Bernie backers' attacks on Democrats infuriate the party

[TexasTowelie]

Prominent Democrats are increasingly riled by attacks from Bernie Sanders' supporters, whose demands for ideological purity are hurting the party ahead of the 2018 midterms and 2020 presidential election, they say.

But it’s not just the outside agitators that Democratic lawmakers, operatives, and activists are annoyed with: They’re tired of what they see as the senator’s hesitance to confront his own backers, either in public or through back channels.

Tensions boiled over recently when a handful of Sanders loyalists bashed freshman Sen. Kamala Harris — a rising star in the party and potential 2020 hopeful — as an establishment tool. Democrats were also rankled that other prominent Sanders allies said support for single-payer health care should be a litmus test for candidates.

In response, Democratic senators and outside groups have begun telling Sanders and friendly intermediaries that if he wants to be a leading figure for Democrats ahead of 2020’s presidential election, he needs to get his supporters in line — or at least publicly disavow their more incendiary statements.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/08/bernie-backers-attacks-infuriate-democrats-242386

[Kentonio]

1. Ooh, another Bernie bashing thread?

Cool, that will definitely be hugely helpful to lowering temperatures here and bringing us together. Excellent work.

[NurseJackie]

3. How so? Which part? I didn't see anything that was "bashing Bernie".

Which parts of the OP or the linked article do you object to?

[mcar]

9. Compared to the pretty vicious attacks

I've seen here on Feinstein, Pelosi, Harris, Booker and, of course, HRC, that we are told are constructive criticism, this is nothing...

Except a true analysis of an issue that even Dem leadership seems to be aware.

[DetlefK]

16. How dare you not suck up to the Bernie-Bros? The Democrats need their votes!!!

[Hortensis]

135. Russians, Kochs, agents like Bannon are the big issue -- Pro trollers are using Bernie posts

and anti-Bernie posts to keep this forum stirred up and distracted from what the Republicans are up to.

These have nothing to do with progressive policies themselves, except as part of the large picture of defeating Democratic candidates in 2018.

[HughBeaumont]

12. Yeah (looks at watch), must be Friday.

More predictable "unification" on the way from people who think of progressives as fluff-pushing, impractical clowns (but still, you need our votes, right??). They don't seem to get that they're hanging ALL of us with this horseshit.

Unbelievable.

[melman]

25. 'They don't seem to get that they're hanging ALL of us with this horseshit'

Or maybe they do get that.

[George II]

58. You're right. But considering the subject line, remember who the "they" are.

[BainsBane]

176. It is the determination to defend everything

said or done in Sanders name and demonstrate contempt to those who raise any concern about it that, in your words, "hangs all of us with this horseshit. All you need to is say you don't approve of it, yet for some reason the outrage is directed toward those who dare discuss it. THAT is what reveals priorities and allegiances, and it is completely voluntary.

[Expecting Rain]

63. No, we don't think of non-voting and Stein voting clowns as progressives.

That's the point. Those who attack the Democratic Party constantly and aid Republican victories are "regressives."

Clear?

[HughBeaumont]

75. I attack them for not supporting multi-payer and shitting on progressive positions.

I attack them when they keep kicking the can on multi-payer, calling it "politically unattainable" and thus buoying Mercantile CullCare.

I attack them when they do absolutely nothing to contain hyper-capitalism. I attack them for waffling on minimum wage.

As a parent of a child with a pre-existing condition, it's my every right to do so.

Frankly, ever allowing fuckloser assholes like Joe Lieberturd, Mary Landrieu or Max Baucus in this party did far more damage to it than any Bernie Sanders EVER did.

CLEAR ON THAT?

AND STOP WITH THE GODDAMNED STALKING.

[R B Garr]

79. Don't you want an answer from Bernie on why Vermont doesn't have single payer?

I sure do. And no excuses about the governor. REAL ANSWERS NOW.

[Gore1FL]

125. That's a pretty simple answer; they didn't have the votes.

If the elected progressive majority (23-7) in that state were not afraid of actually being progressive, they'd likely have it.

[R B Garr]

126. That's not the only or real reason. And no excuses, especially if you shame

and demoralize Democrats for something you can't do yourself.

[Gore1FL]

144. Sanders isn't a member of the VT legislature.

Are you proposing he overthrow the state government? If not, what actions should he be taking to "do it (him)self?"

[R B Garr]

149. You don't have to be a "member" of anything to influence, right? He's not a "member"

of the Democratic party, but he wants to criticize and influence it. So that's just an excuse.

He needs to be honest with voters about why Vermont doesn't have single payer

[Gore1FL]

152. He's a member of the left coalition. As Democrat I am OK with it.

Democrats need to be Democrats again. This 1970's GOP look-alike strategy has proven to be a failure. I am glad people are recognizing it. It's too bad more empowered Democrats need it to be pointed out to them by people like Sen. Sanders.

The reason VT doesn't have single payer is how I outlined it above.

[R B Garr]

158. He needs to be honest with voters about why Vermont doesn't have single payer.

That still stands. His reasons for not obtaining single payer are the same as other politicians, yet his stump speeches do not reflect that and no one questions or challenges him.

He needs to quit demonizing good Democrats for something he hasn't gotten done himself.

[HughBeaumont]

162. Speaking of "Good Democrats" . . . .

. . . . why did these "Good Democrats" go along with Republicans to hijack America on two Public Option proposals?

If one cannot even see the value of a public option . . . . you shouldn't even BE in this party. They really shouldn't. Mercantile CullCare is barbarism. A recognized universal human right shouldn't take bravery to support or be controversial. It's self-serving bullshit.

[Gore1FL]

173. VT doesn't have single payer because of the reasons outlined. It has nothing to do with Sanders

Trying to make the failings for the VT legislature into a failure of Sanders is disingenuous nonsense. It's weird that you insist on clinging to this untenable piece of illogic despite being corrected multiple times by multiple people.

Democrats need to stop cowering in the corner hoping the GOP doesn't hurt them. Standing for Democratic ideals would be a good start. If you are going to blame Sanders for Democrats being policy wusses, then you ought not be annoyed when he criticizes them for being that way.

[R B Garr]

175. It would not be difficult for Sanders to explain why Vermont does not have single payer.

By your own standards, demonizing Democrats for failings beyond their control is also disingenuous nonsense. It's weird that you insist Sanders can hold other Democrats responsible for waving a magic wand to make single payer happen when he hasn't done it for Vermont.

Other Democrats don't have rallies calling others out with a moral authority. Moral authority would imply a lot of accomplishment to back it up. No reason he should not also be held accountable.

[Gore1FL]

177. He could easily. I did. They didn't have the votes.

If he explained that despite the huge advantage the Democrats/progressives vs GOP has, they still couldn't get the votes, I suspect people around here would get "the sads" because it would be criticizing them.

If you insist on continuing this argument, could you please come up with an argument that hasn't been destroyed multiple times by multiple people? Thanks in advance.

[R B Garr]

178. "They didn't have the votes." That's a passive voice. It's a politician's job

to muster votes for his agenda. It's not like Sanders doesn't know how to reach anyone in his state. He also advocates for regular citizens to lobby their representatives, so surely he could do that himself. To the extent he couldn't muster the votes, then he needs to explain his efforts and describe what their objections were.

No need to make this personally about me. No one has a response to this, so it definitely hasn't been destroyed.

[Gore1FL]

180. He doesn't have a position in the state legislature.

If yo uare simply going to be intentionally obtuse, then there is no reason to continue this discussion.

[R B Garr]

182. This is just an excuse. Pelosi gets her votes in line.

Surely he knows how to contact people in his state. Build a coalition, that type of thing. It's not hard to understand or expect from someone claiming to lead a revolution. Do it in your own state first.

[Gore1FL]

184. ...

What part of "if you are simply going to be intentionally obtuse, then there is no reason to continue this discussion" did you not get?

[R B Garr]

186. Making this personal about me is another excuse. Building coalitions is part of politics.

Making excuses as to why he could not build those coalitions in his small state should be asked of him every time he talks about it. There really is no excuse as to why he couldn't advocate his fellow statesmen/women to join his cause. Just passively saying he couldn't get the votes doesn't say anything at all. In fact, the governor provides an explanation, calling single payer "burdensome". I guess that means expensive. Bernie should be talking about that. He should know the issue back and forth and why each politician in his state rejected it, and he should share that with people.

Makes you wonder why Rendon in California is being threatened with a recall, but none of Sanders' supporters question why Bernie has not come through in his own state. Why aren't Vermont politicians being threatened over this like California is???'

Recall for California politician:
https://ballotpedia.org/Anthony_Rendon_recall,_California_State_Assembly_(2017)

Death threats for California politician:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article158738529.html

[Gore1FL]

188. Nothing about it is personal.

You keep making the same failed argument over and over and over.

I don't have time to remind you that your argument has been refuted by me and others. You repeating incessantly it doesn't make it valid.

When you decide you want to discuss this sensibly, I'll be happy to. If you simply want to waste my time, please refrain from responding.

Thanks.

[R B Garr]

189. It hasn't been refuted. Not ever. You and others haven't refuted it. Ever.

This is just a tactic to make things personal to try and browbeat people.

There is nothing wrong with asking why he can't work with other politicians to get single payer in Vermont. There are other people who are not politicians who are making efforts. No one said you have to be a politician to contact people. If he wants to work nationally, then start locally. Very simple.

[Gore1FL]

192. Jesus Fucking Christ

What part of
"When you decide you want to discuss this sensibly, I'll be happy to. If you simply want to waste my time, please refrain from responding." Do you not understand?

[R B Garr]

199. You could take your own advice about not wasting time. If Sanders' could not

get it through in Vermont, then he should not be quietly allowing his supporters to abuse other good elected Democrats.

It's not a difficult concept. Not difficult at all.

It doesn't matter what the reasons were for the failure in Vermont. He should be EXPLAINING them to people instead of leading them to believe that the only reason they don't have single payer is because Democrats are not working for them. That is blatantly false as proven by the failure in Vermont.

I don't see anyone attacking Vermont politicians over single payer failure. So why the hell are they being attacked in other parts of the country. It's absurd to allow other politicians to take abuse for something you haven't done yourself -- whatever the reasons. Explain the reasons to people. Explain why Vermont doesn't have single payer -- whatever the reasons are -- explain them.

You should quit making this personal. You are being deliberately obtuse yourself about what is being said here. If Sanders' wants to be a microphone for single payer, then show us how it worked or didn't in his own state. But, then he would have to explain why it failed, so.........

[Gore1FL]

201. Bye Felicia. nt

[R B Garr]

202. How typical. Attempting to make things about me personally means you don't have to answer

why Sanders' won't explain to people why Vermont doesn't have single payer. Whatever the reasons, he needs to explain them before he demonizes Democrats. People are sick of the double standards.

[R B Garr]

205. You should take your own advice.

[Gore1FL]

206. You should take lessons in logic.

Go away.

[R B Garr]

207. You should take your own advice.

wtf

[Gore1FL]

208. Congratulations. You won my first ignore in over 16 years of membership. nt

[R B Garr]

209. How lame. I haven't been forcing you to post.

You have been obsessed with making this personal. Imagine how it would have been or what it will be if/when Bernie is ever actually challenged on the litmus tests for Democrats which he could not meet himself with Vermont not having single payer.

[Ken Burch]

195. It's not his fault Vermont doesn't have single-payer.

Vermont doesn't have single-payer because the insurance industry bought just enough "no" in the legislature to kill it.

It's not as though he didn't do all he could on that.

[R B Garr]

200. Not really. Just a quick Google shows a few reasons for the failure in Vermont.

The failure in Vermont should be explained to people. That is the point. Instead of allowing his fans to attack other good Democrats over their realistic concerns about single payer, he should take the lead and explain to people why Vermont doesn't have single payer. It is truly amazing that he is not asked about this every time he talks about it.

Why the hell isn't he disavowing his fans from attacking this good progressive California Democrat. Why aren't Vermont politicians subjected to this insanity over single payer??

Why is a California Democrat being subjected to a childish "recall". Who would support turning good Democrats out of office for this nonsense.

Attempted "Recall" of a progressive California Democrat
https://ballotpedia.org/Anthony_Rendon_recall,_California_State_Assembly_(2017)


Death threats to California Democrat:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article158738529.html

[Ken Burch]

210. I don't know anything about the Rendon recall, and that link doesn't work.

I don't condone death threats against anyone.

[Ken Burch]

211. OK. I checked. The governor refused, at the last minute, to implement the plan.

He only won re-election because he promised to implement it. He gained nothing for the party by doing so and no greater progressive good was served.

That outcome isn't on Sanders at all.

As to single-payer in California, if it's not passed before the next election it will never happen. And between now and the next election, if that doesn't go through, what else could the Assembly do in that time would be significantly progressive? It's hard to imagine anyone even trying to get anything major in Sacramento passed there now. They'll just do the capital and operating budgets and there won't be anything transformational in those with this little time before 2018(though I'd be glad if some were).

[R B Garr]

213. Ugh, no, and the excuses for him are absurd. It was a test of his leadership and he failed

in his own state. No one asks him about that. He didn't have to be governor, he just had to be a leader, especially if he is purporting to be a leader on a national level. And your description is not accurate, either, as to what happened. It's just excuses. It's absurd that he puts himself in a position to judge Democrats with so few accomplishments to provide as examples.

Neither you nor I are experts on what happened in Vermont, but the end result is Vermont doesn't have single payer so it's obviously more complicated that just being for or against something. That's what Sanders' should be explaining to people. NOT proposing litmus tests for Democrats over something he couldn't get done in his own state.

[Ken Burch]

214. He did lead. Single-payer had been passed. The governor didn't implement.

There was nothing Bernie could have done to get the governor to change his mind. And the governor actually owed his re-election to Sanders allies-the Vermont Progressive Party chose not to run a candidate for governor and that is the only reason our Democratic incumbent stayed in office.

How was Bernie supposed to change the governor's mind on that?

Once the legislature passed the bill, it was out of everyone's hands other than the governor's.

[R B Garr]

216. None of what you said about the governor is accurate. And none of what you said

precludes Bernie from telling people why Vermont does not have single payer. You must realize that people can easily Google the subject and see that your comments are not accurate about the governor in Vermont.

Bernie is not a victim of the governor. This whole charade is about protecting Bernie from criticism, when the responsible thing for him to do is to inform people of the problems with single payer being passed and quit blaming Democrats for something he has not done himself. If Bernie can't convince one governor from a little state, then why smear other Democrats who face the same realities.

This is not a difficult concept. Quit smearing Democrats for something you have not seen implemented in your own state, and be honest with people about why it is not passing. I note you left out the cost factors that the Vermont governor noted and also the lack of cost information that the speaker in California faced that forced the bill into review.

You can easily Google Jake Tapper's recent interview with Bernie about this subject. He asks why Vermont doesn't have single payer. At least now he is being questioned.

Bernie should stand behind California Assemblyman, Rendon, who is being targeted for a bogus recall over this single payer subject. Bernie should disavow his supporters harassing good elected Democrats over this when his own state didn't want it.

[Ken Burch]

217. Single-payer was passed in Vermont. The fight was won. It didn't lose in the legislature.

There was no non-conservative reason for the governor not to implement it. It was in the governor's hands and he promised to implement it.

I often criticize Bernie myself, but why do you act like it was Bernie' personal failure that it didn't get implemented

There was nothing else he could have done, and there was no valid reason for the governor NOT to implement it.

I checked Google for my info, btw. Once the legislature passed it in 2011, no further legislative action was needed.

[R B Garr]

219. LOL, Vermont doesn't have single payer. That is a fact. It was too expensive, which you

pass off as "no non-conservative reason". So why didn't Bernie convince the governor to spend the money? Why isn't he disavowing other Democrats being excoriated for something his own state couldn't afford? None of what you say excuses Bernie from explaining to people why Vermont doesn't have single payer. Why aren't Vermont politicians being targeted over their single payer failure as other politicians are in other states?

You now shift your story into blaming Democrats who talk about costs as being conservatives. It's obvious this whole charade is not about actually implementing single payer, but rather a political ploy. The whole thing falls apart just by asking why Vermont doesn't have single payer.

It's obvious why Bernie won't talk about Vermont not having single payer and gets defensive when asked about it.

[Ken Burch]

220. It was simply the governor's belief that the plan was too expensive.

The governor knew what it cost when he won re-election by promising to implement it.

It's not Bernie's personal failure that the governor happened to go back on his word on this.

It would be no change to have a plan with, say $500 deductibles and $50 copays. That wouldn't be anything.

[R B Garr]

221. Nothing you are paraphrasing excuses Bernie. He can explain to people why Vermont doesn't

have single payer. He can explain that instead of leading people to believe that Democrats aren't working for them. That is divisive, damaging, and hypocritical, especially because Vermont doesn't have single payer.

You have also combined wrong information about a couple governor candidates there. The stories are easily Googleable, and there are actually two people you are referencing as one.

The point is that every single politician faces these obstacles, so quit blaming Democrats for something you can't get done yourself.

[Ken Burch]

222. Bernie doesn't run the Vermont state government or rule the state as his personal fiefdom.

Your argument is the equivalent of arguing that LBJ had no right to fight for a federal civil rights bill because the State of Texas hadn't already ended Jim Crow within its borders.

Bernie is just one figure in Vermont politics. It doesn't discredit him or disqualify him from fighting for single payer that the governor of Vermont, the person who was governor from 2011 to 2017 and was the only person who was governor for that whole time, went back on his promise, a promise he was morally obligated to keep, to implement the single-payer bill that was already passed. There was nothing Bernie could have done that would have made any difference, and there was no good reason for the governor to settle for nothing beyond simply setting up an exchange in the ACA-an approach that means Congress can leave Vermont with no healthcare at all by repealing the ACA.

[Gore1FL]

204. Good luck on this. In this sub-thread it feels like arguing with an illogical tape recorder.

I expect on Climate change topics, the argument will be along the lines of:

"James Hansen was born in IA and he cannot convince his own Senator, Joni Ernst, of Climate Change realities--No use in trying to solve it."

[R B Garr]

132. That's laughable. Vermont is one of the smallest states. Surely he can get it done

there with all his "popularity". NO EXCUSES.

[R B Garr]

137. That's laughable. He is supposedly so "popular", so why can't he

influence people in his own state. He imposes those standards on Democrats, so why can't he meet his own standards??

[R B Garr]

143. That's laughable. If Bernie was so influential and popular, he could have

gotten single payer passed in Vermont. It's interesting how he is allowed to hide behind excuses like "local politics" or "state level politics" when he is attacking and shaming good Democrats for dealing with their own political realities about single payer.

And your excuses, "What about Obama", gunZ! What about Kamala! What about Hillary! None of those politicians are putting themselves out there as moral authorities on issues they can't get done themselves., i.e., hypocrites/double standards.

And obviously you don't even know the details of what happened with single payer in California.

[R B Garr]

150. But Bernie isn't a member of the Democratic party, either, yet he wants to throw his

"influence" around there. So why can't he do the same in Vermont, little tiny Vermont... If he was so influential and popular, prove it in Vermont. That's just basic politics.

He should be honest about why Vermont doesn't have single payer before he beats down good Democrats.

[R B Garr]

156. This is laughable. Bernie also has a leadership position with Vermont's

party. Why can't he get single payer passed in Vermont. That's what he needs to be honest about instead of attacking good Democrats who have the same limitations.

Funny how a "magical wand", is mentioned condescendingly when protecting Bernie, but then expect good Democrats to wave "magical wands" around or face ridicule and harassment. People see through this hypocrisy and the double standards.

[LanternWaste]

139. You'll of course, lay our the precise path for his implementing this particular policy, yes?

You'll of course, lay our the precise path for his implementing this particular policy, yes? (I'd yell, "No excuses", but adulthood precludes that type of grade-school petulance).

Or as you simply making allegations predicated on a dramatic lack of relevant state-level knowledge of policy and implementation?

(Five'll get you ten it's the latter; and five'll get you twenty you rationalize a most creative excuse why your allegation is not an excuse).

[George II]

134. Yes he does, all Senators and Representatives can affect legislation in their home state.

[George II]

153. Why did he go to West Virginia to speak?

[George II]

157. So, he holds town halls in West Virginia but doesn't address legislation in his own state?

[Ken Burch]

218. No U.S. Senator ever lobbies his own state's legislature.

The legislation was passed in Vermont in 2011. All that needed to happen was that the governor had to implement it, and even though the governor owed is re-election to the Left in Vermont(the Progressive Party chose not to run a candidate in 2014), he chose not to implement it.

Once the 2011 legislation was passed, no further state legislation was needed. There was nothing Bernie could do. The man's made his share of mistakes, but it's bogus to blame him for the governor not implementing the legislation that was passed three years earlier.

[Expecting Rain]

82. Dude, posting on an open discussion forum isn't stalking.

Where do you come up with this crap?

I sence the anger you seem to feel towards DEMOCRATS, but I'd suggest this might not be the best place to deal with your unresolved issues.

This forum is for people who support DEMOCRATS.

Clear?

[HughBeaumont]

97. I support Democrats when they act like Democrats.

Not when they lose us elections to bad candidates, demonize a human right or support Republican candidates.

[Expecting Rain]

99. We read you loud and clear.

[R B Garr]

101. Love that Wiki page about Joe, which calls him a "righteous tightass".

Now they are clownishly editing Wiki pages.

[HughBeaumont]

130. It's rationalwiki.

Totally serious when it comes to debunking illogical arguments and anti-science bullshit.

Only semi-serious when it comes to political figures and celebrities.

[leftstreet]

86. +1

[Expecting Rain]

191. I'm clear. You bash DEMOCRATS at every opportunity.

On a forum for DEMOCRATS.

What's up with that?

[HughBeaumont]

197. Joe Lieberturd was once a Democrat.

The point stands is that his kind has done far more damage to this party than any progressive ever has. That's indisputable. Opposition parties are supposed to OPPOSE, not "Adopt bad policy".

And why am I talking to a person who thought going to war with Iraq (which, last I checked, killed thousands of people) was a good decision anyway?

[LexVegas]

18. ...

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. Heh.

[Perseus]

37. Instead of reacting that way

you should face the facts, and this is someone who supported Bernie Sanders, but the reality is that Bernie doesn't do enough to make people like you understand that we either unite or the man-child will stay in power, so take your pick.

If Bernie understands the danger that the man-child and his supporters (Republican party and deplorable) represent for the USA and the World, and I do think he understands which is a reason for more puzzlement on why he behaves the way he does, then he would rally his base very hard to prevent another GOP win.

Divided we fall, united we win.

So, instead of coming up with your post, which only creates more division, start by talking to those who think like you and bring them over to join one cause, and that is to defeat the GOP in 2018, and in 2020, to make sure that Trump and his band of thieves do not stay in power.

Think about it, we went from G. W. Bush to Trump, and anyone who thinks that it cannot get worst is only fooling themselves, it CAN get worst, the GOP can throw and intelligent evil candidate next time, so far he has only thrown an idiot and a buffoon (not an amusing buffoon at that), but it can get worst, yes "It CAN happen here!".

[Kentonio]

51. That's amusing

In the face of endless posts aimed at us trying to create division, the onus is apparently on us to be the uniting force?

You may have missed the many months where I kept asking people to put this crap aside and focus on facing 2018 as a united team, and how that was sneered at, mocked and roundly ignored. Any call for unity was met with accusations of being a 'concern troll' or snide little insinuations that we weren't real Democrats. So fuck it frankly, if people want to pick fights they'll receive exactly the same attitude in return. Apparently a Trump white house and red congress isn't enough for some people to put aside their butthurt and focus on things that actually matter.

[LuvLoogie]

39. This is the Democratic Underground. Democrat bashers will stand opposed

Dish. Take.

[Lil Missy]

45. Where do you see bashing in that post?

Stating fact(s) are not the same as bashing. Maybe the fact(s) are unpleasant, but Bernie does not get a blank check for current events just because it reflects poorly on him.

[Kentonio]

52. Oh we're in to 'stating facts' now are we?

That's interesting, because earlier there was an article on The Hill about how increasingly pissed off significant members and funders of the party are at Hillary acting as a divisive force and how they wish she'd 'Shut the f**k up and go away' as one quoted source put it.

You know what I didn't do? I didn't run here and post that article, because I knew it would serve absolutely no purpose other than to piss off her supporters and divide us even further than we already are. Perhaps if a few more people followed that policy, half the forum wouldn't be at each others throats right now.

[LakeArenal]

80. Yes, the "facts"

Next we will get the lecture on how we can't distinguish "bashing" from legitimate "criticism"..

Shortly after that, someone will call someone ridiculous. Or maybe silly...

Then we'll hear, if you don't like it "use the alert click"

Next we'll hear how it's the lower number questionable posts...

Then a high post number bully will dog someone four or five times because they disagree...

Never gets old around here for some folks...

[Lil Missy]

171. Changing the subject does nothing for your argument.

[George II]

57. Read the article, this is about his supporters, not him.

[comradebillyboy]

107. A major theme of the article is about Sanders failure

to confront or even criticize the bad behavior of some of his most extreme supporters. So the article is in fact a pretty harsh attack on Sanders himself.

[LovingA2andMI]

72. How Do We Keep Seeing This BS....

When the Poster is CLEARLY on FULL IGNORE (In Fact Been There For MONTHS), the Thread Is Trashed but yet it's on the Recommended Page. Is DU doing this on purpose?

We're beyond curious at this point what exactly is the Full IGNORE and TRASHING policy at this point because we are seeing threads we CLEARLY should NOT be SEEING.

Thank you.....Seeking Answers.

[stevenleser]

185. Note to self: "Keep reccing TexasTowelie's posts... nt

[nini]

87. Maybe when they stop their shit we won't have to talk about it anymore.

[LanternWaste]

136. Any analysis or criticism of a sacred cow is considered bashing to a biased mind.

Any analysis or criticism of a sacred cow is considered bashing to a biased mind. Excellent work, part II.

[Control-Z]

172. And so it begins.

Again.

One can like Senator Sanders without defending and participating with that faction of supporters whose aggresive behaviors and intimidation tactics Sanders claims himself to find offensive. We've experienced first hand what they represent and how they operate. I will not accept bullying and will speak out against it and anyone who attempts it to sow discontent in this community.

When I believe it is the Senator who is being divisive to the detriment of the Democratic party I will also say so.

[Kentonio]

196. And when we feel a section of the community is trying to bully Sanders supporters into silence

We'll say so too.

[JHan]

2. K & fuckin R

[NurseJackie]

14. Those who attack and smear Sen. Kamala Harris are TOTAL ASSHOLES...

... she's an honorable and valued DEMOCRAT.

What is it with these people? SHE deserves more respect than SHE is being given by a certain element and a certain crowd of undesirable agitators.

It's unclear to me why ANYONE around here is arguing that we supporters of Sen. Kamala Harris should simply ignore that this "certain element" exists. Why should their behavior be tolerated? Why should their behavior be excused?

The way that Sen. Kamala Harris is being treated by a certain element is another ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM that we're not allowed to discuss. Are the lies and smears something that we're not allowed to defend just because of who's doing the LYING and SMEARING?

[JHan]

23. I've got no time for their smears on select democrats

Who happen to be the most promising. Whether it's Booker, or Harris, or who they think is a "centrist" . The continuation of the divisiveness of last year persists not because of a Hillary book or this article , or any critique of their favorite Senator. The false dichotomy between progressive and "establishment" wasn't created by you, or I , or any dyed in wool democrat I know.

[NurseJackie]

31. We reject the divisive smears against Harris, yet *we* are the ones accused of being divisive?!?

Fuck that shit! I won't remain silent as GOOD HONEST DEMOCRATS are smeared. I'll always push-back and defend our DEMOCRATIC party and our DEMOCRATIC leaders.

Any lying and disruptive asshole who denigrates our brightest DEMOCRATIC leaders does not deserve any sort of "protected" status. We shouldn't be obligated to give ANYONE free reign to attack and smear our party and our Democratic leaders.

We need to be able to point out what people like that are doing. We need to be able to have an honest discussion about the elephant in the room. We need to be able to push back against the lies and distortions and smears without fear of penalties or bullying.

[JHan]

40. Some animals are more equal than others.

[The Mouth]

103. aMEN

'NUFF SAID

[all american girl]

183. Amen sister!!!!!!!

[Expecting Rain]

65. Is that a rhetorical question?

[NurseJackie]

70. As you suspected, I do not expect to receive an answer...

... at least not an HONEST or RATIONAL one that can justify the behavior we've seen, or that can justify those who try to excuse it or defend it, or why any Democrat should simply accept it and/or look-the-other-way.

[Expecting Rain]

71. We have much in common in the way we see things.

Fight on Nurse Jackie!

[Chasstev365]

4. It's so simple: Bernie Sanders is the root of all evil!

[Demsrule86]

21. They were his followers and he did not say anything as I recall.

I don't like to see Dems attacked.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

119. Bernie has done his own (recent) bashing of the Party

I really don't understand him. He's officially an independent but he's being presented as the unofficial leader of the party he likes to take potshots at. Some of his supporters are still busy attacking good and decent Democrats because of a perceived lack of progressive purity, which is just continuing the divisive primaries from last year. We need to get our stuff together before the end of the year so that we can go after Republicans full force next year so that we can win some more seats, maybe win back one or both chambers of Congress.

[check077]

198. The media assumes Bernie will be...

...the Democratic Party's 2020 nominee. Why is this automatically assumed?

[George II]

55. The OP is about his supporters, not him.

[mcar]

5. Good constructive criticism

is allowed on this board. Thanks!

[MrsCoffee]

6. Yep.

Time for him to go. It was stupid for Democrats to pay for a pretend Unity Tour that was anything but. His "leadership" has created and nurtured a divide that has been devastating.

His hypocrisy is astounding.

[juxtaposed]

13. ha

[NurseJackie]

33. ###

[disillusioned73]

7. Ughh.. and so it continues

[aikoaiko]

8. Wow. A "handful of Sanders loyalists" is this scary to "prominent Democrats"?!

That's so fuckin funny.

Really, it just sounds like Politico.com looking for clicks.

[MrsCoffee]

15. Scary?

More like maddening. Time to take a stand against those trying to tear the party down. You know, the party that he uses but won't join. And we are all supposed to keep listening to his bullshit?

Pffffft.

[aikoaiko]

19. Yes, you are supposed to keep listening and the best part is you will.

Of course you don't have to agree.

Simple criticisms and expressions of disappointment are not tearing the party down.

[Demsrule86]

26. It is tearing the party down. It needs to stop...we don't need a potential Presidential

candidate viciously attacked by anyone who is supposed to be on the progressive side.

[MrsCoffee]

27. Nah, I don't have time to listen to his negative droning.

My goal is to elect Democrats and take back the house and senate. No time for Mr. Establishment and his huge glass houses from which he is throwing stones.

[aikoaiko]

38. If you say so.

[OilemFirchen]

10. God love a duck.

Two Politico stories in as many days about the Democratic Party's dismay. Both primarily unsourced.

One of them, BTW, is "bashing" someone.

[George II]

17. "Unsourced"? Half of the article linked here is direct quotes, including the people who said them..

....i.e., the "source".

[OilemFirchen]

30. One source in each. A has-been and a wannabe.

That's "primarily unsourced" and it's Politico's neo-journalistic standard.

[Demsrule86]

28. Anyone here saw the original Harris posts... knows the story is absolutely true...and it needs

to stop.

[OilemFirchen]

34. What needs to stop is citing Politico.

They peddle kerfuffle. That's bad for your health.

[Demsrule86]

160. some stories on Politico are spot on.

[progressoid]

163. +1

[George II]

11. Sadly, Nina Turner is leading the charge.

[leftofcool]

32. She just won't stop

[NurseJackie]

53. Does she still enjoy "protected" status here? Any official word yet? I mean...

... she endorsed Jill Stein, right? (Or, did she grudgingly or coyly-refuse to endorse our party's nominee?)

In any case, I think she's made it clear that she has NO loyalty to the Democratic party any longer and that she (and the "revolution" she's running) will support Republican candidate and other non-Democrats who run in OPPOSITION to actual Democrats.

So, does NT get special treatment, or are we permitted to call her out and defend the Democrats that she smears and opposes? Does she become another elephant in the room that we're supposed to ignore?

Fig. 1: Elephant in the room

[George II]

54. I've asked the administrators about that, no response yet.

[NurseJackie]

59. "Our Revolution" now supports Republicans, right? Shouldn't that mean...

... that the group (and it's leaders) no longer get to enjoy a "favored" or "protected" status as being a so-called Democratic ally. They've made it very clear that they have NO loyalty to Democrats or the Democratic Party, so why should anyone give that group (or its leaders) any sort of special privileges?

Why allow them to smear, malign, denigrate, slander, oppose and undermine Democrats and Democratic candidates?

It's a fair question. It's a legitimate question and an important one that deserves an answer. I hope someone steps-up and does something about this elephant in the room that everyone is supposed to ignore.

[George II]

61. Below is my question in ATA. I wish it would be addressed soon.

Now that Nina Turner has declared that it's the job of Democrats to "fit in with us"...

i. e., "Our Revolution", and also stated that she and Senator Sanders will be endorsing non-Democrats, is it now time for DU to stop protecting either of them from criticism and leaving DU posters open to alerts and removed posts for "bashing Democrats" if they criticize either of them? Thank you.

Here's a link to a recent interview of Nina Turner along with some appropriate excerpts from that interview that present their positions and the fact that neither of them are ready or willing to support Democrats::

https://www.thenation.com/article/nina-turner-it-is-not-our-job-to-fit-into-the-democratic-establishment/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CM: How will Our Revolution relate to the DNC, the DCCC, the DSCC, that kind of establishment that so many activists and politicians, including you, have frequently criticized?

NT: I don’t think it is our job nor our obligation to fit in. It’s their job to fit in with us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CM: And what about the Democratic Party at large. Do you see Our Revolution working to bring some unity to factions in the party?

NT: No. Not really.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CM: Will the group be endorsing non-Democrats?

NT: You know what, yes. We are open to it. And for me, I’ve also heard the senator say this lately too.

[Me.]

88. A Very Fair Question

(stalking/ )

[NurseJackie]

93. ###

Stop waving at me! Don't you realize how offensive that is??? LOL!

[George II]

181. .

[comradebillyboy]

114. NT is still protected and may not be criticized

based on my experience.

[R B Garr]

92. I wonder if Nina Turner can explain why Vermont doesn't have single payer.

I wonder when Bernie will explain why Vermont doesn't have single payer.

Before they shame and demoralize and harass good Democrats, they should be asked that until they answer it. No excuses. This is beyond absurd that no one asks them to be accountable for the nonsense they spew.

[Historic NY]

121. She can't explain my shit, she tosses out bombs time for Perez to put on

his big boy pants and denounce her tactics once and for all.

[LexVegas]

20. "demands for ideological purity"...

[Trust Buster]

24. I've seen the damage purity tests have wrought on the right. I'm a moderate Democrat.

I was disrespected by this crowd during the primaries. I haven't forgot and haven't changed my position one inch. RESIST.

[JHan]

69. ++++++++

Not just purity tests, but selective purity tests.

[leftofcool]

106. Yep!

[Blue_true]

215. I am Left-Center.

The "purist" infuriate me to no end. They have their heads stuck up their asses.

[Gothmog]

29. K&R

[Snackshack]

35. Dems have been handed

A golden opportunity to win across the board in the upcoming elections and capitalize on the dysfunctional state of the Republican Party...yet continuing to argue about a primary long since dead is more important it appears.

[MrsCoffee]

41. Bernie and his backers are still attacking the party now.

This isn't about the primaries. At least not for us.

[ProfessorGAC]

142. I Did What Now?

When have i attacked the party, not just recently, but ever?

You must have huge hands to wield that broad a brush.

[jalan48]

36. And while you are at it, stop being so popular Bernie. You're making us look bad!

[Dustlawyer]

42. These threads need to stop!

[WinstonSmith00]

43. Ill never stop calling out DINOs! nt

[GulfCoast66]

77. You seem to have forgotten your sarcasm tag...

[padfun]

81. Many of them arent Democrats and never were.

According to some polls last year, as many as 20% of Bernie followers weren't Democrats. So you shouldn't lump all of these criticizers as DINO when they aren't even D.

[OKNancy]

44. they are planning protests of her book tour

Link to tweet

[MrsCoffee]

47. That is sick.

Or should I say deplorable?

[R B Garr]

73. omfg, that is pure insanity. They are apparently just fine with Trump.

Such drama llamas. They love the attention, it's that shallow.

[Maven]

84. The Bros and Trumpers are indistinguishable at this point. nt

[leftofcool]

110. I think they need another cause

[KitSileya]

124. Uh-oh - I got a hide for pointing out how childish these protests are.

I guess it's a-ok to write books in response to the election and go on book tours if you have the right equipment between your legs...

[mcar]

129. Oh FFS!

And they have the nerve to tell Democrats to move on and fight Rs?

Why aren't they protesting Trump?

[Old Vet]

145. This is fucked up on all levels, republicans are laughing all the way to 2018 elections.

[liquid diamond]

166. As much as I don't like

bernie, I would never attend a protest against him. This is a new low for these shit heads.

[BainsBane]

174. Not DACA, but Hillary's book

Not nuclear war. Not GOP deregulation of banking. Not corporations. Not economic inequality. But a book that dares to offer mild criticisms of their candidate.

After months of attacks on Clinton, the party, and its voters, they are protesting to demand that they and they alone be held above the rest of humanity as immune from criticism.

[woundedkarma]

46. It is in Russia's best interest...

That we remain divided.

I believe there are agitators out there who start these conflicts. While there are suckers who get pulled in and continue them.

If I'm a Russian troll, I would look for a weakness and exploit it. In this case, people don't trust the DNC. People who backed Sanders think he got screwed. Then, people are angry that Clinton lost (and have been for a year) and still look for anyone they can point the finger at and blame. Just look at the hatred with which they will point at ANYONE they think cost Clinton the election.

You don't need to lie to break people apart. You just need to emphasize the truth. Focus on the cracks. Make it matter more. People will do all the work for you.

And here at DU we are ground zero for how the Democratic party is ripping itself apart.

This article didn't originate here. I took a quick look at it.. here's what I don't like about the article:

"Tensions boiled over recently when a handful of Sanders loyalists bashed freshman Sen. Kamala Harris — a rising star in the party and potential 2020 hopeful — as an establishment tool."

Who were these "Sanders loyalists" ? Maybe you can come up with names, but why didn't the article author?

"In response, Democratic senators and outside groups have begun telling Sanders and friendly intermediaries that if he wants to be a leading figure for Democrats"

Who? Who is telling Sanders this? Article author is silent.

It talks about random "Sanders backers" like they're some mysterious evil element out to destroy anyone who disagrees with them.

That's how people who believed in a guy who wanted to give us single-payer healthcare are painted.

Come on.

We don't need bull articles like this that are trying to split the party further apart.

My wife likes to tell me that in reality democrats and republicans have very little they disagree with. Abortion and a couple other topics are used to keep us strongly opposed and divided. I'm not sure I completely agree with her, but she's a much smarter person than I am. I think it's the same thing here.

Those who would have liked to see Sanders win and those who would have liked to see Clinton win have far more in common with each other than not.

We need to stop fighting the last election. Stop fighting amongst ourselves (and I am not talking about normal debate, I'm talking about the vitriol and blame) and focus on getting trump and the republicans OUT so we can focus on getting Putin OUT of our elections.

[MrsCoffee]

49. And yet you paint a rather one-sided picture.

Which seems to be a common thing here. Complain about how divisive something is while insinuating crap about one side or the other.

[Duppers]

193. EXACTLY!!!!!

Not any Bernie backers I know of!
This sounds like false flag crap to me.

Why do so many DUers ignore the fact that none other than KAMALA HARRIS and Elizabeth Warren support Bernie's bills and work with him?

I'm SICK of these bashing threads. My ignore list just keeps growing.

[longship]

48. Stop ringing that god damned cockamaimie bell!

The 2016 primary election is so over!

This is the kind of bullshit rubbish that divides our party! I might add that no doubt the GOP revels in such things.

I leave it to DUers whether they think this is a good strategy going forward.

I certainly do not.

[GulfCoast66]

76. Correct

Yet these 'revolutionaries' continue to attack the Democratic Party. That is a totally legit reason to criticize them on DU.

[Chakaconcarne]

50. As far as I can tell Bernie and Hillary aren't running against each other again....

...so the entire discussion pretty much pointless unless the goal is to divide democrats.

[NurseJackie]

62. That's not what the discussion is about.

50. As far as I can tell Bernie and Hillary aren't running against each other again....

No-o-o! Seriously?? Who knew?? They're not running? Wow!

...so the entire discussion pretty much pointless unless the goal is to divide democrats.

So, basically, in a nutshell... what you're saying is... we shouldn't speak out against abusive lies and smears against Democrats like Kamala Harris because "as far as you can tell Bernie and Hillary aren't running against each other".

Did I capture your sentiments accurately? If not can you clarify what you meant?

Also, can you please elaborate on why you believe that one should preclude the other? Why is it "pretty much pointless" to speak out against denigrating Democrats?

Why should any individuals who attack Democrats be given special privileges or protected status?

Why should LOYAL DEMOCRATS who speak out against that type of behavior be punished or bullied into silence?

[mopinko]

56. they need to be out looking for the bots and the trolls

and tracing them back to their owner.

[ProfessorPlum]

60. I'm not sure I see the point of this post or story

Someone is trying to get progressive factions to fight against each other by publishing a story on how the factions are already (supposedly) fighting.

this is relevant, beneficial, surprising, or informative how?

[SecularMotion]

66. That's projection, Skippy

[Scoopster]

64. I had one of them attack me on Twitter just now.

She claimed that calling out Susan Sarandon for her rude, unwarranted ad hom attacks on other people but defending Katy Perry for being bold about her political views as a citizen/entertainer proved I was both a centrist and hypocrite.

IN WHAT FUCKING WORLD DOES THIS MAKE SENSE AT ALL?!

[QC]

67. People who hated Politico yesterday love it today--and vice versa. n/t

[Roy Rolling]

68. "Bernie Backers"

I am a Bernie backer. Are they accusing me? Because this "Bernie Bros" straw man was inflamed by Russian propaganda.

I am sick of Bernie bashing. If someone is causing an issue, call them out. Don't lump every Bernie supporter in with those they disagree with. That is bullshit.

[George II]

74. Read the article, please.

[NurseJackie]

90. "Are they accusing me?" --- Were you there?

I am a Bernie backer. Are they accusing me?

The article makes it very clear who they're talking about, so this confusion you're expressing seems to be a bit contrived. The outrage seems to be a bit phony and unnecessary.

Still, I guess the question needs to be asked: were you there? Were/are you among those who participate in the harassment and smears or Senator Kamala Harris? If not, (and I suspect that's the case) then I think it's safe to say that the answer to your question is an unqualified "NO... They were not accusing you."

There! Feel better now? Whew! What a relief it must be to have that question resolved!

[Amimnoch]

120. Are you among the ones that are attacking Democrats?

If so, then yes.

If not, then this article doesn't apply to you at all.

There's not a single line in the article that insinuates everyone who supports Bernie falls into that group. Personally, I suspect it's a small minority, but very vocal bloc of his supporters.

[berni_mccoy]

78. So much for Politico being a bad source...

Hillary fans are happy to cite it.

[LovingA2andMI]

85. Yes, and yesterday...

They were crying about it.

Meanwhile, wondering how it is that we can keep seeing threads of posters who we have on Full Ignore and on top of that Trashing The Thread?

Is there a dysfunction on DU with Trashing and Ignoring or are folks bypassing the system of Trashing and Ignoring on purpose? We are beginning to believe the latter and if so, does DU have a fix?

[GulfCoast66]

83. Get used to it

Anyone perceived to be a possible opponent will be torn down between now and the 2020 primaries.

If I did not know better I would think it is being planned by someone.

[Still In Wisconsin]

89. I also heard that climate change is actually a result of Bernie's flatulence!

In addition, he destroyed prospects for Mideast peace by being Jewish and secretly killed Harambe on a clandestine, unannounced hunting trip!

[R B Garr]

96. I'm so glad that the good Democrat, Al Gore, is in the news now about climate

change. He spearheaded that issue decades ago when it was roundly ridiculed. He didn't wait until it was a popular issue with little to no political risk involved to discuss it.

[Still In Wisconsin]

113. Al Gore... one of my proudest votes ever.

If I could go back and change one event in modern US political history, it might be the result of Bush v. Gore.


Oh, and nice subtle shot at Sanders. Well played.

[snort]

91. uh huh

[ejbr]

94. Seems like a tall order

I mean, he can disavow them, but will that necessarily stop the attacks? In order for this to work, he would also need to refute the attacks as unfounded backed up by facts. If these facts exist, have they provided them?

As far as telling them to stop, he may as well try to herd a room full of cats...I don't see how they can keep him in leadership with these conditions which is unfortunate as he is the most popular politician at the moment.

[George II]

98. "most popular politician"? How so please.

[ejbr]

100. Here's one source

https://www.google.com/amp/observer.com/2017/07/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician/amp/

[George II]

104. No one outside of Vermont were permitted to rate him in that poll.

[ejbr]

117. Then they need to fix that headline

[George II]

122. Yes they do. This has been debated a dozen times here, people (not necessarily you)....

....love to drill into people's heads that he's "most popular", not mentioning that it's only among his own constituents.

Here is the methodology of the Morning Consult poll:

In each poll, Americans indicated whether they approve or disapprove of the job performance of President Donald Trump, their state’s governor, both of THEIR U.S. senators, their member of Congress and their mayor (if they live in a city with more than about 10,000 residents). For each question, they could answer strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, strongly disapprove, or don’t know / no opinion.

So, if the poll respondents presumably represent all the registered voters in each of their states, here are some numbers to consider:

Sanders' rating is 75%, extrapolating that across all 475,000 voters in Vermont that means he's "popular" with about 360,000 registered voters.

On the other hand, Senator Ron Wyden's rating, 10th on the list, is "only" 61%, but in a state with more than 2-1/2 million voters, he's "popular" with more than 1,550,000 registered voters.

So, overall, who is "popular" with more registered voters of those two Senators? The entire premise of that poll is grossly flawed, as is the case for similar polls that have been posted on DU.

Further, if you look at the "highest rated" Senators, you'll see that most of them are from states with the lowest numbers of registered voters. What would be interesting to see is the ratings of Senators among ALL registered voters of all states combined. I'm sure we'd see drastically different results.

[BainsBane]

102. What particular facts do you mean?

That Harris isn't a "whore who slept her way to the top"?
That "corporatist" doesn't, exclude the gun industry, defense, Lockheed Martin and big sugar? That the interests of the few aren't worth more than the rights and lives of the many? That the Kremlin propaganda debunked repeatedly are lies?

Please, enlighten us as to the "facts" to which you refer because in all the attacks, I have not heard one that was truthful.

[ejbr]

105. Then he should have no problem

Refuting them. Not sure why he hasn't already

[BainsBane]

115. That presumes he wants the behavior to stop

and considering he doesn't hesitate to speak his mind, the fact he hasn't is no doubt taken as tacit approval by his followers.

[ejbr]

118. Then he should be removed from leadership n/t

[MrsCoffee]

127. Yes he should.

[NurseJackie]

141. You read my mind.

[BainsBane]

112. The most popular politician is one such statement that is without foundation

The polls that generated those headlines asked for views on only a small number of politicians. The latest one surveyed 12 public figures, only 6 of whom are current office holders. Obama was not included. The previous one surveyed only 9 public figures. Sanders favorably rating in the recent one was 54%. There are more than 6 politicians in America. The highest favorability of 6 does not equate to the most popular in America. Additionally, 39% of the electorate is not under 30 and one-third are not independents. You can verify this by looking at the Harris poll itself, linked to through the Hill article.

There are facts that refute your claims, and they have been pointed out repeatedly.

[ejbr]

116. So who did you find to be the most popular?

[seaglass]

161. Obama is much more popular than Bernie. n/t

[ejbr]

167. Active politicians n/t

[seaglass]

168. Moving goalposts. n/t

[ejbr]

169. Just one time

I mean, a President has better coverage than anyone in the world and can enact legislation. How is it fair to compare the two.

But I'll understand if moving the goalposts prevents you from giving me someone. My bad

[Plucketeer]

148. Alright then

Give us a handful of prospects that might push Sanders back a few notches???

[roomtomove]

95. It is off the table.........

[Amimnoch]

108. I can relate with the Democratic Party.

It's a good article, and describes the way many of us who support Democrats feel as well.

[NBachers]

109. Isn't it time for Bernie to apologize?

[Amimnoch]

111. Really.

It certainly would go a long way to reconciling things with those who support and believe in the Democratic Party.

[TheDebbieDee]

123. Are they Bernie Backers or Russian trolls?

I can't tell the difference anymore!

[h2ebits]

128. I am constantly amazed

It appears to me that the bots are once again in action and we are seeing a figment of a large campaign to discredit progressive ideas and split the party.

We know that the Russians interfered with the last election. We now know that ads by Russians were bought and placed on Facebook. We know that Steve Bannon and the Mercers used special software to analyze and "target" people with bots designed to sway our thoughts and put us in a position to not trust anyone. Why would anyone think that this has not continued?

I'm particularly concerned about Steve Bannon and the Mercers and what they are up to in their attempts to destroy the country. Cripes! I just read that the Koch brothers are going to be working to help get a DACA law passed to keep these kids in our country. I feel like I am on the planet and trapped in a war of the elites to see who can have the most power, money, control. . . .everything.

Fear is a very big motivator. You can either give in to it or you can push back against it. We need to be working together to get this country moving away from the fascism that appears to be taking over. We need to allow ideas--good or bad--to surface and determine if using the ideas would be good or bad for our country. It's a messy process and WE need to stop and think.

We. need. to. be. working. together.

And we need to remember that politicians are politicians.

[leftstreet]

138. Indeed

Why would anyone think that this has not continued?

Good question

[MrsCoffee]

154. You're right we do need to be working together to beat the GOP.

So why does it seem that almost daily I turn on my computer and Bernie or Nina or whoever is smack talking the Democratic Party.

Why can't we be calling on THEM to do something unifying instead?

[scipan]

164. You're only in control of your own actions

Are YOU being unifying?

[Raine]

187. Yup, same old, same old...

[msongs]

165. bernie sanders is not a Democrat. never has been, never will be nt

[Madam45for2923]

170. Yep! They did, do and will.

[Ken Burch]

190. "outside agitators"? Who wrote this...Zombie Jesse Helms?

[Duppers]

194. TT, please

I love you but please don't post this kind of divisive stuff. It only perpetuates it.

Thank you.