner said. “I’m not gonna name any names, [but] the establishment wing ... [has] to decide if we’re the party of corporations or the party of the people.”
Aug 24th.
https://mic.com/articles/184038/our-revolutions-head-says-democrats-have-lost-their-souls-she-will-make-them-find-religion#.r6kXovnsw

[0rganism]

237. thanks, glad to have you on board

it would be quite unpleasant to see someone on this message board posting primarily to stoke division and alienate potential Democratic voters running up to crucial midterm elections. thank goodness you're not doing that!

[haveahart]

101. It's like trying to convince the red-state voters about Trump. You can't do it.They live in a world

of alternative facts. They will never admit to others how wrong they were about Hillary and the true role that they and Bernie played, among other factors. in her defeat. AND for many of them, they will always be lodging a "protest vote" agains the Democratic party. Thus, we need to decide how were are going to live in an alternate universe for the next 7 years.

They are not with us. Period!

[Still In Wisconsin]

118. Yawn. n/t

[jalan48]

124. Tankers I say!

[Raine]

126. Same old, same old

[gtar100]

130. Oh for the love of Pete! Hillary won! It was the shit that the repugs threw

that caused her loss. All this talk about blame on our side is about trying to get over the hurdles of republican cheating and stealing the elections. We are all good people here (with the exception of disruption trolls), and it's laudable to stand by the principle of personal responsibility. But the real problem is with republicans. If we'd focus on that we'd really get somewhere.

[Chasstev365]

132. This is SOOOOOOOO helpful right now!

[Eko]

140. You know what,

anything I say here is so small, it wont change much if at all. This does so maybe you should talk about this.
June 9th.
During his speech, he repeatedly criticized the Democratic Party, calling it an "absolute failure," and blaming it for the election of President Trump. "I’m often asked by the media and others: How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopular presidential candidate in the modern history of our country, won the election?" Sanders said. "And my answer is that Trump didn’t win the election; the Democratic Party lost the election. Let us be very, very clear: The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/bernie-sanders-lambasts-absolute-failure-of-democratic-partys-strategy

“Some Democrats have lost their souls,” Turner said. “I’m not gonna name any names, [but] the establishment wing ... [has] to decide if we’re the party of corporations or the party of the people.”
Aug 24th.
https://mic.com/articles/184038/our-revolutions-head-says-democrats-have-lost-their-souls-she-will-make-them-find-religion#.r6kXovnsw

Who is hurting the Democratic party more? me or them?. If my little self on a Democratic forum is not helping, what is their message on mainstream media doing? Nothing?

[Chasstev365]

150. What are you trying to accomplish? What's your goal?

Seriously, what do you want?

[Eko]

154. Maybe I see a danger

to the Democratic party that I think others have not and am trying to raise awareness. Sanders democratic party is an "absolute failure," . But me saying Sanders tanked Clinton is decisive.

[joshcryer]

133. Here's my post on the matter:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2681335

Sanders took 8 weeks and 3 days to endorse Clinton. That's 8 weeks and 3 days not campaigning for Clinton. That's 8 weeks and 3 days for the working class to be clowned by the fascist. That's 8 weeks and 3 days we'll never get back.

[Blue_true]

162. I agree. He did not work for her until like September, I think.

Taking things to the convention when the Democratic base had soundly rendered it's decision is unforgivable. Even when he did campaign for Hillary, he was lukewarm about it.

[joshcryer]

201. He was surrounded by sycophants.

And they gave him shit advice.

They, first, and foremost, wanted him to "modify" the Democratic platform, which was 98% of what he wanted anyway. And they put a fucking Jill Stein (racist) supporter on there. It was atrocious.

The far left, politically, is a joke. A joke of epic proportions. If you're far left and aren't a-political, you are literally a joke. (Note: I support the apolitical left, as I am one, every 4 years.)

[Blue_true]

203. The issue that I have with hot far left people like Sarandon, West, Turner.

Is they are unreliable, you never know when they will put a knife in your back. I like more predictability in politics. I am center-left, but I will support a Democrat from across the spectrum over any republican.

[Madam Mossfern]

135. Can we please just stop this already?

We have elections to win.

[Eko]

144. That would be nice.

June 9th.
During his speech, he repeatedly criticized the Democratic Party, calling it an "absolute failure," and blaming it for the election of President Trump. "I’m often asked by the media and others: How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopular presidential candidate in the modern history of our country, won the election?" Sanders said. "And my answer is that Trump didn’t win the election; the Democratic Party lost the election. Let us be very, very clear: The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/bernie-sanders-lambasts-absolute-failure-of-democratic-partys-strategy

“Some Democrats have lost their souls,” Turner said. “I’m not gonna name any names, [but] the establishment wing ... [has] to decide if we’re the party of corporations or the party of the people.”
Aug 24th.
https://mic.com/articles/184038/our-revolutions-head-says-democrats-have-lost-their-souls-she-will-make-them-find-religion#.r6kXovnsw

[denbot]

136. Stop disrupting.

You are trying to keep reigniting the primary interfighting. I won't speculate as to why..

[Eko]

142. So post election is not important?

June 9th.
During his speech, he repeatedly criticized the Democratic Party, calling it an "absolute failure," and blaming it for the election of President Trump. "I’m often asked by the media and others: How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopular presidential candidate in the modern history of our country, won the election?" Sanders said. "And my answer is that Trump didn’t win the election; the Democratic Party lost the election. Let us be very, very clear: The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/bernie-sanders-lambasts-absolute-failure-of-democratic-partys-strategy

“Some Democrats have lost their souls,” Turner said. “I’m not gonna name any names, [but] the establishment wing ... [has] to decide if we’re the party of corporations or the party of the people.”
Aug 24th.
https://mic.com/articles/184038/our-revolutions-head-says-democrats-have-lost-their-souls-she-will-make-them-find-religion#.r6kXovnsw

[denbot]

147. I've alerted on your OP and this reply

I refuse to further to engage those whom I feel are disrupters.

[Eko]

151. Ive already survived

juries on this. I'm disruptive? Sanders says the entire Democratic party is an abject failure and I'm disruptive. Okedoke.

[Madam Mossfern]

152. I've alerted on this too.

I liked to old jury system where you could see juror's comments and you got feedback if you did alert on something. Now it seems that whether you alert or if you sit on a jury, the results go into a deep hole.

[Eko]

166. I also liked the old system.

I canceled a jury call just a few min ago due to the poster saying a lot of what I am saying. I just felt that it would not be proper for me to jury that since I had skin in it. I'm sorry you felt the need to do this, I just see that Sanders and his surrogates have moved form attacking Clinton to attacking the Democratic party. Is that as dangerous a threat as Dump? probably not. But, it is a serious threat? Yes.

[Madam Mossfern]

170. Not as a Bernie supporter, but as a Democratic Chair of my town

I think that we need to look at strategies for winning in the upcoming elections. By looking back to see where the Party may have made unfortunate decisions on strategy, we can assure those wins. By blaming it on one person and not looking inward, we stand to lose.

I assume that you're an ardent Clinton fan - that's fine, but this is no longer about Clinton, nor Sanders. This is about the soul of our nation. Bringing it back to the Clinton/Sanders issue doesn't help us and only drains energy and serves to divide us.

[Eko]

172. And this doesnt?

Sanders, Democratic party "absolute failure". Is there anything I have done that compares to the impact that had?

[Madam Mossfern]

173. Is he still saying that?

Is anyone saying that here?

[Eko]

174. He said it on june 9th.

His surrogate
“Some Democrats have lost their souls,” Turner said. “I’m not gonna name any names, [but] the establishment wing ... [has] to decide if we’re the party of corporations or the party of the people.”
Aug 24th.
https://mic.com/articles/184038/our-revolutions-head-says-democrats-have-lost-their-souls-she-will-make-them-find-religion#.r6kXovnsw

[Madam Mossfern]

181. Not him and two months ago

OK

I think we're beating a dead horse here.

[Eko]

183. Was him.

June 9th
During his speech, he repeatedly criticized the Democratic Party, calling it an "absolute failure," and blaming it for the election of President Trump. "I’m often asked by the media and others: How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopular presidential candidate in the modern history of our country, won the election?" Sanders said. "And my answer is that Trump didn’t win the election; the Democratic Party lost the election. Let us be very, very clear: The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/bernie-sanders-lambasts-absolute-failure-of-democratic-partys-strategy

[Madam Mossfern]

186. I stand corrected

[Eko]

188. No problem.

Im glad that we can both be honest, that is what I love about DU, you will find honesty and genuine people more often than not.

[left-of-center2012]

138. Stop the Bernie bashing

Time to move forward

[Eko]

141. Tell him to stop the Democratic party bashing.

June 9th.
During his speech, he repeatedly criticized the Democratic Party, calling it an "absolute failure," and blaming it for the election of President Trump. "I’m often asked by the media and others: How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopular presidential candidate in the modern history of our country, won the election?" Sanders said. "And my answer is that Trump didn’t win the election; the Democratic Party lost the election. Let us be very, very clear: The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/bernie-sanders-lambasts-absolute-failure-of-democratic-partys-strategy

“Some Democrats have lost their souls,” Turner said. “I’m not gonna name any names, [but] the establishment wing ... [has] to decide if we’re the party of corporations or the party of the people.”
Aug 24th.
https://mic.com/articles/184038/our-revolutions-head-says-democrats-have-lost-their-souls-she-will-make-them-find-religion#.r6kXovnsw

[left-of-center2012]

146. I say, good day, sir

[Eko]

148. Why is this not a problem for you?

If I say Sanders tanked Clinton that is unacceptable but him saying the Democratic party is an absolute failure is ok?

[Madam Mossfern]

155. I wasn't aware

that Sanders is posting here.

[Eko]

158. So

On DU, important, on national news, not important. Ok, good day sir.

[Madam Mossfern]

160. Sir?

Have you read my screen name?

[Eko]

164. I apologize,

profusely.
Please accept my apology Madam.

[left-of-center2012]

169. Donovan

I'm just mad about Saffron
Saffron's mad about me
I'm just mad about Saffron
She's just mad about me

[Eko]

171. Im not mad at anyone.

Sanders democratic party "absolute failure".
Eko, "Sanders tanked Clinton".
Who sounds mad?

[left-of-center2012]

175. Donovan song lyrics

You just didn't get it.

When Quinn the Eskimo gets here
Ev'rybody's gonna jump for joy

So said 'The Mighty Quinn'.

(That's Bob Dylan)

[Eko]

176. I understood that it was Donovan lyrics.

If I didn't get it feel free to educate me.

[Chasstev365]

178. They call Trump Mellow Yellow! (Especially in Russian hotel rooms!)

[left-of-center2012]

193. Good one !

[SethH]

156. Bernie pulled his punches

Obama attacked her harder in 2008

[Eko]

159. And Sanders and his

surrogates keep attacking the Democratic party. See a pattern yet?

[JoeOtterbein]

179. "Sanders supporters on here said that she was pro killing little kids" ???

That is horrible. I would like to learn more. Do you have any links to those DU posts?

[Eko]

180. Yup,

I dont want to do meta, message me and I will give you the link.

[JoeOtterbein]

182. I think we all at DU need to see it. I would add it if I just PM you anyway.

[Eko]

185. Then that would be on you.

Not me. I understand that this post is walking the line, Im not going to push further. If you want to you can.

[Eko]

187. Just sent it to you.

[VOX]

184. See my post #177 above. It's true.

Not quite as blunt or direct as "She's pro-killing little kids," but mighty close. The sub-posts are most telling.

Here's one link, but there are more to choose from:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/12511311927

[ecstatic]

191. Good points. You can't navigate the future without understanding the past

Also, another problem we have is all the confusion surrounding the election and what really happened--was it outright stolen, did Russian interference definitively change the outcome, or Comey, or voter suppression, etc. etc. It's hard to move forward with so few answers.

[mjvpi]

194. If a "Saunders supporter" accused HRC of killing little kids, I think that you found a Russian troll

And took it hook line and sinker. Maybe you need to branch out from this site to get your news.
I have been a Bernie supporter for the last 10 years. In the house and the Senate he has been a much more dependable Demacratic vote than my Demacratic Senators, specifically Max Baucus. I supported him, even though I live in Montana and he represents Vermont, bacause over the period of time I watched him, he was one of the most principled politicians I have seen in my lifetime.

Please pay attention to what is being talked about in terms of he Russian interference in our elections. Stirring up social media and political websites was he M O. It did happen and is continuing to happen. Threads like this serve no constructive purpose. Do you really want to alienate all of the hard core progressives on this site?

[Eko]

196. If I need to.

Maybe some people need to wake up and see what is happening.

[bronxiteforever]

195. Millard Fillmore tanked John Fremont

[QC]

262. And I have never forgiven the Whigs for that!!!

[G_j]

197. how to

make DU suck..

exhibit Z

[Eko]

198. Thanks!

Awesome post!

[jg10003]

207. Trump lost the popular vote because Cruz, Jeb, and Rubio, criticized him during the primaries

What I can't understand is how Obama won the general election in 2008 after Hillary criticized him during the primaries.



P.S

A 2010 study in Public Opinion Quarterly found that in the 2008 election 25 percent of those who voted for Clinton in the Democratic primary ended up voting for Republican John McCain, rather than Barack Obama, in the general election.
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

[Eko]

210. Could be for a lot a reasons.

do you have an idea?

[Susan Calvin]

208. Oh give me a ing break.

All the garbage going on and you contend someone attempting to tell the truth as he sees it broke the US? Please.

[Eko]

211. I never said anything

about breaking the US, those are your words not mine.

[Susan Calvin]

209. And the circular firing squad continues. nt

[Baconator]

213. Clinton tanked Clinton...

[Eko]

216. Awesome argument.

[Demsrule86]

221. Not true though...if one looks at the facts surrounding the election....and those same forces are

engaging in destructive behavior as we speak which will possibly tank 18 for us.

[Baconator]

227. Well after 200 posts most of it has already been said...

The point stands though.

She is responsible for her campaign and the fact that it was even close should be proof enough that there were serious issues besides Russians and Comey.

[jalan48]

230. The sooner we can can come to grips with this the sooner we can move forward.

Blaming others won't win us future elections.

[nolabels]

226. Does this change anything in the here and present?

The chasm between the corporate controlled establishment party and majority of people in the party is vast. The OP seems not to understand what is really being debated on. It's not a clear issue and there are many shades of gray within it. Many people are also using divisive tactics and to engage with them is just mostly a waste of time

And now I am done wasting mine

[Quixote1818]

251. Sanders was very easy on Hillary compared to Obama

Go to the 3:20 mark of this video:

&t=4s

[Willie Pep]

253. Most Sanders supporters voted for Clinton.

Those that voted for Trump, stayed home or voted third party were likely not going to vote for Clinton even without Sanders being involved in the race.

[dchill]

254. Who tanked who?

Or is it whom? How is this useful?

[get the red out]

256. Hackers tanked Clinton

With a little help from their friends in the media and Comey.

[heaven05]

261. "hackers tanked Clinton"

true, along with Comey and a whining angry infantile bloc of voters for 3rd party candidates or those who voted for candidates without a message to minorities that was realistic and true or they just didn't vote at all. AmeriKKKa doesn't need and minorities don't need some "pie in the sky 'economic parity', true americans need to be about solving the major cultural, generational, institutional and systemic problem of white supremacy and racism and stop all this whining and pining over a primary election loss that could have NEVER been a win in the GE. Period.

Kamala Harris et al. are the future of this Party and people not wanting to recognize this fact are in an Independent Socialist WING of the Democratic Party and must be marginalized as such.

[get the red out]

265. Yes

I agree with everything you said. Politics and ideological purity don't go together well. The Republican tent gets smaller every day and are now the KKK party willing to destroy democracy to stay in power, and still are terrible at actually governing and have backed themselves into a corner with their purity where the face death through demographics. Unless they manage to create a dictatorship, this is a very short term strategy.

The irony is that we can achieve a LOT of what the purists say they want, but they want it twenty minutes after the next D President takes office and all at once. Completely irrational. For instance "Don't ask, Don't Tell" was still in effect when a rather moderate President Obama took office, now gay marriage is legal throughout the country and the right is hanging onto being anti-trans by their fingernails.

We can do this but we also need to face the fact that politics takes time and work, with compromises along the way. JMO.

[heaven05]

267. Politics is compromise

just the nature of the beast, but not submission to white supremacists and racists of the type running our country now. I agree totally with your assessment.

[heaven05]

259. every word

TRUE....HE was a large part---or his angry supporters who REFUSED to vote for HRC were hugely responsible for this disaster we have now pretending to be potus. They want everyone to turn a blind eye to that reality and even want us to consider an 80 year old for a future potus...give me a break...I tell them get over it, he didn't even make it past the primaries and move on...help now instead of threatening to give more power to the RW because of your INFANTILE anger. And I am glad to see and read her words....not so much his.