"The current model and strategy of the Sanders wing of the Democratic party is an absolute failure."

[Eko]

They have lost election after election, Sanders himself lost the Democratic primary. Its just constructive criticism right? Just so anyone knows this is in response to Senator Sanders himself saying this "I’m often asked by the media and others: How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopular presidential candidate in the modern history of our country, won the election?" Sanders said. "And my answer is that Trump didn’t win the election; the Democratic Party lost the election. Let us be very, very clear: The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure."
The quote in the title is mine.
The quote above is Senator Sanders in full.
Ill add this,
"Trump didn't win the election, the Democratic party including Senator Sanders lost the election since he lost the primary and didn't even get to move on to the next level to compete against Dump."
My quotes.
Is this re fighting the primary?
No, since Senator Sanders said this well after the primary.
Some, shoot maybe a lot of you are tired of hearing about this. I understand that. I'm tired of talking about this myself. What I see is a divided party where one side is still fighting against the other. You don't see Democrats trying to primary liberal independents or Clinton attacking the Sander wing. Sanders can say what he wants about Clinton, Clinton about Sanders, that's a personal thing. But only one side is attacking the whole party for the most part.
And we do have much, much, more important things to work on.
In a perfect world this is what I would as a Democrat want to hear from the Sanders wing.
"I think the Democratic party relies on or does this that I think is wrong but at this time this party represents more of my values than the other major party and I will work with them to create positive changes and hopefully enact some of the changes that I think can better every Americans lives. We will continue to work with our closest allies to enact this and realize that we will have to compromise some but I believe we can make historic changes."
Simple.
Flame on.

[Chasstev365]

1. Yeah, you posted this already!

[Eko]

2. thanks for replying

but no I didnt.

[Me.]

3. If You Did I Didn't See It

[Eko]

5. Thanks Me!

No, I didn't post this previously, they are probably confusing where I posted what Sanders said as the title and didn't switch it around.

[mythology]

10. That is an utterly pedantic argument

If you want the Sanders and Clinton factions to stop fighting, here's a hint, stop being one of the fighters.

You added a few words, but didn't substantially change your argument. Pretending you did is not being intellectually honest with other DUers.

[Eko]

14. If reversing the argument is not substantially changing it

then whatever.
Most would agree that it is a major change.
I don't want the Sanders and Clinton factions to stop fighting, I could care less.
You don't see the Clinton wing fighting the Democratic party.
That is the point. I could care less if Sanders and Clinton keep fighting.
I am a Democrat.
I am for the Democratic party, and when someone attacks it I attack back.
Bam.

[mjvpi]

4. I see this fight at DU.

I see a DNC that has retooled. I see Democrats coming up with great ideas and being ignored by the MSM. What possible purpose does this post serve? What ideas are you putting forward and to what end? Feelings got hurt during the last election. I voted for HRC. Does that mean that I shouldn't urge my Senators to support single payer health care because Senator Saunders is on of the authors. Take a deep breath and recognize who our enemies are.

[Eko]

6. Nope,

No feelings hurt. I support single payer health care. I think the Sanders wing by bashing the Democratic party is pushing away voters. That is all.

[mjvpi]

9. I believe that the quotes Saunders quotes that you are using

pertained to the Democrat's move away from a 50 state strategy and adopting a top down hierarchy. If there is anyone who should take those comments personally, it's Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The DNC is now under new leadership and is perusing a 50 state strategy. Are you saying that by the act changing their strategy the DNC is now under the control of the "Saunders Wing" of the Demacratic Party? Obviously you are very passionate. I would like to undo Trump more than you would, guaranteed. We have a whole Republican Party to beat on. Senator Saunders is still actively promoting policy that I see as essential to America. Please bury the hatchet. There are true assholes that need to be stopped dead in their tracks.

[Eko]

11. There is a lot here to unpack.

Your first two words are telling, " I believe", that means that you have no real evidence to prove that. It is your opinion. I never said anything about the Sanders wing taking control, and how do you know you would like to take Dump down more than me? As far as burying the hatchet I am advocating for Sander to do so, so.

[gtar100]

7. What I don't get is that *we didn't lose!* The election was stolen from us.

Certainly we need to do better at getting people to understand the Democratic platform and why it is good for them personally as well as our country but our biggest obstacle is a republican party willing to lie, cheat and steal their way into power.

In concert with that is a media biased against us. Poor journalism, conservative bias and outright propaganda are the norm in the mainstream media.

If we can't overcome these things, it won't matter what we do.

[Eko]

8. Well,

We did loose according to the rules. But, we did get more votes, so that is a huge win also, too bad it didn't translate into an actual win. There are a lot of reasons why we lost, the deck was stacked against us for sure. But it is what it is. Sadly.

[RandomAccess]

12. Now that I've discovered it

I'm going to start putting people who start threads like this on Ignore. Should improve my experience AND my mood.

[Eko]

15. No problems

Good for you.
Some of us don't enclose ourselves in a bubble, I dont. Not a single person on ignore.

[lunamagica]

13. No flames from me

K&R!

[Eko]

16. Thanks!

[democratisphere]

17. Blaming others and not accepting responsibility for your own shortcomings and failures.

Who does that sound like? Hmmm?

[Eko]

18. Blaming others for what?

Be specific.

[democratisphere]

20. Sanders blames the Democratic Party for his loss in the primaries.

Sanders loss in the primaries was his own; no one else's. drumpf is notorious for blaming others for his own failures.

[m-lekktor]

19. You are going to write this with a straight face after the last election?

that wasn't the "sanders wing" that just lost to Donald Trump.

[HughBeaumont]

21. Nor was that the "Sanders wing" that led to a 900 seat loss and a Fascist takeover.

The Democratic Party took it's foot off the gas after 2008. The GOP pursued the small state strategy and enacted death by 1000 cuts.

This party lost the country with it's still-Big-Insurance-controlled health care. ConservaDems proved to be a liability on that one. If you cannot see the value of a public option, you don't belong in this party. Mercantile CullCare is barbarism. A recognized universal human right shouldn't take bravery to support or be controversial.

[leftstreet]

24. And now Baucus says we need single payer

Sep 8 2017, 9:28 pm ET
Affordable Care Act Architect Flips on Single-Payer: ‘The Time Has Come’

by Alex Seitz-Wald

WASHINGTON — In the summer of 2009, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. was asked if Max Baucus, the Democratic chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee who was taking the lead on health care reform at the time, was open to his ideas.

"To a single-payer idea? No. Not in a million years," Sanders replied to a C-SPAN interviewer.

It turns out the wait was much shorter.

"I just think the time has come," Baucus told NBC News Friday, after stunning healthcare observers earlier in the day by seemingly coming around on single-payer at a public forum. "Back in '09, we were not ready to address it. It would never have passed. Here we are nine years later, I think it's time to hopefully have a very serious good faith look at it."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sanders-steps-push-single-payer-health-care-old-foe-switches-n799911

[HughBeaumont]

25. FAT LOT OF GOOD THAT DOES US NOW, MAX!!!

The only reason "it would have never passed" is because the Big Insurance-fattened LieberDems were in bed with the Big Pharma-fattened Repukes.

[karynnj]

55. He KNEW he could NOT get 60 votes for either of those plans

He said that was his problem with them. It was his job to get a bill that could pass the Senate. This gave the most conservative Democrats the power to stop a bill. If he could not get Lieberman, the bill failed.

Had he gone with the private option, it would have failed and - given how MA voted - the very narrow window when we had 60 senators would have closed.

[HughBeaumont]

56. And I reiterate - THAT. SHOULD. NOT. BE.

The fact that he wouldn't have received 60 votes for a health bill that would have semi-brought us up to speed with the rest of the world and into the 21st century . . . . that's a major, MAJOR problem. That's a serious ethical void.

There is absolutely NO reason to continue supporting the "meter's running" shenanigans of Big Insurance, Big Pharma and corporate hospital Chargemasters. If you cannot support at LEAST a multi-payer health system in the supposed "Greatest and wealthiest country on Earth" - GO JOIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Anyone who makes any person's health care more difficult and expensive to attain isn't anyone's friend or worthwhile public servant. They're a disgrace.

Quisling "Democrats" who won't give a single INCH on even incremental changes are actually WORSE than "all about Number ONE" Republicans or Libertarians . . . because selfish bullshit is what I EXPECT from Republicans.

Tell me something . . . WHAT INTEREST is it of ANY rich, corporate-fattened wealth hoarder whether or not a lowly impoverished citizen even has one BREAK thrown their way . . . one BONE? ONE CRUMB???

[karynnj]

57. Let's say Bernie were the chair of the Finance committee that he has never sat on in 2009

what would Bernie have done?

He knows that he is leading in a releatively unique interval where we have 58 or 59 Senators and then 59 to 60 once Spector changes party. We have the House and we have a President who has made health care a goal - as EVERY Democrat ever has. It may be a unique opportunity to pass something a bill that greatly expands health care.

In the real 2009, where he was not the chair, Sanders advocated for single payer, but also said that only about 10 Senators would vote for it. Senator Kerry, who also said he personally would support single payer also said that it could not get the votes. When the questioner pursued asking why they could not persuade all the Democrats, he answered that some were ideologically against it and that they were unwinnable at that point. Both of these men have successfully sheperded bills through the Senate and know how to count votes. They also knew their peers well.

Would Bernie in Baucus's position have simply put a single payer plan on the table, pushing it and pushing as many Senators to vote for it as he could.

We know from real 2009, that the republican party pretty much pushed their people to vote no to anything. This led to the very sad sight of Olympia Snowe, who had long supported similar bills to the ACA, voting yes in the Finance committee saying she did not want to be on the wrong side of history ... and then joining the wrong side in the floor vote and then not running for reelection. I would guess that like Baucus, he would try to work with the most amenable Republicans because there were some Democrats, Lieberman for one who would never vote for single payer. You could say it was because CT was the home of many insurance companies, but Dodd was likely one of Bernie's 10 Senators.

To pass single payer, support would have to increase form the 10 or 12 Senators to 60. Would Bernie gamble that he could do that? Would President Obama - who said in 2008 he supported the idea of single payer but it was not doable support him on that?

My guess knowing things people spoke of his successful terms as mayor of Burlington .. and his work with McCain on the VA bill is that Bernie would have determined the best plan that could actually pass. In Burlington, he supported development that other progressives were against -- sometimes winning, sometimes losing. In neither of these old or new examples would he have not worked to get things done.

[HughBeaumont]

58. Except Single Payer wasn't what was being voted on. It was multi-payer.

A public OPTION that would exist among private OPTIONs, not "Entirely Public" (or, if we were speaking idiot - "Teh gubmint takeovuh of helth care" ).

And there were supposed "Democrats" who couldn't even pass THAT. America couldn't even be brought to speed with the rest of the world on merely a still-private insurance controlled multi-payer system. Not one inch, not one CRUMB.

"It just didn't have the votes" is the problem of the legislators, not the issue.

If there's any sort of measure as to how reprehensible a person is, it probably starts with placing financial and political interests over a person's health.

[karynnj]

62. If YOU were the chair of Finance or the majority leader

What would YOU have done? I trust Bernie when he says that only about 10 Senators would have voted for it then.

Yes, legislators being against it was the problem, but what would you have done. It was the best shot in decades AND both the public option and single payer would not pass. People like Lieberman were not going to change their position. They created a bill that barely squeaked by. It was as far as that lehislature, when we had 60 senators, would go.

Longer term, thanks largely to Bernie, there is more public support than 8 years ago, also fewer people have employer paid insurance and maybe more Senators will sign on, but there are STILL nowhere near 60 unless even some Republicans now favor it.

[leftstreet]

23. +1

[Iggo]

22. Keep fighting that primary!

[Warpy]

26. Yeah, "business as usual" has been such a great selling point

Keep flogging that dead horse.

[dchill]

27. The Trump administration is an absolute failure.

Everything else is a work in progress. Glass half full.

[left-of-center2012]

28. Let's move on from bashing Bernie

The obsession of bashing Bernie on a daily basis has gotten really, really old.

We need to focus on beating the GOP in 2018 and 2020.

[murielm99]

30. That sounds very much like

all the people who are saying that Hillary should sit down and shut up. Bernie can write two books and run around promoting them, but the woman has to shut up. Bernie supporters want us to shut up and not criticize their patron saint.

It is valid to criticize Bernie for his current comments and actions. He is not being told by the OP to shut up, simply to change his words. I don't think he will do it. He is getting too much attention this way. If anything, the OP could have added that Bernie should be saying a whole lot about the Russia investigation. He isn't.

We are focusing on beating the GOP in 2018 and 2020. I see a lot of candidate training and activism. That is very positive.

I don't like it that the activism coming from Bernie supporters and his Our Revolution group includes primarying Democrats and possibly supporting repubbies. The only one who should be primaried is Bernie. I hope he has a strong Democratic contender. Of course if he changes his words and activities, I could change my mind on that. But I don't see it happening.

I agree with the OP. And if it is all right to criticize other Democrats here, people like Pelosi and Booker, then there should be nothing wrong with criticizing Bernie.

[left-of-center2012]

31. My post didn't come close to mentioning Hillary

I voted for her.

Just tired of the Bernie bashing.

[murielm99]

33. I didn't say you mentioned Hillary.

I made a comparison between what is being said about her and what you said.

[left-of-center2012]

44. All I said is "let's move on"

[angstlessk]

37. Did Bernie blame Hillary for losing the primary?

I didn't think so.

[NurseJackie]

43. Correct. However...

... I remember hearing something about how the party was "corrupt" and party leaders were "dishonest" and something about the delegates being "disloyal" and super-delegates being "unfair" and endorsements being "bought" and computers being "rigged".

There were a lot of accusations flying. Surely you must have heard something about it. It was in ALL the papers. It's been so long ago that I forget WHO said it... probably just some emotional malcontents.

[YCHDT]

41. If Bernie can move on from unfairly bashing democratic party

[zentrum]

29. And apart from the Primary

.....what last election has Hillary won? And BTW, is it Bernie's failure that the Democrats have lost the House and the Senate and now the Supreme Court? So, he's a failure compared to .....what?

Bernie had no national name recognition when he began, didn't have the backing of the DNC or the Democratic establishment, ran a real grass roots campaign and had a big influence on the platform. And now is considered one of the most trusted and popular politicians in the country.

He's still out there campaigning for single payer, free state college education, protection of DACA. What a failure!

[murielm99]

32. Bernie wins his elections

because Democrats have allowed it. They don't run strong candidates against him. They haven't minded him being in the Senate, because he caucuses with them.

Who says Bernie is a failure? I would say he is a rather mediocre Senator who has not had any legislation passed that he has sponsored and seen all the way through to becoming a law. As far as his influence on the platform, the ideas he promoted were there before he ever came along. Bernie supporters would have us believe he has done everything but invent the wheel.

If all he was doing was supporting single payer, free college and DACA, I would be fine with that. But he is supporting division at a time we need unity. He was given a chance to work on unity and he blew it. Dean worked to help the party when he dropped out of his primary. Bernie should be doing the same. Of course Dean is an actual Democrat.

If you have a right to criticize Hillary's record and actions, then we have a right to do the same to Bernie.

[clu]

34. amendment king

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/

[seaglass]

40. lol. n/t

[clu]

45. yes i re-read the link after posting

and it does state that his record is poor wrt lahey, but I don't follow politics closely enough to know their roles well enough to make any sense of the comparison.

in the meantime, this photo was taken yesterday in purple dallas - of course on a pickup truck. it is a notable sentiment among self-professed independents. I wonder how Bernie's recent statements criticized in another thread would resound with this demographic.

[zentrum]

35. We agree on one thing.

The Dems are prone to running not strong candidates.

That's one of the main problems.

Bernie campaigned for her, just like Dean, but I get it--it only counts when Dean does it. And of course, Bernie did nothing wrong by being in the primary. Its how the system works. Debate, critique--you know?

So--let's see, he divides, but they need him to join them for their caucus votes? Funny how that works.
Why not just toss him out of his seat in VT by running a strong opponent if he's such a divider?

He's a mediocre Senator? Suggest you look at her record while she did her short stint as Senator.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022

[Jim Lane]

36. There are the outs and there are the establishment types.

You complain that "only one side is attacking the whole party for the most part."

Well, only one side has control of all the levers of party machinery for the most part.

Bill Clinton and the DLC were attacking the whole party when they said the party had moved too far to the left, a Third Way was needed, etc. That's because, back then, they were the outs.

To say that no one should "attack the whole party" means, in practice, that it's OK (well, sort of OK) for people to endorse specific candidates, but no one should ever go beyond that by calling for improvement in the structure and overall direction of the party. That stricture, of course, means that the people who are not currently controlling the party should just STFU.

The people who are actually attacking the Democratic Party are the ones -- a tiny minority of Sanders supporters -- who are trying to start a new party of the left. Go on, keep up this self-righteousness about how one faction in the Democratic Party is pure and true and noble but the other is engaged in vicious infighting that only helps Trump. Keep singing that song and more and more people will decide that the Cornel West types are right, that there's no home for our side in the Democratic Party, and that a new party is the only answer. The more of them who follow that path, the more likely it is that Republicans will increase their hold on government.

And if smears of Bernie like the ones in Hillary's book reach the point where he's finally had enough and he throws in his lot with the organizers of a new party, then no Democrat will have the ghost of a chance of winning the White House in 2020.

[clu]

46. +1

yes there seems to have been some recent article outlining some fake people for sanders group - the author dismissed the group in her writing. this doesn't help public perception but if dems can't run a countermeasure to that, maybe we're sitting aside 2016 for yet another reason. I have a little more faith in the American public than to bother countering that non-starter. that's something that we do in personal conversations when possible.

considering the content-creation focused nature of the broadcast and internet media these articles are just going to pop up some times.

[Eko]

48. Ok.

You complain that "only one side is attacking the whole party for the most part."
Well, only one side has control of all the levers of party machinery for the most part.
Doesnt change the fact that they are attacking them, nor is that a good enough reason.

Bill Clinton and the DLC were attacking the whole party when they said the party had moved too far to the left, a Third Way was needed, etc. That's because, back then, they were the outs.
Can you be specific about these attacks?

To say that no one should "attack the whole party" means, in practice, that it's OK (well, sort of OK) for people to endorse specific candidates, but no one should ever go beyond that by calling for improvement in the structure and overall direction of the party. That stricture, of course, means that the people who are not currently controlling the party should just STFU.
Attacking the party is quite different from calling for improvement and I certainly did not say they should STFU.

The people who are actually attacking the Democratic Party are the ones -- a tiny minority of Sanders supporters -- who are trying to start a new party of the left. Go on, keep up this self-righteousness about how one faction in the Democratic Party is pure and true and noble but the other is engaged in vicious infighting that only helps Trump. Keep singing that song and more and more people will decide that the Cornel West types are right, that there's no home for our side in the Democratic Party, and that a new party is the only answer. The more of them who follow that path, the more likely it is that Republicans will increase their hold on government.

I never said that that any one faction of the Democratic party was pure and true and noble.

And if smears of Bernie like the ones in Hillary's book reach the point where he's finally had enough and he throws in his lot with the organizers of a new party, then no Democrat will have the ghost of a chance of winning the White House in 2020.
So Clintons comments are smears but Sanders are calling for improvement in structure and overall direction of the party.
You Just Proved My Point.

[Jim Lane]

49. I appreciate your addressing what I actually wrote. Here are my responses.

Your first few paragraphs are about the ill-defined concept of "attacking" the Democratic Party. I say it's ill-defined because I don't see a bright line between "calling for improvement", which you admit is OK, and "attacking", which is what you attack. (Wait a minute, are you attacking Democrats who attack other Democrats because attacking Democrats is bad but you're not bad because "Mom, he started it"?) It seems to be mainly a difference of tone. I, personally, would incline to say something like "The Democratic Party should lessen its dependence on big-money donors." Others would say "The Democratic Party has become a corrupt tool of the donor class." Anyone who accepts the first statement as legitimate criticism but who rejects the second, not on its merits but for its wording, or who brands as unacceptable the very wording of the hypothetical attack on Sanders in your OP, is, IMO, exemplifying what's already become a cliché -- the snowflake. Get over it and deal with the substance. As another cliché has it, politics ain't beanbag.

You ask, "Can you be specific about these attacks {by the DLC}?" I'm not going to undertake a comprehensive history of the intraparty warfare triggered by the DLC. In a quick search, I found "Why the Democratic Party Acts The Way It Does", a review of a book by DLC founder Al From. The review quotes Bruce Babbitt, a DLC member and later a Clinton Cabinet officer, saying, "“We’re revolutionaries. We believe the Democratic Party in the last several decades has been complacent. . . ." From himself wrote that "what we hope to accomplish with the DLC is a bloodless revolution in our party." Sanders supporters who followed the defeat of 2016 by founding a group called Our Revolution are following in that tradition. On substance, I largely agree with Our Revolution and disagree with the policies the DLC pushed when it existed, but both are examples of the intra-party conflict that's inevitable in a "big tent" (OK, I promise that's my last cliché).

You conclude (your quotation from me boldfaced):

And if smears of Bernie like the ones in Hillary's book reach the point where he's finally had enough and he throws in his lot with the organizers of a new party, then no Democrat will have the ghost of a chance of winning the White House in 2020.
So Clintons comments are smears but Sanders are calling for improvement in structure and overall direction of the party.
You Just Proved My Point.

You're totally focused on personalities here. Clinton's comments aren't smears because I disagree with her about the best course for the Democratic Party. They're smears because they're misstatements of fact:

* Some can be labeled misstatements because, although no one can prove with mathematical rigor that they're false, no sensible unbiased person could believe them. I haven't read her book, either, but this charge against Bernie has been widely reported:

"His attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign," wrote Clinton.

Donald Trump's campaign for the Republican nomination relied heavily on personal attacks. Does she think that the guy who lit into "Crooked Ted" and "Little Marco" was suddenly going to take the high road against her in the general election? Bernie famously disdained interest in her "damn emails." His "attacks" were instead about substance. Hillary was implying that, if Bernie hadn't criticized her over the TPP and Glass-Steagall repeal, Trump would never have mentioned that the FBI was investigating her.

* Other statements in What Happened are more cut-and-dried, i.e., demonstrably false. An example cited in this video in another thread is that she apparently charged that Bernie took her ideas, on things like infrastructure and youth unemployment, and then just proposed the same thing, "only bigger." The video presents news articles showing that Bernie's proposals preceded hers. She can criticize Bernie on policy all she wants, but when she misstates facts, then some of us will say that she's spreading smears.


ETA: I just noticed your statement in the OP that "You don't see Democrats trying to primary liberal independents...." If by "liberal independents" you mean incumbent Democrats who backed Bernie, there are very few of them in the first place. One of his prominent supporters was Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Yes, she was primaried, and yes, this effort was met with effusive praise on DU.

As a side note, some DUers now denounce the idea of primary challenges to the more conservative Democrats because that money could be used against Republicans in the general. That anti-Gabbard thread includes a link to her primary challenger's Act Blue page but nobody seems to have raised the point about defeating Republicans.

[Eko]

50. HaHa

Im a snowflake,,, wow nice use of deplorable terminology. No, the specifics about the attack were in reference to Clinton attacking the Dems, it was very very clear.
* Some can be labeled misstatements because, although no one can prove with mathematical rigor that they're false, no sensible unbiased person could believe them.
Wow, nice proof. nice proof.
Amazing.

[Jim Lane]

51. Pardon me, but would you explain your laughing? I guess I'm too dense.

You write:

* Some can be labeled misstatements because, although no one can prove with mathematical rigor that they're false, no sensible unbiased person could believe them.
Wow, nice proof. nice proof.
Amazing.

Here's where I'm unclear. Do you believe that, if Bernie had never run for President and had never voiced a word of criticism of Hillary Clinton, that Donald Trump would not have called her "Crooked Hillary"?

See, I think he would have called her that anyway. I think he would have mentioned her emails anyway. But I'm left confused about whether you think that.

[Gothmog]

38. K&R

[ucrdem]

39. If he'd won the primary and lost to Trump he'd be saying the same thing.

Heck if he won the presidency running as a Dem he'd still be saying the same thing. It's what he does and it's always worked well for him.

[Lil Missy]

47. Sanders doesn't own a wing of the Democratic Party. He's not a Democrat, nor does he pretend to be.

Sanders is more like a persistent fly in the ointment.

[NurseJackie]

59. Great description. Thank you.

[The_Casual_Observer]

52. Dems lost to trump because the public is dumb. The public wanted "change" and entertainment

and that's what they got.

[phleshdef]

53. This bullshit is getting tiresome and on top of that, no one is listening to you.

[QC]

60. ...

[theaocp]

61. You literally told people to, "Flame on."

How is that not disruptive and/or inappropriate to rational discussion?