So...what exactly counts as "bashing the party" or "attacking Democrats" these days?

[Ken Burch]

Last edited Sat Sep 9, 2017, 02:42 AM - Edit history (1)

I agree that no one should be personally maligned, that no oppressive language should be used towards anyone, that we should all treat each other with respect.

But it's beginning to look as though ANY questioning of what the party leadership does, ANY effort to hold Democratic officeholders accountable to progressive principles, ANY call for change within the party at all, is going to be called bashing or an attack.

Basically, I'd like to ask people what, as you see it, crosses the line between acceptable discussion and critique on the one hand(I assume everyone is open to at least SOME discussion and debate)and bashing or attacking.

It's not as though we make any sort of a comeback without discussing or changing anything, so can people at least lay out what you see the limits being on this?

[greeny2323]

1. Change vs. destruction

Basically every progressive wants to change the Democratic party. That's completely normal discourse that has been going on for decades.

In 2016, there were large numbers of attacks on the very legitimacy of the party itself. Claims that the party is corrupt and therefore can't be trusted. Claims that anyone who associates with the party is a corporate stooge (despite the fact of so many Democratic progressives fighting corporate malfeasance for years). Claims that unless a particular candidate was selected, the Democratic party should die. Etc. etc.

You don't have to believe me, though. Just wait. We'll see many of the same claims in 2018 and 2020.

[NanceGreggs]

2. ...

...

[Fresh_Start]

22. +1 nt

nt

[Hortensis]

34. Let's call those who want radical changes radicals. We all want to improve everything politically,

but at some point "improve" becomes a degree of profound change that simply does not fit, even violates, the ideology of most Democrats. And that is where attempts at supposed "improvements" become destructive intents.

We all agree almost entirely on ultimate goals, with some differences of course. The huge differences, though, are in timetables, methods, and cooperation with those we disagree with, or lack of it.

Democrats are the ideological descendants of those who created our liberal democratic republic. Democrats believe (know!) that governance of our republic must include finding common ground with conservatives and reaching solutions that will work for all.

And that's the problem. Those who can see that only as weakness and corruption will always be frustrated and discontented in this party.

They really need to either drop out of politics or form their own party. A party that does not believe their first goal is to protect representative democracy, unacceptably imperfect as that process is to them. A party that can devote itself, as the Republicans are doing, to forcing its solutions on everyone else. That is their best chance for success.

They need to give up on trying to grab the Democratic Party assets and power instead of developing their own. They could never accomlish that before, try as they did, and of course can't now. Because mainstream Democrats never have and never will agree to those impassioned, anti-democratic methods, and there are lot more of us.

[Ken Burch]

37. But to be able to compromise, to have the compromise be worth anything,

Don't we need to start from a strong enough set of principles that the compromises are as limited as possible?

And then doesn't their need to be a "keep the faith" statement, in which those who make the compromise at one time announce that "this isn't over-the fight goes on!" and use the situation to mobilize support to elect enough people next time to get MORE of what we want?

What some of us are saying is that, in a situation where a compromise result occurs, those who make the compromise have some responsibility to those disappointed by the compromise to keep them in the game-that we can't just be dismissive and treat those people like they're making a big deal over nothing and should just give up until the NEXT Democratic president.

Something in the pattern of communication there needs to change.

[Hortensis]

40. Check the bolding, B. If you can understand that, you can understand

that there is no one set of principles. And Democrats are not giving up ours because the compromises and cooperation that are critical to this form of government don't suit the we're-all-right-and-you're-all-corrupt types.

To state it again. We could never accept the idea that cooperating with Republicans to create a truly representative government is corrupt. That's how we achieve government of, by and for the people, not just of, by and for us.

And the guts and discipline necessary for that arise from commitment to the principles of democracy.

[Ken Burch]

55. The problem is that NO Republicans want to create a truly representative government.

They are all united in wanting to crush all dissent from their agenda.

[Hortensis]

59. NO. The problem of this discussion is those on the farther left who feel that way.

An inability to compromise, or even to respect the principles served and benefits of cooperation, is just wired into some people.

[clu]

63. i read the bolded text in the two posts

more important IMO is the text around them where it's stated that dems/radicals agree on goals but disagree on timetables, and also how talks of achieving this should be through invited cooperation from the conservative party. you mention that those who make deleterious statements of weakness and corruption should make their own party - statements of corruption stemming from the democratic republic principle of invited cooperation - with our current administration (!) - with the twisted MSM and conservative leadership..... sigh.....

take back the progressive agenda... what do i know your idea may have been good back in the 70s-80s.

[Hortensis]

68. You haven't been here long, but I already expected you to twist and disagree.

I'm not playing the game. I explained the basis of Democratic principles. I'll only underline what all here should know:

This nation was founded on progressive principles, which our liberal forefathers codified into our constitution. ALL liberals are progressive, though not all Democrats, but liberals are by far the largest faction in the Democratic Party and our party is by far the largest and most effective force for progressive government we have.

The end.

[clu]

71. not to rehash in a borderline thread - not that the thread itself is bad

Last edited Sat Sep 9, 2017, 07:18 PM - Edit history (1)

if we consider the current state of affairs (trump election) then maybe the silent majority should stop and reflect before rejecting a candidate based on their "no-comprise" principles and instead consider their popularity

edit-
i agree 100% with your post

[exfthings]

128. Liberal does not equal Democratic, Conservative does not equal Republic0n

There is no conservative party, nor is there a liberal party. This is a fallacy that the right frequently attempts to perpetuate. Another false equivalency that helps them twist and manipulate the narrative.

A majority of Dems are not self-described radicals. Most realize that governing must take all citizens, personalities (liberal vs conservative) and parties (D vs R vs I) into account in order to unify the nation around the government.

I want to see our Democracy healthy, and that means input from all sides.

[JCanete]

54. There is a very real disconnect in your presentation and the real world. There is no common ground

to be had with conservative politicians who have entirely different incentivisation than common sense or decency for their advocacy. You want to find common ground with conservatives? Scare the fuck out of them that you actually might ram through a real progressive plan, and they may just come to the table with a compromise. Give them the compromise option up front and they have no reason to vote for it, because the worst case is that it passes anyway, and the best case is that it doesn't. The reason we can't do this has nothing to do with the conservatives, and that's the sad part. We can't get members of our own party to commit to this. That empowers the GOP to reject any compromise.

Yes, if you can create a sea-change so that Republicans know their actual job is on the line if they keep resisting something, then you can get them to compromise. Until then, what on earth do you think would get them to cross their huge financial backers? If we aren't going to go to the people and create that sea-change by getting them to demand something new, then we can continue to be the minority party, most of the time. We shouldn't be comfortable with that. So no, this isn't about whether or not working with the GOP is a problem, it is about how you work with them...how you get them to work with us. Compromising with them by losing less is not working with them, it is simply triaging.

Those of us who are Democrats and don't like the fact that we've lost 1000 seats over the last 15 years or so want us to do something that works. People are disaffected, and they distrust us because we try to be conciliatory with Wall Street, etc. We don't give people an appropriate villain to join forces against, and instead, we get to play the part of the villain based upon the GOP and media's framing. It is not working for us to simply make racists and sexists the villain. Too many people resemble that remark, and it is rhetoric not designed to show them how they are being played themselves by this divide-and-conquer bullshit, but is instead designed to put us at odds with a huge chunk of the voting populace. Which is why we keep losing. The 99% continue to be divided because we aren't interested in creating common cause.

You just cannot pretend that financial interests don't have a choke-hold on our political system in ways that are strangling us.
It is hardly a radical position, in my opinion, for us to want the democratic party to be far more progressive and aggressive with the institutions and industries that have had far too much influence on policy for far too long.

You might be right if you are of the opinion that by making them our enemy we can expect to get clobbered financially in the near future, and that there is a risk of losing more control...but if we are fighting with our hands tied behind our backs because of these industry friendships, any control is just an illusion anyway.

[clu]

72. there is a point to be made about electabilty and gerrymandering

but lets just do the right thing.

[bettyellen]

42. Well said, totally agree.

[Ken Burch]

84. OK, I agree with what you've said there in the first line.

No one should be using destructive phraseology. I've worked to change my way of communicating here for a long time now.

Thanks for that.

[GulfCoast66]

3. Oh boy. Cannot believe I am taking the bait

A member of the Democratic Party is welcome to shake up the party as much as they want. As long as they are loyal members of the Democratic Party.

But when someone who is not a member of the Democratic Party attacks the party, they are fair game. Especially when said person joins the party when it benefits them and then leaves it when it doesn't.

And when certain members of DU defend that person and they throw a grenade, stating they will not respond to any posts, they are clearly stirring up shit

I am relatively new here, but even I have figured out your game. If you want to go to the mat on Democratic Underground defending someone who is not even a member of the Democratic Party, have at it. You obviously enjoy the drama.

Have a nice evening

[msongs]

4. well played nt

[GulfCoast66]

5. Yeah, and you won't believe what happened!

Our good friend Ken immediately sent me a DU mail after my response, groveling about what he really meant, even though he said he would not respond. And when I attempted to respond with a somewhat terse response that any southerner would know mean fuck you, I got blocked by his website. So apparently the guy can send to you mail but not receive them.

Is this what a BOT looks like? I'm a fiftysomething-year-old white guy and this whole computer thing confuses me. But I can spot a bullshit artist when I see one. We should all have this guys number.

Have a nice evening

[Ken Burch]

11. I don't have a website and I didn't block you. I truly want to hear what you have to say on this.

I saw your response.

And you've got me wrong. Nothing I'm doing is about promoting or defending Bernie as an individual and I don't think he should run for president again. I just want us to be able to win the trust and full allegiance of his voters. We can't do that without embracing a lot of his economic message and the critique his campaign offered of our political system.

Why couldn't you just trust that the point of the OP was to get a clear answer on what people see as the limits here, because the people who use words like "trashed" or "attacking" have never made it clear what is acceptable discussion and what is intolerable.

I edited out the "I won't respond" because people acted like that was hostile even though it was purely positive in intent.

[NurseJackie]

17. About that...

And you've got me wrong.

No, I don't think so. He's smarter than you give him credit for. And anyone who gives a quick glance at the initial responses here could easily tell that he's not the only one whose intelligence has been underestimated.

All I'm saying is that it's unwise to do things (say things) that insults people's intelligence. It rarely works out well (as I'm sure you already know.)

Nothing I'm doing is about promoting or defending Bernie as an individual

Interesting qualifier: "as an individual". That still leaves open many other things to "promote", doesn't it? (See? I can read.)

and I don't think he should run for president again.

You use that phrase a lot. And I do mean... A LOT. Even when it's not a part of the discussion, it gets tossed in. Apropos of nothing, somehow it gets repeated and repeated over and over. Why?

No, really... I do want to know. In all sincerity. Help me to understand YOU a little better. I really don't understand what good purpose this serves. Is it intended to be used as a distraction? Is it intended to guide the conversation in that particular direction? (Perhaps you're trying to establish your "I'm-a-loyal-Democrat" creds? I dunno. Can you explain?)

I just want us to be able to win the trust and full allegiance of his voters.

Which voters would those be? The ones who refused to vote for Hillary? The ones who voted for Stein? Tell us, WHO... which voters?

We can't do that without embracing a lot of his economic message and the critique his campaign offered of our political system.

Nonsense. All this effort trying to destroy the party* and remake it in the image of one person just to try an garner the favor of the 10% who voted for Stein? Good grief! GMAB!

All I'm saying is that that economic message was roundly rejected. Even a Fuller Brush man knows when it's time to stop knocking on the same door over and over and over again.

This type of behavior may be rewarding or fulfilling to extremists who have a "bone-to-pick" with the Democratic Party, but chasing after these disaffected dead-enders who make up the Stein-voting coalition just isn't worth the effort. It's also not worth the strife, distrust and division within our own ranks.

What good purpose does it serve to spend so much effort going after a mere HANDFUL of voters when the same effort could be spent getting an entire ROOMFUL of new voters?

What good purpose does it serve to cause so much division and distrust going after so FEW unreliable fringe voters at the expense of LOSING many-many more loyal and reliable voters?

*see reply #1 for more info. That's a well-written post that totally nails-it! You should really respond to that poster.

Why couldn't you just trust that the point of the OP was to get a clear answer on what people see as the limits here,

Because many people are smarter than you give credit for, that's why.

...because the people who use words like "trashed" or "attacking" have never made it clear what is acceptable discussion and what is intolerable.

Really? You don't know what those words mean? Do you need it spelled-out for you?

Honestly... I know you're smart, and you do not need it spelled-out for you. What I also know, however, is that some people like to play word-games and split-hairs. People should always use their best judgement, they should act their age, and not try to find clever ways to skirt the rules. They should not try to find ways to justify divisive behavior.

I edited out the "I won't respond" because people acted like that was hostile even though it was purely positive in intent.

What you wrote was hostile. Nobody was being unfair. Instead of blaming others for "misunderstanding your intent"... wouldn't it be more honest to simply admit "Hey, I made a mistake and so I changed my mind" rather than pretending that you were cornered into taking a choice that you'd have preferred not to do?

Here's the thing: People are smarter than they're given credit for and this has many similarities to a politicians "mistakes-were-made" excuse making.

Take it from an old lady... accept my "motherly" advice in the kind spirit it's being offered to you.

[NastyRiffraff]

21. WELL done!!

Love the closing!

[Me.]

57. Gosh I Love That Smilie

Super cute...all I have is this....

[NurseJackie]

78. Thank you! I think it's super-cute too! I love...

... the animated smile and eyes.

[Ken Burch]

58. Actrually, Bernie's economic message wasn't rejected

He lost because African-American, Latinx-American and some demographics of women didn't feel he had a strong enough public commitment to fighting social oppression. I accept their will. Those groups didn't support Sanders, but aren't AGAINST economic justice, and it's absurd to argue that they are somehow the strongest defenders of undiluted capitalism-a economic model that can't be free of social oppression-in the Democratic Party. BTW, what is it about social democracy that you actually object to? It's not unpopular and you've never said what your hostility to it is grounded it.

I said I wasn't going to respond in the OP because I wanted to just read what people had to say. I was giving people a chance to just say what it was they objected to. In what universe is THAT hostile? Why was it important to get me to respond?

And I agree with you about bringing in new voters...there's no conflict betwee trying to win over new voters and trying to turn those who abstained last time into Dem voters. where do you think new voters are going to come from? Most new voters would be poor. The poor would respond to a social democratic program. All the centrists already vote. All the people who want "pro-business" policies already vote.

The reason I have emphasized my stance on the next presidency is that it looks like some people think I'm covertly campaigning for the guy. I don't want him to "take over" the party, either(and from what I can see he was never trying to). I have no objectives other than unity and victory.

I've proposed nothing that would destroy the party.

[NurseJackie]

75. More about that...

Ken Burch
58. Actrually, Bernie's economic message wasn't rejected

LOL!

He lost because African-American, Latinx-American and some demographics of women didn't feel he had a strong enough public commitment to fighting social oppression.

Oh please! Give me a break! Stop blaming others. This reminds me of the "mistakes-were-made" non-apology from the other day. I'd have hoped that a lesson could have been learned, but obviously not.

I have to be honest with you. Splitting-hairs and playing word games does not help your cause. ("No, Mom... I didn't eat the cookies. I just *tasted* them until they were all gone!")

I accept their will.

How generous! (Actually you have no choice in the matter, do you?)

BTW, what is it about social democracy that you actually object to? It's not unpopular and you've never said what your hostility to it is grounded it.

LOL! Logical fallacy. Reminds me of the old loaded question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

I said I wasn't going to respond in the OP because I wanted to just read what people had to say. I was giving people a chance to just say what it was they objected to. In what universe is THAT hostile?

It's just a variation of the "drive-by" technique. One of those posts that says "I'll just leave this flaming bag of shit right here and step back to watch the fun unfold."

Why was it important to get me to respond?

To hold you accountable rather than allowing you to hide in the bushes giggling while someone stomps the flames out and gets shit all over their shoe.

And I agree with you about bringing in new voters...there's no conflict betwee trying to win over new voters and trying to turn those who abstained last time into Dem voters.

That's not what I said. Stop it.

where do you think new voters are going to come from? Most new voters would be poor. The poor would respond to a social democratic program.

Now you're just making stuff up out of whole cloth. None of this is fact-based or grounded in reality. It has nothing to do with the REAL WORLD.

All the centrists already vote. All the people who want "pro-business" policies already vote.

"All", huh? That's a very bold and specific claim. How do you know this? Can you back this up? I'd like to know more about how you know such a thing to be true.

The reason I have emphasized my stance on the next presidency is that it looks like some people think I'm covertly campaigning for the guy.

Yeah, right, uh-huh. Keep talking. Nobody is saying that, but you keep bringing it up out of the blue for no reason.

I don't want him to "take over" the party, either(and from what I can see he was never trying to). I have no objectives other than unity and victory.

I didn't say that. You need to slow down and read what I actually wrote.

I've proposed nothing that would destroy the party.

I'm not stupid. I'm smarter than you're giving me credit for. This question has been asked and answered by someone else who's even smarter than I am.

I think it's important for me to remind you (yet again) that re-asking the same question, over and over, slightly changing the word order is NOT going to change the response you get. I know you're not thrilled with the answers you get, so I'll I'm trying to do is let you know that it's a waste of time to keep nagging with so many different variations on a theme. The answer remains the same. Accept it.

So, Ken... one last thing: Have you presented your plan/s to your local Democratic Party? What's their take? How do they feel about all these Bernie-centric ideas? Are they interested? Do they think any of this will fly in the real world?



PS: Don't forget. Tell more more about how you know that "All the centrists already vote. All the people who want "pro-business" policies already vote."

[Eliot Rosewater]

77. Jesus christ Jackie

remind me to NEVER piss you off!

Please have mercy on him, he knows NOT who he messes with



That is a complement, for those who cant tell.

[NurseJackie]

79. :-D

[Ken Burch]

82. My local Democratic party is run by Sanders supporters already.

and those who didn't support him largely agreed with him on most things anyway.

I didn't start this thread with any malicious intent. I wanted to hear what people had to say.

OK...maybe not every single centrist votes, but they are at about the highest-possible turnout. There's nothing we could do to win any more of them to us, at least not without losing an equal number of votes on the left.

Where do you think there are "new voters" to be had? What sort of people would you appeal to? Almost all nonvoters(and I've made turning nonvoters into voters as much a part of my argument as anything else)are somewhere on the left, and are generally poor. The poor aren't going to start voting unless we actually offer policies that make a difference in their lives. Those are all going to be left policies, because there aren't any untried ideas that could help them that are in the center of the spectrum.

It's been repeatedly pointed out that Bernie lost in those demographics. I get that. He lost because, for whatever reason, they trusted Hillary more. They didn't think he was too far left(polls among people in those demographics put them to the left of most of the country and to the left of most of our party leadership on the issues) or because they are somehow against the very idea of social democracy. While they won't support him as a candidate, there's no reason to assume they'd oppose the very concept of strengthening our economic justice commitment.

I get your hostility to the man-but the ideas of that campaign don't deserve your automatic opposition.

And we don't have enough votes if we anathemize all of the ideas and reduce our pitch in 2018 and 2020 to "stop Trump". Trump does need to be stopped, but we will never win a majority of the votes by leading with that.

[NurseJackie]

83. My answers remain the same. Nothing changes.

The voters spoke but some people still refuse to listen. Please listen.

[Ken Burch]

86. The message of the primary is not a rejection of all of the ideas of Bernie's campaign

It's enough to say it's a rejection of Bernie as nominee. My own theory is that he hadn't even wanted to run for president, but felt he had to because no one speaking to Occupy values, to voters harmed by economic dislocation, to those disenchanted by the way of doing things, was going to run after Elizabeth Warren withdrew.

He lost, but there had to be a candidate with that type of platform or what would have been the point of having primaries? Primaries are pointless with debate and competing ideas.

The party embraced a lot of what that campaign was about in the platform.

And the ideas aren't unpopular among the general public.

As to the voters-it could technically be argued that the rejected the ideas of all wings of the party if you base it on November.

There's no way to increase support by making the party a place where none of those ideas are part of the Democratic message. Everyone knew Trump was horrible in November, but if simply pointing that out didn't work the first time, how could it possibly work now?

You and I both want to turn nonvoters into voters...people who aren't voting now are mainly young, mainly on the left, and/or mainly poor. What's your recipe for getting nonvoters to become voters?

[NurseJackie]

87. You're focused and obsessed with the wrong things.

All I'm trying to politely say is that the voters have spoken and rejected all that you seek the force on us. Listen to the voters. Move forward. Be like Keith. Accept reality. The answers remain the same no matter how you reword and tweak the questions. It serves no good purpose to pretend otherwise or to continue harassing people about it. My friendly advice is that you move on. Failure to do so only causes more division and distrust. Why would you want that?

[Ken Burch]

88. They didn't reject ALL, and I'm not trying to force anything on us.

The message was not that every single idea associated with Bernie's campaign was rejected. Most of the ideas are popular.

I'm simply arguing for ideas, not forcing them on anyone.

It does no harm for me simply to argue for those ideas.

Single-payer is popular. The economic justice agenda is popular. Reining in corporate control over politics is popular. Most of the actual agenda is popular.

Dismiss them all and we don't have any program that can gain majority support. Being just a part of whatever we would stand for without any Sanders-supporter backed ideas means we can never attract new voters. New voters can't be had with the ideas we offered before that.

And Keith never renounced those ideas. "Be Like Keith" does not mean never be to the left of Tom.

[NurseJackie]

89. It was all rejected.

Accept reality. Be like Keith. As Keith says ... "Buck up!"

[Ken Burch]

92. Keith isn't saying that those ideas must be given up on. He didn't repudiate them himself.

And for that matter Hillary doesn't claim the ideas were rejected. Even in the passage where she claims Bernie did lasting damage, she acknowledged the validity, resonance, and popularity of the ideas.

If it was all rejected, half of it wouldn't have ended up in the platform.

Only the candidate was rejected. And it's extremely doubtful he'd run again(he'd be 79).

If someone runs on those ideas next time, it will be a different candidate can

Most of the party supports the economic ideas, and there's no bloc of new voters within our grasp who oppose them.

[NurseJackie]

93. Rejected.

The facts do not change because you wish it were so.

[Ken Burch]

96. The fact that you believe that doesn't obligate me to stop posting in support of those ideas.

It is simply your opinion that the ideas were rejected. If they were, there would not have been tons of them in the platform. Rejected ideas are never included in the platform.

The ideas are popular, are nothing but positive, can be shaped to recognize and address historic oppression.

I don't have to give up on the ideas to avoid trashing or refighting or relitigating or attacking.

If you don't like the ideas, it's enough that you have the ability to put me on ignore or to avoid the threads I start.

If I was disrespecting Hillary or other public figures, you might have call to act as you do. I don't.

If I was doing that to Hillary supporters, you'd have the the right to call me out for that. But I don't.

If I was advocating or defending third party voting, I could understand it. But I don't.

If I had anything whatsoever to do with JPR, I could see it then, too. But I don't

If I was saying our party was no different than the GOP, yes, then I actually might deserve what I get from you.

I've done none of those things and nothing close to any of those things.

I've simply advocated ideas you disagree with.

There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing damaging in that. There is nothing meriting your relentless personal hostility in that.

Popular, progressive ideas are simply popular, progressive ideas.

The only ideas that are barred here are ideas that are violent, bigoted, antidemocratic(in the small-d) and anti-Democratic(in the large-D) sense. I don't post ideas like that, so you have no justification in trying to stop me posting.

[NurseJackie]

99. SSDD (as many others have noted).

It is simply your opinion that the ideas were rejected.

No, this is a fact. It was in all the papers and all over the news. Surely you must have read about it.

The ideas are popular, are nothing but positive,

Nope. They were clearly rejected. Attacks and smears on Democrats and the Democratic Party are the furthest thing from "positive" that I can imagine. You can't blow smoke up my ass. I'm smarter than you're giving me credit for.

you have the ability to put me on ignore or to avoid the threads I start.

What good purpose does it serve for anyone to let any distortions and false claims go unchallenged? That makes no sense. I'm not inclined to let attacks on Democrats or the Party go unchallenged and unanswered. (Perhaps you've forgotten already? I shouldn't have to remind you or go into any details about some very offensive comparisons that were recently made.)

If I was disrespecting Hillary or other public figures,

Kamala Harris? (There's much more, but it really serves no good purpose for me to go into details. I think you know what I'm getting at without having to dredge up all that mess again.)

If I had anything whatsoever to do with JPR,

Who said anything about that? Not I. Only you. You keep mentioning this over and over again. In my interactions with you, I've never written a single word about that site. I've never accused you of having anything to do with that site... yet you CONTINUALLY bring them up.

It's something you like to talk about, out of the blue, for no apparent reason, and apropos of nothing previously discussed. Why? Guilty conscience? Something else? Kinda like this:

Marge: "Homer, I'm home!"
Homer: "I didn't go to Moe's I've been home all day what makes you think I went to Moe's? You keep accusing me of going to Moe's! Nobody saw me you can't prove a thing."

Marge: "Welcome home, Homer. How was work today!"
Homer: "Well, I didn't go to Moe's if that's what you're hinting at!"

See what I mean? What are you trying to convince me of? Why the obsession to convince me that you're not associated with JPR when I've never made that accusation? I don't care about that site and have no interest in that site or its members. Why do you?

If I was saying our party was no different than the GOP,

Ah, but you don't have to say it. Others say it, then you defend them and advocate their rejected ideas. Not much of a difference.

I've done none of those things and nothing close to any of those things.

That may be what you believe, but it's not entirely accurate.

There is nothing meriting your relentless personal hostility in that.

I'm not personally hostile. We disagree. I refute unrealistic and rejected ideas. I scorn and reject the unreliable dead-ender Stein-faction. "There's nothing wrong with that." (Why does my contempt for Stein-voters bother you so much?)

Popular, progressive ideas are simply popular, progressive ideas.

Apparently not as popular as you imagine them to be. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, would we? You have no justification in trying to silence me.

You have not justification in trying to silence Hillary. There's no reason that we shouldn't be able to talk about "What Happened" and you'll never silence the discussion no matter how painful or embarrassing Hillary's words may be. She deserves to be heard.

It serves no good purpose for her to wait EIGHT TO TWELVE YEARS as you've previously suggested. It's unfair to demand her silence as you've previously suggested.

If that's not being "disrespectful to Hillary", I don't know what is. Do YOU think it's being respectful to shut her up? Seriously... be honest with me. Just a moment ago, you bragged that you'd never been disrespectful of Hillary, yet just a few days ago, you were trying to silence the discussion and suggested that she was wrong to write her book, that she should have waited EIGHT TO TWELVE YEARS, etc etc etc. (Was that being "respectful"?)

The correct answer is that it was NOT being respectful. There's a double standard going on here, and I'll call it out every time I see it. I understand why you keep suggesting that I should "put you on ignore"... but I'm not going to do it.

You have no justification in trying to silence ME. I have as much right to be here as anyone. I'm not going to let anyone bully me off the board as someone tried to do recently by accusing me of "stalking" because I replied to their repeated replies to me (and because we're interested in similar topics). And then there was another time that someone didn't like the waving emoji and tried to bully me about that as well.

[Ken Burch]

100. I make no false claims/distortions. I don't lie. And I'm not in any "Stein faction".

Never have been. As far as I know, DU has no "Stein faction". Pro-Stein posts aren't allowed here. Any that appear would be instantly deleted as far as I know. Nor is there anything anyone can do on this board about the tiny and totally irrelevant JPR cabal.

As to Kamala Harris, I said a handful of things ages ago, for which I've expressed regret. I will say I'm sorry about those again now. Those maybe five things at most(I'd forgotten them since they were such a trivial part of my presence here)and they don't reflect ny views of the senator today, for Goddess' sakes. I'm not involved in the anti-Kamala claques that seem to exist now, didn't know of them until I read posts about them here and totally disapprove of them. If I were involved in those, I wouldn't have praised her for supporting single-payer or pledge to support if she was nominated. Do you hold lifetime grudges against everyone who ever, even a trivially few times, spoke of Democratic public figures I a tone of less than absolute reverence? Would you apply that to those HRC supporters who refused to the bitter end to accept that Obama had won the nomination and that their candidate needed to endorse him?

Why is it so important to you to declare every idea associated with the Sanders campaign off-limits? Why would you say they were when Hillary, even while claiming Bernie did lasting damage to her chances, admitted the his campaigns ideas themselves were valid and resonant and that they deserve to be part of what our party stands for. There are very few Hillary supporters who want to anathemize all of the ideas themselves. And if the ideas, rather than just the candidate, were truly rejected by the voters, why would the polls, even the polls showing our eventual nominee leading the candidate who backed the ideas have consistently showed that the rejected candidate was running a stronger race against the eventual nominee?

To me that evidence suggests our actual nominee, and anyone we nominate in the future, could only prosper by adding that economic component to our already strong social component, that our future nominee, whoever it is(and it may well be Senator Harris) could only prosper by connecting with that.

That is why my intent in arguing for those things is positive and constructive. I argue for them because the evidence suggests that more egalitarian, economically democratic ideas will increase our support, will benefit the Democratic base-since the addition of those ideas doesn't require us to throw anything or anyone under the bus-and will help return us to power so we can defend the base from social oppression and institutional bigotry, as all of us are committed to doing.

I want us to get back into power so we can do something about racism and sexism and homo-and-transphobia and xenophobia-we need to turn nonvoters and alienated voters into voters. I agree with you about going after new voters-that's more than half the reason I support what I support. We can't recover or gain new voters without being open to new ideas and new strategies/

As to Hillary, I simply said I wished she had held off on some of the comments. It's not an act of repression simply to have expressed that opinion and there is no chance that my saying it could cause people to avoid buying her book.

I said that because I sincerely believe it only does damage to incite rage between different progressive factions

[NurseJackie]

105. Stop splitting hairs and playing word games. You're not helping your cause at all....

100. I make no false claims/distortions. I don't lie. And I'm not in any "Stein faction". Never have been.

False defense. Nobody said that you were. (Please stop with these silly false defenses for non-existent accusations.)

As far as I know, DU has no "Stein faction". Pro-Stein posts aren't allowed here.

You're not paying close enough attention... they're here. Every defender of Susan Sarandon is part of the Stein-faction. That's true, pro-Stein posts aren't allowed, but people try anyway... or they make coy and coded posts that leave just enough wiggle room for plausible deniability.

Any that appear would be instantly deleted as far as I know.

When they screw up and make themselves known, yes. Not always "instantly"... but eventually... most of the time.

Nor is there anything anyone can do on this board about the tiny and totally irrelevant JPR cabal.

That doesn't explain your apparent obsession with them, nor does it explain the Simpson-like denials. What's that about? You still haven't bothered to explain WHY you continually defend yourself against NON-EXISTENT accusations. Tell us, please. Why the personal obsession with JPR when I've never made any accusation at all?

As to Kamala Harris, I said a handful of things ages ago, for which I've expressed regret. I will say I'm sorry about those again now.

So you admit that it was untrue when you boasted that you "never ever ever (blah blah blah)..." posted disrespectful things against Democrats.

See? That's what happens when you boast about things like that. People remember what actually happened and it comes back to haunt you. (Kinda like comparing the Democratic Party to German Stalinists... in that "humorous" way, eh? People won't forget about that for a very long time either.)

Do you hold lifetime grudges against everyone who ever, even a trivially few times, spoke of Democratic public figures I a tone of less than absolute reverence?

Comparing our great Democratic Party to East German Stalinists is hardly what I'd consider to be "trivial". Play it down all you want, but it was insulting and infuriating... and the (so called) apology was less than forthcoming and it was like pulling teeth to finally get an HONEST apology.

Here's the thing. All I'm saying is that I'm not being unreasonable and expecting people to be truthful about their past behavior and to not lie about their past indiscretions and "sins" is not "holding a grudge". I'd call it not letting you get away with telling-tales. False bragging and boasting isn't a positive trait... just so you know.

Why is it so important to you to declare every idea of the Sanders campaign off-limits?

Please stop telling tales about me. I've done no such thing and you know it. I'm just telling you that the VOTERS rejected them. Find me an actual Democratic candidate for office, or an actual Democratic party office holder who wants to present those ideas and maybe I'll consider them.

We can't recover or gain new voters without being open to new ideas and new strategies/

Flawed logic. I have no desire to reshape the Democratic Party so that it becomes palatable for the Stein-voters and other (ahem) "non-voter" ... to use the allowed euphemism.

As to Hillary, I simply said I wished she had held off on some of the comments.

Yeah, I know you do... for EIGHT TO TWELVE YEARS. That's the same thing as expressing your "wish" that she be silent. That's disrespectful. Stop splitting hairs and playing word games. You're not helping your cause at all. You do realize that, right?

I said that because I sincerely believe it only does damage to incite rage between different progressive factions

That's just another way of letting me know you think she doesn't deserve to be heard and that you think her opinions and insights are worthless. Shame on you! I'll never again believe you when you tell me that you "respect" Hillary or that you accept her as a senior member of the Democratic Party. Whether you realize it or not, you've let down your guard and revealed much more than you realize.

[Ken Burch]

108. Several responses.

When I asked why you didn't just put me on ignore rather than following me from thread to thread you made the comment about correcting "false" things. It was obvioud you were accusing me of saying false things. If you disagree with me, fine, but you have no reason to accuse me of lying or to impugn my character.

And I've never defended Stein voters-not ONCE. I've simply said it was pointless to keep attacking them since doing that can't change anything.

They were wrong to vote Stein and I spent a lot of time trying to persuade them not to.

As to JPR, it's been implied on several occasions that I'm somehow in with them. I've got nothing in common with what I've heard secondhand that they say or do and I totally reject their tactics. Isn't that enough?

You used the term "new voters". That has to mean, in part, people who didn't vote last time. It can't only mean people who weren't eligible to vote last time. I don't defend people who didn't vote Hillary. It's just that I don't believe we can convert them by lashing out at them for how 2016 turned out. Isn't what matters getting more people to vote for us?

And I've never said we should change everything in the party. Our shared commitment to fighting racism, sexism, anti-LGBTQ prejudice, and to defending choice should be retained and strengthened, as should our environmental policies. I've simply said we should add some things to that, none of which would detract from anything we stand for now/

And I proved I wasn't intentionally comparing the party to East German Stalinists-I admitted I made an insensitive, stupid mistake. I agreed I shouldn't have posted anything that even looked like that comparison was being made. I admitted it was wrong from the start...We all make mistakes.

I wasn't "boasting" in any thing I said-I was denying false accusations.

BTW, I didn't claim I'd never said anything IN THE PAST that was over the line. But I've stopped that and changed how I communicate.
I don't have to repudiate every idea I supported in 2016 to prove that.

And it's absurd to act like I somehow persecuted Hillary or silenced her supporters in observing that I couldn't thought it was illadivised for her to put that one part in...but that's just me expressing an opinion. My saying that wasn't going to actually affect anything and I was simply commenting on something that had already happened.

[NurseJackie]

109. Round and round and round we go. Wheeee!

When I asked why you didn't follow me from thread to thread you made the comment about correcting "false" things. It was obvioud you were accusing me of saying false things.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. These two sentences together make no sense to me.

And I've never defended Stein voters-not ONCE. I've simply said it was pointless to keep attacking them since doing that can't change anything.

Sorry, young man. That's the VERY DEFINITION of defending them.

They were wrong to vote Stein and I spent a lot of time trying to persuade them not to.

Then why are you so suddenly concerned about their feelings now?

As to JPR, it's been implied on several occasions that I'm somehow in with them.

Okay. I can believe that. Implied on several occasions BY WHOM? Me? Of course not. You know it, I know it. So it defies any rational explanation why you'd continually (and I do mean continually) pretend that I've accused you of such things.

Why do it? It's irrelevant. It's false. It's dishonest to pretend (on any level) that I've made such accusations. You need to stop. (See? This is why people can't trust you or take you at your word. THIS IS WHY. Take some advice from an "old lady"... you're not wining any merit badges for truthfulness or honesty by playing these types of games.)

I've got nothing in common with what I've heard secondhand that they say or do and I totally reject their tactics. Isn't that enough?

Good for you! Whoop dee doo! That's great. However, defending yourself against NON EXISTENT accusations isn't the way to "prove" your worthiness. It just makes people shake their heads and question every thing else you have to say. So... why do it? What good purpose does it serve?

You used the term "new voters". That has to mean, in part, people who didn't vote last time. It can't only mean people who weren't eligible to vote last time. I don't defend people who didn't vote Hillary. It's just that I don't believe we can convert them by lashing out at them for how 2016 turned out. Isn't what matters getting more people to vote for us?

You're talking in circles. This makes no sense.

And I've never said we should change everything in the party.

False defense against a NON-EXISTENT accusation. Nobody has accused you of ever having said that. Never. Ever.

And I proved I wasn't intentionally comparing the party to East German Stalinists-I admitted I made an insensitive, stupid mistake. I agreed I shouldn't have posted anything that even looked like that comparison was being made. I admitted it was wrong from the start...We all make mistakes.

No, you proved nothing of the sort. Yes, you apologized... but only halfheartedly and grudgingly, and only after first deflecting and blaming OTHERS for not being smart enough to "get you" or to understand the failed "joke".

I wasn't "boasting" in any thing I said-I was denying false accusations.

No, it's right there for the world to see. You were boasting about how you never did all these horrible things, that you're now half-way admitting to when pushed and challenged.

BTW, I didn't claim I'd never said anything IN THE PAST that was over the line. But I've stopped that and changed how I communicate. I don't have to repudiate every idea I supported in 2016 to prove that.

Yes you did. Anyone who cares to check can go back and read the transcript.

And it's absurd to act like I somehow persecuted Hillary or silenced her supporters in observing that I couldn't thought it was illadivised for her to put that one part in...but that's just me expressing an opinion. My saying that wasn't going to actually affect anything and I was simply commenting on something that had already happened.

We've been though this before. And now we're just talking in circles. My responses remain the same.

Namely: You didn't and couldn't LITERALLY silence her... but your efforts to silence and squelch discussion about what she has to say have been noted. I'm not the only one who's noticed and I'm not the only one who's called you out on this. It's futile for you to deny it. These are things that you have done and have said. Ask anyone!

Your responses and attitudes toward her have been very dismissive and disrespectful... especially in recent days. The things you're now saying (with regard to her speaking out and her new book) are in COMPLETE CONTRAST to your boasts about how much you "admire" or "respect" Hillary.

As I've said, we've talked about this before and I can only remind you that simply re-wording your question (or your excuses) won't change the facts and won't change my response.

[clu]

85. IMO

focusing on a poverty aspect is like leaning into the punch if you're debating some centrists. expanded access to education and some work or training program workable and sufficient IMO

[NurseJackie]

90. He won't listen.

Good of you to try though.

[GulfCoast66]

91. And I thought I was hard on him! Nice! nt

[MineralMan]

20. I disagree. He didn't get you wrong, I think.

Why are you asking about what the limits are here, anyhow? Are you planning to test them? The limits here are very, very simple. Don't bash Democrats. Work to elect more Democrats. Don't call people names. How hard is that?

I'm pretty sure you already know what the limits are here. From all evidence, you have known those limits for a very long time.

I'm out. And don't bother DU Mailing me. I don't respond to DU Mail, except on rare occasions.

[Ken Burch]

24. Actually no. In the last few days, virtually any critique of anything the party does

has been labeled as "bashing" or "attacking".

And I can truthfully say that, especially since November but actually for a long time before that, I've posted nothing that can be called bashing or attacking, and nothing that was in any way hostile to you or to the party.

[MineralMan]

25. Whatever you say, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

28. What was ever hostile in suggesting some change in order to win more votes?

All I've done is try to help us win next time, and none of the ideas in my post-November OPs would do harm.

I do attack Trump-it's just that doing that is kind of useless. Trump is horrible, but we can't beat him by focusing on attacking him.

[Ken Burch]

33. And when I sent you that private message, I simply hadn't seen the sign that you didn't respond

to those.

I didn't intentionally disregard your wishes and while what I sent you was simply intended to explain something without derailing the thread we were, I'm sorry I sent it.

I respect you and thought we were in a fairly congenial place, MM, and I have no idea why you seem to be angry with me.

I'm trying to be part of a positive, respectful change.

2016 proves that we will never beat the Right in any future election by focusing mainly on attacking the Right. It proves we need to emphasize what we are FOR as much as what we are against.

Why on Earth would anyone be offended by that observation?

[bettyellen]

43. Except for that song that likened Dems to fascists?

Ooooppppps.

[mythology]

46. More accurately, you haven't admitted that you've posted things bashing the party

Lots of people tend to look at themselves and have trouble being objectively able to view themselves. If people keep telling you that they perceive you as bashing, you might want to consider that you might have either not be communicating effectively or you might actually need to consider if you aren't being entirely accurate in your self-assessment.

[Ken Burch]

52. I've been very careful for a long time now.

I said some intemperate things in the primaries, for which I apologize. I worked all out for the ticket in the fall and did so without reservation.

My OPs since November were repeatedly called bashing or refighting, and I've never had anyone actually say WHY they thought that.

I've made it clear that I don't think Bernie should run for president again.

I've proved I meant it when I said that.

I've framed my suggestions in honest but positive terms.

I critiqued the fall campaign but did so without attacking the nominee or calling out any individual even by implication

As a person who wants us to win and who wants us to govern effectively and progressively when we do, what should I say when some here want us to reduce the whole thing to "Comey-The Russians-voter suppression" and want to focus solely on saying Trump is horrible and trying to win by default? Yes, Comey, the Russians and voter suppression matter. A lot. But they weren't the whole story and we can't gain ground in '18 or '20 by focusing mainly on those things. I speak out because I'm terrified that such a limited strategy can only guarantee that we lose.

I've opposed that because every time we've run a campaign focused mainly on attacking the Right and simply insisting that people HAD to vote for us, we ended up not winning.

When we gave them something to vote FOR, in 2008, we won solidly.

[FreepFryer]

53. Ken, if DU were the Apollo Theatre...

...you'd have been dragged offstage by the rodeo clown by now.

PS please do not DU Mail me again.

[Ken Burch]

61. I only did that because I didn't want to break my commitment not to respond in the thread.

Why was it so important to you that I respond in the thread?

Why not just take the chance to respond to the OP?

And how did any of that equate to baiting?

[FreepFryer]

64. Same answer to all three questions: "Just, don't." (n/t)

[Ken Burch]

69. I wasn't going to.

What the hell are you so angry about?

[FreepFryer]

73. I'm not angry. Just. stop. (n/t)

[Ken Burch]

104. I had stopped by then.

I won't say anything to you at all after this-although it is weird that you went off on me for responding after going off on me for initially saying I would simple listen rather than respond.

Let's leave it at that.

[FreepFryer]

106. I have no interest in this drama of yours. JUST. STOP. (n/t)

[Control-Z]

7. Nicely done, GulfCoast66.

Nicely done!

[Skittles]

8. THANK YOU

I too figured that out some time ago

[Adrahil]

32. Yes! NT

[yodermon]

35. Glad you think "said person" should have run as an independent. n/t

[bettyellen]

44. THIS! And welcome to DU.

[FreepFryer]

51. +1.

[Control-Z]

6. You are aware that just checking who

has posted certain OPs tells us more than the OP does itself?

[melman]

9. The people that cry and scream

about bashing Democrats do plenty of it themselves. It's just the ones they bash deserve it...or something.


So, obviously these people are full of shit and should not be taken at all seriously.

[GulfCoast66]

10. Where are you Ken??

You had no problem responding to me on DU mail even though you said you would not respond. And then somehow finding a way to block DU Mail when I attempted to respond to you.

I may be a redneck, but I am not a dumbass. When someone tells me in public for all to see that they will not respond, and then sends me a personal message that only the two of us can see, I know I am dealing with a coward. Why not show everyone what you showed me in private...after saying you would not respond? Or do you want me to cut and paste it?

Since you found a way to block DU mail please do not send me another private message.

[Ken Burch]

12. I didn't block you, nor do I have a website. I'll look and see what happened.

Part of your response came through but then stopped in mid-sentence for some reason. I truly didn't do anything to stop your messages from coming through.

[justhanginon]

13. Are your middle initials "SSDD"?

[Ken Burch]

26. No.

And I don't do post that could be considering bashing or attacking.

All I've done is respectfully argue for change within the party and for the need to hold on to all the voters we need.

[NurseJackie]

81. And you never have posts deleted for being offensive and insulting? Wow.

And I don't do post that could be considering bashing or attacking.

That's quite an accomplishment. And you never have posts deleted for being offensive and insulting? Wow. That's unbelievable. How do you do it? What's your secret?

All I've done is respectfully argue for change within the party and for the need to hold on to all the voters we need.

Oh, you! Don't be so modest!

I think it's fair to say that the party is strong. We have some very fine talent and a crop of new leaders that are ready to take the reigns. Kamala Harris for example. She's a shining star! I'm sure YOU remember her, right? You've only had positive things to say about her... nothing offensive there either.

Aside from that, the Democratic Party doesn't need to chase after the malcontent irresponsible unreliable emo Stein-voting faction. There's no need to give the party a "makeover" in the image of, or using the agenda of, a candidate who has been rejected. I don't know why anyone would continue to do so. It serves no good purpose (other than one of vanity or an inability to accept the voters decisions) and it's divisive and leads to resentment and distrust.

I'm very excited about the NEW BLOOD and NEW TALENT that we have. Perez is doing a great job, wouldn't you agree?

[Ken Burch]

107. Actually, I generally haven't.

When I have had posts hidden, it's generally been because I was falsely accused of refighting the primaries.

I said a tiny handful of things about Kamala ages ago, for which I've apologized. I had nothing to do with the claques that attacked her. I said they were wrong to do that. And I've praised her for backing single-payer. I've done all I could to put that one to rest.

I've never claimed that nothing I said in the dead past was wrong. People often say heated things in a heated campaign. But that was the past and I more than atoned by working hard for the ticket in the fall.

I've long since stopped saying anything you have any reason to still be angry about or to have spent this much time targeting me for abuse about.

I'm glad we have new blood, but new faces by themselves aren't the answer.

If our party was strong, Trump wouldn't be president and we wouldn't be in the minority in Congress. We wouldn't have been in long-term decline on the state level in most states since at least 2009. That situation can't be put down solely to gerrymandering, voter suppression, Comey and the Russians, and we can't make a comeback simply by speaking about those issues-though speak to them we must.

And I don't want us to be The Party of Bernie-I want us to be the party of Barbara Lee, Kamala Harris, Dolores Huerta, John Lewis,
Occupy, Black Lives Matter, working-class people of all races, genders, orientations, identities and immigration statuses and the peace movement. I want to remake the Democratic Party in the image of the human race.

The message of the primaries is not that no ideas to the left of HRC can be tolerated in this party, and most Clinton supporters don't oppose every single idea associated with the Sanders campaign. If you don't support those things that's your right but it does no harm simply to advocate for them and it's not you place to try to badger me into not advocating for them. Most Democrats and most voters support the economic justice agenda. We don't ever need to be on the side of the rich against the many.

[NurseJackie]

110. Actually, yes you have.

When I have had posts hidden, it's generally been because I was falsely accused of refighting the primaries.

Take it to the admins.

If you don't support those things that's your right

Oh, thank you! How very generous!

I want to remake the Democratic Party in the image of the human race.

Lovely. That's a very tall order. If you're sincere and not just blowing smoke up my ass, I strongly suggest that you adjust your attitude and kindly remove that chip from your shoulder. Seriously. No slam. No shade.

Generally speaking, nobody likes a know-it-all with pie-in-the-sky demands that sound good "on paper" but have no chance of flying in the real world and which have already been rejected by voters. I'm just sayin'. Again... I'm not the only one who's noticed and I'm not the only one to give you this type of feedback. So it's not "just me".

Seriously. Think about it and you'll see that I'm right.

but it does no harm simply to advocate for them and it's not you place to try to badger me into not advocating for them.

So, you're saying that you should just be able to say whatever you want and NEVER have to answer to anyone about anything. Nobody should hold you accountable for being truthful? Nobody should challenge you for being unrealistic? Nobody should ever say anything in opposition to offensive statements (ie: Kamala Harris or comparing the Democratic Party to East German Stalinists). You're actually arguing that you should have FREE REIGN to say whatever you want and whenever you want?

Is that about right? What nerve! Must be nice to feel so entitled. (See what I mean? This is yet another example of how it comes across to others when you speak (or type) before you think (or without proofreading). You're doing yourself no favors.

All I'm trying to say is that you expect far too much and I think it's time for you to adjust your expectations to something that's a bit more realistic. Time to stop feeling "stalked" or "victimized". Time to stop "defending" yourself against accusations that were never made. (People can see right through that game and it diminishes the value of anything else you may have to offer.)

[Ken Burch]

111. I'm saying that people should respond on the merits of ideas-of ANYONE's ideas.

I'd be glad if you actually debated me on ideas I've posted on suggestions for change in the party after the election. I'd welcome an actual exchange of views. I respect you enough to believe you are capable of doing that.

Why don't you just say what your disagreements are with the ideas themselves? Why don't you just lay out where you actually disagree with them? Why does it seem to be so important to you to try to discredit me on a personal level? To use insult and insinuation and personal contempt against me and against others you disagree with? Is there a reason you can't just focus on the ideas rather than the person?

Do you really feel that I somehow have so much power that the ONLY things you can do to respond to me are the tools of invective?
Why does what I post even matter this much to you? I'm not sure why you seem to feel it's your sworn duty to do personal takedowns on me. I'm one unimportant guy on a small, message board.

And I admit error constantly.

But you're holding grudges against me for things in the dead past-things that have nothing to do with anything now. Do you not ever let ANYTHING go? Do you never move on about anything at all?

I've done all I can to put the Kamala thing to rest. I said a few things ages ago that I'd forgotten until this year's Kamala threads started. I truly had forgotten them-everybody who posts here forgets at least some of the things they posted in the past- and I had nothing to do with the attacks this spring. And I praise her now and have pledged to support her if nominated. So why are you belaboring THAT? What else do you want from me?

I apologized for the other thing, too. Nothing else to say on that. I admitted it was wrong and took responsibility from the start. All I said was that it was a mistake rather than malice. All of us make mistakes. Most human beings at some point or other have probably said something they regretted. It's weird to get through life without ever doing that. I'm fairly sure you have at some point, given that as far as I know you're not the Pope.

And really, in terms of the fortunes of our last nominee or of our party there's not that much I can personally be blamed for.

It's not as though it's my fault Trump won the Upper Midwest, for God's sakes-or that we couldn't take the Senate-or that the Comey thing happened-or that the Russians did what they did-or that voter suppression occurred.

And I don't claim to know it all. It's not being a know-it-all simply to post ideas. Most people here post ideas. And most HRC supporters don't respond to my OPs with your unrelenting hostility.

All I'm really saying is...stop with the personal aspect of it.

I don't deserve that from you and I don't think anybody else does.

Debate and discuss...ok?

[NurseJackie]

119. Not all ideas have merit.

Last edited Mon Sep 11, 2017, 03:37 PM - Edit history (1)

111. I'm saying that people should respond on the merits of ideas-of ANYONE's ideas.

Not all ideas have merit. Not all deserve "equal time". Think about it. Should CNN devote time to a program called "GLOBAL WARMING: Why it's a Hoax" or can you imagine something like "KKK: Their Side of the Story" on MSNBC?

All I'm saying is the some "ideas" are obviously absurd on the face of it and many of them have already been rejected. Just because someone thinks something, that doesn't mean it's worthy of serious consideration. Time to move on... that's my best recommendation to you.

Why don't you just say what your disagreements are with the ideas themselves?

I do. We do. Many do. Continually. I think you're just not listening. People are trying to tell you something, but the message isn't getting through. Time to listen. Time to stop pouting and taking things personally. Time to think about what you're saying and consider why it is the responses you receive remain relatively consistent.

Why does what I post even matter this much to you? I'm not sure why you seem to feel it's your sworn duty to do personal takedowns on me. I'm one unimportant guy on a small, message board.

There you go again... trying to make it about you. I'm sorry, but it's not about you. (See previous.)

And I admit error constantly.

Only when pressed. Only grudgingly and halfheartedly. Never voluntarily. (We've been through this already.)

But you're holding grudges against me for things in the dead past-things that have nothing to do with anything now. Do you not ever let ANYTHING go? Do you never move on about anything at all?

It's not about me. As I'm sure you know, I'm not the only one who has questioned or challenged the things you say/write. (We've been through this already.)

I've done all I can to put the Kamala thing to rest. I said a few things ages ago that I'd forgotten until this year's Kamala threads started. I truly had forgotten them-everybody who posts here forgets at least some of the things they posted in the past-

Many people remembered the ugliness and yet you forgot. It's as if by "forgetting" it's all okay and everything is forgiven... as if it "never happened", eh? (We've been through this already.)

And I praise her now and have pledged to support her if nominated. So why are you belaboring THAT? What else do you want from me?

I wouldn't bring it up again except for your constant boasts that you "never" do anything or say anything against Democrats or the Party. When you say "never" it's NOT TRUE. Stop making untrue claims and people will stop reminding you about Kamala and how you once compared the Democratic Party to the East German Stalinists. (We've been through this already.)

And I don't claim to know it all. It's not being a know-it-all simply to post ideas.

Ideas that have been rejected by the voters. Take the hint and move on. (We've been through this already.)

Most people here post ideas. And most HRC supporters don't respond to my OPs with your unrelenting hostility.

I'm not hostile. I'm not unrelenting. I'm being truthful. By way of an analogy: sometimes there's just no pleasant way for someone to be told that they need to start using deodorant. (Not the best analogy in the world, but I think it helps to illustrate what I'm saying.)

All I'm really saying is...stop with the personal aspect of it.

It's not about you. It's about truth. It's about being realistic. It's about realizing that the primaries are over.

Are you sure you want to "go there" with the "personal aspect" accusations. Don't forget, one of us here has been accused of having "dismissive" waving smilies and "stalking" (by simply responding). If that's not making things "personal" then I don't know what is.

I don't deserve that from you and I don't think anybody else does.

As I and others have repeatedly (REPEATEDLY) told you... not everything is about you. But now, you're telling me that you're special? That you shouldn't be held accountable?

Debate and discuss...ok?

Sure. Bring some new ideas to the table. Bring some realistic ideas to the discussion. Stop "defending" Stein-voters. Stop "attacking" Hillary. Stop smearing the party. Stop blaming the party. Stop sticking-up for those who DO smear and blame the party (or who call party leaders feeble and corrupt).

[yardwork]

14. Give it a fucking rest. /nt

[betsuni]

15. Your posts.

[Squinch]

16. .

After reading them, I have a much better understanding of the terms "passive aggression" and "damning with faint praise."

[Ken Burch]

27. All I've been doing is working for unity

What is so terrible about saying we need to make some changes to win, and that we need to keep as many voters as possible?

[Adrahil]

36. I respectfully disagree....

I've seen you post lots of Bernie cheerleading posts and posts defending him against "bashing." I don't recall any posts where you acknowledge that Bernie and his followers did and said some things that are directly counter to party unity. Lord knows Bernie seems completely allergic to acknowledging he might have made a mistake and perpeuated a sense of division. Want unity? Might be worth considering that.

[Ken Burch]

45. I've done a number of posts saying he neede to take a stronger antiracist stand in public

I said he was wrong to get into the whole "identity politics" thing. There's a valid point in the observation that simply putting women or people of color, BY ITSELF, into political office, while a positive step, isn't transformative in and of itself, but he framed the whole thing insensitively.

The only things I dispute now are on things that go too far(blaming the guy for our defeat and accusing him of imitating HRC's proposals, or accusing him of not being pro-choice).

My point on that isn't as much about Bernie-he's a grown man and can take care of himself-it's about not driving his young supporters away, since we can't win if they stay home and we can't get them to the polls just by saying "the Right is horrible". And I can't see how we get them to the polls if there isn't at least some sort of admission that those people were never dismissive about racism, sexism, homo-or-trans phobia, or any other form of social oppression.

I've said many times that I don't think Bernie should run for president again.

How many more times do I have to say that?

And while I'd actually agree that he should formally join the party and find a less antagonistic way of speaking about the need for the party to change, I'm not sure it serves any purpose to make an issue of his party status or try to retroactively delegitimize his place in the last primaries. And it disturbs me that any effort to even defend his place in those primaries is automatically going to be called "refighting" or, in the newest term "religitating".

[clu]

48. i wasn't here in late 2016

I've heard allusions about Clinton babykilling and one other thing. is this what pushed public opinion of Hillary to a degraded state going into the election weekend? instead, would she have been perceived stronger if all dems (Bernie included were to support her as the democratic candidate?

were splinter groups upset by the nomination motivated to act and speak out, which pushed support to jill stein or trump? yes i wouldn't like to see that happen in the swing state groups going into the election.... for me personally i wouldn't castigate the splinter group supporter but instead just consider their motivations.

[Ken Burch]

62. "Clinton babykilling and one other thing"? Dude, WTF?

That is totally out of line.

I suspect you won't be here long.

[clu]

65. someone mentioned the state of affairs in 2016

and i heard that was the worst of it. my post was in the context of the worst possible behavior of Bernie or busters at the time. am i incorrect?

edit - not pizzagate but some Libya policy or something sheez

[UTUSN]

18. Here's a thought: Anything not aimed at WINGNUTS. Like these threads.

[Ken Burch]

29. I do attack the right. It's just that 2016 proved that we can't win by attacking the Right.

I've been in all sorts of anti-Trump protests.

[Weekend Warrior]

38. When you actually do get to analysis...

Last edited Sat Sep 9, 2017, 04:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Which isn't that often, gems like this come out.

"It's just that 2016 proved that we can't win by attacking the Right."

No, it didn't. The claim is false at face value.

It's not about analysis of the party to you. That has quickly become extremely clear.

[Ken Burch]

47. I'll expand on it, then. I base my analysis on the fact that, in the 2016 campaign,

none of the attack ads on Trump ever increased support for our ticket in the polls, or ever increased support for Democratic candidates down ticket.

Each time one of those rounds of ads hit, we stayed exactly where we WERE in the polls.

If leading with attacks on the Right were actually effective, we would have gained in the polls.

Given the 2016 result, why even try an attack-first strategy again?

I could see staying with that if it worked, but what's the argument for thinking that a tactic that failed once won't always fail?

My argument is that that results shows that the voters want us to emphasize what we are for.

We have a LOT of good things to offer.

We can win the argument.

[Weekend Warrior]

56. I didn't say to stay with it.

You are simply making side points as a way to distract from your original false assumption.

Standard operating procedure.

[Ken Burch]

60. I made no false assumption.

I justified my point.

Focusing on negative ads could only be seen as successful if those ads increased our support in the polls, if they swung votes to us that we otherwise would not have won. The polls stayed exactly the same after each round of negative ads, therefore they didn't work.

Why even gamble on the idea that what didn't work in 2016 could ever work in any future fall campaign?

[mopinko]

19. posts of legit news event are exempt as far as i am concerned.

i have been called to juries where some mainstream news source is linked. i wont delete that.

i wish the personal posts refighting the primaries would go away. but i do think that posts defending hillary are important in light of all the lies. the truth is important.

posting rw talking points du jour should be shut the fuck down. we need to learn to not take the bait.

[Fresh_Start]

23. Imagine extending the courtesy that you want extended to progressives

being extended by progressives to moderate voices in the party.

Until the progressives themselves are held to the same standard that they want for others, there will continue to be fights.

I think that anything that weakens support for the party at this time, has no place on DU.

I think that the constant attacks by the 'supposed' progressives on the party during the 2016 election helped elect the current nightmare.

No one at any time should say that the democrats are no better than the republicans or that they are two sides of the same coin. Any fake equivalency starting with smears about being 'neoliberals' to 'third wayers ' or whatever is NOT welcome.

Any who says we have to join THEIR revolution instead of being a democrat is now an enemy because they are dividing us when we cannot afford to be divided.

I'm still waiting to see the revolution attack republicans with as much determination as they attack democrats who aren't 'progressive enough'.

In todays America, all democrats are progressive compared to the republicans, libertarians, etc.

[Ken Burch]

30. I agree with much of that.

In my OPs since November, as far as I know I've shown no disrespect to moderate voices.

The OPs mainly focused on saying we need sharper policies and a more positive campaigning style(a focus on getting people to vote "For" rather than just vote "Against&quot . Why do people act like THAT is bashing or attack?

We are clearly different than Republicans-all I've pointed out is that basically the only votes we can add to our total are either those people who decide that conservatism is mostly wrong(a smaller group), or those people to our left who didn't back us(more of whom simply didn't vote at all and SHOULD have voted for us) who can be persuaded to do so next time(a significantly larger group)-so we should focus on getting as many of the larger group as possible into our corner.

Why is that taken as hostility or attack?

[Fresh_Start]

39. I'm not responding to any of your actions

I'm responding to the claims
we need to get rid of pelosi..
we need to get rid DiFi..
only if the party moves further left can it ever win again

its going to be difficult to break through the ignorance continuously being expounded by Fox and other rightwing media sources.

I think that we can't solve those issues enmass..

They need to be solved locally.
We all have to engage with our communities and educate and promote democratic values.

I'm in a liberal area in California but more than 30% of my neighbors are still republican.

There is always room to educate and promote the democratic party.

Saying you don't know what it stands for is an attack on it.

The problem is that we are not a slogan. That doesn't mean we don't stand for anything

I'm more liberal than most democrats but I get called a globalist...because I think that we have obligations to the downtrodden around the globe.

I put the needs of women, children, minorities, immigrants, LGBT, the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick above the needs of those of us in the middle class. But apparently that is not part of the revolution.

The status quo from 2016 is looking pretty good right now compared to the revolutionary goal of burning everything down in order to enable a new liberal rebirth.

[clu]

41. attacking sitting dems

those messages are manageable if dems are smart about it. issue a press release claiming that these movements seem to be gaining traction, and wonder why that is. the elusive 20% self-professed independents aren't stupid (well not that stupid anyway) and they perceive corruption as an issue, which is why they were deceived by swamp draining trump.

if these opinions are what separate you and i, then "these courtesies" should most definitely be allowed. look at the distinctions between alt-right libertarians and older social conservatives. we do have a big tent and there must always (hopefully) be a free exchange of ideas.

[Ken Burch]

50. I also think we have obligations to the downtrodden.

And I share those priorities. That's one of the reasons I opposed most of the recent trade deals-they left the downtrodden out in the cold

One of our big problems is that we haven't offered policies that brought the poor to the polls.

We need to be the party of the voices from below, we need to be for humanity before greed, to turn those nonvoters into voters.

And to my knowledge, nobody on the left has argued for policies that leave the poor, the hungry, the homeless, or the sick out in the cold in order to win "the middle class". At most, there has been an argument that working-class voters(NOT the middle-class)be part of the equation. Some of those working-class voters are white, but does it harm anything to admit that some people who happen to be white could have common needs with people in the other groups? Do we have to ditch New Deal values to avoid being bigots?

Can't we have New Deal values without white supremacy?

Why is there this implication that we somehow have to choose between social justice and economic justice-that we can't have both?

Or that economic justice would be whites-only?

[Fresh_Start]

122. the problem is that white working class voters as a group

seem to vote against policies for non-white, non-christian downtrodden people

they have been pro-racist since the civil rights acts...so they are not suddenly going to be seduced into supporting the 'others'.

so yes, we need to ignore the part of economic justice that is pro-working-class white racists.

we need to stop pretending that they will somehow come into the fold...they are most happy (even when miserable) as long as the "others" are even more miserable.

[Ken Burch]

124. I agree that that has been the pattern.

But we can't ever get a majority if we give up on even trying to get most of those voters(there are plenty of nonracist white working class people, btw)to vote for their own class interests.

And the economic justice movement(not talking about the Sanders campaign here, the economic justice movement overall) was never solely or even primarily about white working class people-it was and is about working-class people of all races.

Is there no way to center the anti-social oppression struggle AND fight economic injustice at the same time?

Can we never move past the idea that somehow we have to choose between those things?

I agree that economic justice ideas need to compensate for historic oppression, btw.

[Fresh_Start]

126. there was an article published in the last two weeks

that looked at the BOBers who voted for trump.
They were just like other trumpsters...
They believed that the whites were the group most discriminated against.

So I really don't have much hope for them.

I think we have to have a "justice, equality and opportunity for all" platform.
I think civil rights, voting rights, equal protection under the law (and from the law), and equal opportunity in jobs and education should be part of the platform.

But there is no economic justice without civil rights and respect for the individual.

I don't think we are that far apart.

[Ken Burch]

129. I wholly agree with you that there is no economic justice without civil rights

and respect for the individual.

And I truly believe that the prohibitive majority of the people who backed Bernie have always agreed with that, too.

And I believe, as I've believed for decades, that there are no civil rights or respect for the individual without economic justice-the conclusion Dr. King arrived at when he decided to start the Poor People's Campaign, an effort that should be considered just as much part of his legacy as the "I Have A Dream" speech.

I hope you and I can work on the assumption that Hillary and Bernie people are on the same page on that as well.

[clu]

31. how is such an attack manifested?

by a politician's public statement picked up by the media during a primary? certainly they would begin attacking republicans after a primary was over. by a measurable group of the party (DU) mentioning negatively perceived aspects of a primary candidate? IMO this should be completely in-bounds in the media and also on an internet message board during a primary. there are surely polite limits on what someone could choose to "attack". if someone gets too personal yes this is bad for everybody. we can examine this with the concrete example of Obama's support of public option during his presidential candidacy. attacking third-way dems shortly after the election for stopping progress should be completely within bounds, since expanded coverage is (should be) obviously what all democrats want. maybe it could have been done at a politically safe time, when any sitting dems in red areas would have time to regroup. heck, this criticism is being posted on a dem party message board - who is even reading this? other dems! to what extent is this harming any democratic image?

outside of that, please elaborate on the aspects of the platform - labeled as third-way - that will benefit us going forward. at this point my understanding is that this will provide us with a center democrat in a red area.

[Willie Pep]

66. I think the line should be drawn between constructive criticism and scorched-earth criticism.

If we can't constructively criticize the party then we will never know what is wrong and work on fixing it. However, claiming the party is totally worthless, totally corrupt, offering no solutions, etc. should be considered "bashing." The latter is scorched-earth criticism that just tears down without building up. An example of this would be saying that the Democrats are no different from the Republicans which is not only untrue but furthers the destructive meme that politics is worthless and you should just stay home or vote third party. I saw a lot of this on other message boards coming from left-wing people during the 2016 election. That is not helpful and actually hurts liberal causes in the long run.

[clu]

67. that corrosive statement

is a bit of an overgeneralization that is rooted in what distillable "fact"? gee i wonder

[Ken Burch]

70. OK, I agree with all that.

btw, since my posts haven't said any of those things, why am I getting so much blowback?

[maxrandb]

74. Anything

that would lead to Donald Fucking Short Fingers being elected president with white supremacists sympathizers controlling all branches of the federal government and a large majority of State houses.

Is that clear enough?

If you don't vote for a Democrat, or you suppress Democratic voters, you're no better than the Vichy French.

This IS a binary choice.

We can worry about whether a particular Democratic politician is pure enough... AFTER we destroy this Retrumplican party.

That's the enemy, and the election of the orange asshat demands all hands on deck for this moment.

[choie]

80. Anything that criticizes either Clinton

N/t

[dembotoz]

118. Ain't that the truth surprised ur post not alerted

[pnwmom]

94. Since when is a particular independent the only person who is qualified to speak on progressive

principles? Just because a particular Senator identifies himself as a progressive doesn't make him THE progressive and THE voice for all progressives. It doesn't even make him more progressive than most Democrats -- except in his own mind and those of his supporters.

There were millions of real live progressives who chose to vote for the woman who won the Democratic party nomination by several million votes. And, despite how much his supporters love him, there is nothing that makes the other candidate a more valid choice for most progressives.

[Ken Burch]

97. I never argued that Bernie was the only person who could speak on progressive principles.

Of course other should be able to do so as well.

I accept that Hillary won the nomination, worked for her in the fall, mourned the result and fully respect her as a senior Democratic figure.

That said, it's not like the nominating battle ends the discussion on the issues and the future direction of the party though, and there's no reason the ideas behind the Sanders campaign should be excluded from our party's future. In the passage of the book that was often quoted this week, Hillary acknowledged that the ideas themselves are valid and relevant.

My focus has been on keeping those people from the Sanders contingent who are with us with us, with making nonvoters(most of whom are a bit to our party's left) into Democratic supporters, and creating a platform that persuades people to vote FOR us, as opposed to our focus in most years(other than 2008 in recent memory) of simply hoping the voters will elect us to stop the GOP from winning.

I agree that some(not most, but some)Sanders supporters could find a better, more constructive way of communicating with others in the party. At the same time, I think Sanders people are owed a collective apology for the repeated insinuation that they were disrespecting women and people of color simply because they preferred Bernie over Hillary. In truth, they were always just as antiracist, antisexist, pro-LGBTQ and pro-choice as HRC supporters. And there should also be an admission that Bernie's Jewishness should never have been used as a talking point against him. There were and are pro-Sanders people who've been inappropriate-there was inappropriateness on the other side. Apologies are due from both, because heated things are said in the midst of a campaign and no one should double down on them.

That's why I want a dialog process started-to educate people on both sides of that on how to communicate respectfully and recognize the large amount of common ground they share. It's in our interest as a party to end the hostility between those factions and get everybody together on a level of civility and common ground.

[pnwmom]

98. If Bernie wants to be part of the party's future he shouldn't have left it.

I was willing to take him at his word when he JOINED the party. He then said he was a Democrat. I feel betrayed by his decision to leave the party later; to choose to criticize it from a distance. He is still acting as if both major parties are equally flawed, and then he is somehow above other politicians. And then he pretends to be trying to recruit young people to the cause -- while disparaging the only party that has a chance to bring progressive ideals into reality.

I never saw anyone accusing Sanders supporters for being racist or sexist simply because they preferred Bernie. And I didn't see Democrats trying to use his Jewishness against him. I did see people criticize him for disparaging Democrats for what he called "identity politics" -- and I think he deserved to be criticized for that. He seemed to often have a tin ear, both for racial and feminist issues, because he was always determined to boil everything down to class and the 1%, and nothing else.

[Ken Burch]

114. I'm not concerned about Bernie as much as I am about winning over his supporters.

We need to connect with them and make it clear their values are welcome in this party and that they are welcome to try to work to get their ideas, in at least some areas, adopted as party policy.

Contrary to popular belief, I've never worshipped Bernie, and I don't think he should run again. But we need his supporters and his ideas. Even Hillary, in the section of the book excoriating the guy, said that the things his campaign stood for are valid parts of the Democratic discussion.

[pnwmom]

115. The problem is that Bernie himself is making it harder to connect with his supporters,

because he's still putting himself BETWEEN his supporters and Democratic progressives. And by making a point of leaving the party, he's discouraging his supporters from affiliating with it.

I used to think he meant well but I don't any longer. This just seems self-serving.

[Expecting Rain]

112. You wonder (disingenuously IMO) why you get blowback?

And it's because of lies you toss out randomly, such as sawing Bernie Sanders deserves and apology for for having his "Jewisness" used against him.

No one did that Ken. And you a know it.

This is why you get blowback. It is pure bullshit.

[Ken Burch]

113. There were threads here with titles like "the voters will never elect a socialist Jew".

A thread title like that can't be called anything but anti-Semitic.

A lot of us saw them.

You didn't use those words but a lot of people did.

And it was also implied that, if you supported Bernie, you were somehow voting against African-Americans, Latinx-Americans and women simply because they happened to prefer her-as though the only way you could prove you were anti-oppression was to vote for Hillary.

In reality, Sanders supporters were always just as committed to fighting racism, sexism, and all other forms of social oppression as Clinton supporters, never wanted the party to take the side of white men against the needs of the Democratic base, but simply wanted to add a fight against economic oppression to the policy mix.

[PufPuf23]

95. Some Democrats are more equal than others. nt

[LonePirate]

101. An attack would be like when the (far) left wing of the party went after Kamala Harris.

By most measures, Harris is a solid Democrat and one we should all be proud of. Evidently that is not enough for some in the party. Perhaps now that she has signed onto Bernie's health care proposal, those people attacking her will see the light.

[Ken Burch]

103. I like Senator Harris and played no part in those attacks.

I said a small number of things about her during the nominating contest, but that's all I ever said about her.

Those attacks shouldn't have happened.

[left-of-center2012]

102. Any, all suggestion of an open discussion is considered treason

Anyone who says it may be helpful to talk about new ideas, new candidates, new policies
will be tarred and feathered.

And never ever mention the name of, well, you know --- the independent Senator from Vermont.
Or the Addams family will hunt you down.

[uponit7771]

116. bold faced lies about the DNC is not "open discussion" and neither are half truth when it comes

... to the parties or false equivalencies when it comes to the parties being "the same".

Most of the NON-"open discussion" coming from those that are not even in the party is self serving bashing ... throwing shade to make themselves seem different than the rest

[left-of-center2012]

120. Thank you for making my point

[Ken Burch]

130. Fair enough.

And that's why most of us don't make that claim-though none should.

Thanks for the response. I always learn from and respect what you post.

[Trumpocalypse]

117. If you have to ask

you might be part of the problem. Sounds like you're trying to figure out just how much you can get away with without getting banned.

[left-of-center2012]

121. So, someone can not ask without being threatened?

Is this the new America?

Sad

[Trumpocalypse]

131. Threatened???

Since I'm not a moderator, I don't have any power to threaten anyone. I was just calling him out on his BS.

[LanternWaste]

123. Sincerity would be a good, first step

Sincerity would be a good, first step. It's not difficult to do, and even less difficult to perceive. That I believe, is the foundation for the respect you allege is missing. That being said, a pretense of sincerity is often worse than no sincerity at all.

On the other hand, I do not expect any poster to admit to insincerity, and will rationalize the numerous interpretations as such as inaccurate... that being one of the strengths of the passive-aggressive personality.




"But it's beginning to look as though ANY questioning of what the party leadership does..."
I'm not surprised your bias denies you clarity and the ability to see that which is plainly there.

[Expecting Rain]

125. Well said.

[Hekate]

127. How about posting an out of context comment and insinuating the worst betrayal?

How about responding in kind, resulting in over a hundred posts of mindless outrage?

Hmmmmm

[alarimer]

132. I wish I knew.

You can't even discuss Obama's failures, which include deporting many more people than his predecessors and bombing civilians with drones.

And to even suggest that Hillary Clinton bore some responsibility for losing the the worst candidate ever is forbidden.

But we have to talk about it. The same-old, same-old is not going to work.