2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nictuku
(4,654 posts).... this OP seems to be one of those designed to divide us.
Is it working?
Same shit, different decade. IMO. People wise up fast to this kind of Red vs Blue trap.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Greens? Socialists? Democratic socialists?
jalan48
(14,914 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)jalan48
(14,914 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 13, 2016, 04:04 PM - Edit history (1)
**Note to thought police
This is tongue in cheek humor. I was a Bernie supporter in the primary. It's meant to be funny. Is everything clear now? Can we still laugh at ourselves?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
Gothmog
(179,632 posts)jalan48
(14,914 posts)DetlefK
(16,670 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Because Ghadaffi is just like Castro.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
Cary
(11,746 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)We are, after all, everywhere.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'd help, but the goose has to get itself out of the bottle. Its more meaningful, that way.
Cary
(11,746 posts)The affectation is obvious sober or not.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)you tell em, champ!
Cary
(11,746 posts)<yawn>
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)He's a Wadical Weftist!
Cary
(11,746 posts)Impressing me?
Pfeh.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)at my age, I can't lift things like I used to, know what I'm sayin?
Cary
(11,746 posts)My Kung Fu is still powerful.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
samir.g
(836 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's only now getting to the point where I can go to the laundromat without being swarmed by groupies and paparazzi.
samir.g
(836 posts)
coolbreeze77
(35 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The cold didn't discriminate
Cary
(11,746 posts)But ice cream has no bones.
George II
(67,782 posts)jalan48
(14,914 posts)Jean-Jacques Roussea
(475 posts)
/revision/latest?cb=20160822124135portlander23
(2,078 posts)You beat me to it.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,479 posts)Leon Trotsky? Chairman Mao? Pol Pot? What's the "radical left"?
TXCritter
(344 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Anyone with an IQ over 100 knows that.
TXCritter
(344 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)I'm still not aware of any such need.
JenniferJuniper
(4,571 posts)
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)People who confabulate are what, exactly?
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Is no honor among thieves.
The person who says they don't trust someone is the person who needs to take a look in the mirror to recognize themselves.
The "radical left" as you put it, didn't do anything wrong. People vote what they believe in, and I voted for Hillary because she was are only true chance of beating Trump.
Call me what you will, but I'll sleep fine at night.
Laffy Kat
(16,950 posts)
Cary
(11,746 posts)I said I will never trust the radical left. Hate and trust are not synonymous.
Trust is earned. Irrational loathing of Democrats is not going to earn my trust and I'm pretty sure I'm in the majority.
Laffy Kat
(16,950 posts)I'm sorry you don't trust me.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 13, 2016, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)
That's why they didn't vote for our ticket.
It's not JUST about you trusting them.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Okay, evidently the lack of trust is measurable, but do you think they will trust Trump more.
Trust is not all important when it comes to survival - if the ship I am on sinks and there is only one lifeboat, but someone I don't trust is already in it, I'm still getting in that life boat. Too bad too many stayed in the shark infested water with Jill Stein, and we didn't have enough people to row to shore.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Talking truth to insecurity.
Gothmog
(179,632 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)I spoke for myself and I didn't ask for your approval.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I simply pointed out that the distrust goes both ways.
Cary
(11,746 posts)You definitely spoke for others.
You also assumed that I care.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And you may not care, but you are going to a great deal of trouble to privilege YOUR "distrust".
We could have WON in the Electoral College if the "moderates" had treated this fall campaign as a partnership, if they had seen Sanders supporters as a group who were worth adding to the Democratic coalition, rather than a threat to be thwarted at any cost.
Preventing Bernie from getting nominated is one thing...why was it so important to make the people who voted for him unwelcome? What good did that end up doing us?
I hate that a lot of the people who COULD have been our voters were lost. And I don't defend the decision anyone made to refuse to vote for our ticket. But I also think that those within our party who made choices that helped push people in the direction of NOT voting for our ticket need to be held accountable.
We won the popular vote. We COULD have won the Electoral Vote AND the Senate(and perhaps the House)if we as a party had said "yes, we NEED you" to voters to our left, rather than treating them as if they were of no value to us but OWED us votes anyway.
ms liberty
(11,229 posts)BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)You made a big huff about what Clinton was supposed to say to win your side over, and then Skinner posted the quote where Clinton said exactly what you demanded to hear, in her convention speech, and it still didn't sway your side.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2633474
He even got you to agree that it's exactly what Clinton was supposed to have said before he revealed he was quoting her acceptance speech! 
Egg on your face, huh?
No one is buying your excuses any more, Ken. Your goalposts move so often they should have wings and a jet engine.
sfwriter
(3,032 posts)MAYBE MADE AN AD OR TWO OUT OF IT.
Wouldn't it have been amazing if she had won just a few more votes?
But, no, no, lets win fewer votes in the name of ideological purity.
This op started with the premise that separating yourself from the radical left was desirable. That's fine until the party moves so far right that you find yourself on the "radical" left or the left surges in popularity to the point that your previous position (Race, Crime, LGBTQ) now seems rightwing. When that happens, you need allies.
Why is rigidity being prized so highly around here?
Cary
(11,746 posts)Ken's goalposts make my brain hurt.
Gothmog
(179,632 posts)The platform was re-written to make Sanders happy and the Rules Committee worked until 2AM to come up with rules to make sanders happy. I was also in the delegation where two dozen very young sanders supporters walked in with locked arms to condemn Hillary Clinton and to demand that we vote for Sanders. It was fun watching the older sanders supporters come around and apologize to the Hillary delegates for these actions. From my observation, there were a ton of bernie or bust types at the convention who would never be happy.
I am curious what more could have been done to make the Sanders types happy? Putting Sanders on the ticket would have be a mistake given the oppo research that I have seen on him. Please tell me what could have been done to satisfy your demands?
George II
(67,782 posts)Gothmog
(179,632 posts)Significant efforts were made to get the Sanders supporters on board despite some clear pre-planned efforts by a decent percentage of these supporters to undermine the convention. We had a "whipping infrastructure" (a term that I learned at the convention and still love using) in place to deal with the bernie or bust types. It was an expierence
Cary
(11,746 posts)And never, ever accede to reason. So they cannot be trusted, in my opinion.
Gothmog
(179,632 posts)I hope that these people are happy with trump
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)of having a rational, mature and intelligent woman as president who once used a private server, eh!
Wow, that was a close one.
In the end while I am certain Hillary actually won MI, WI and PA and the Russians hacked voting machines and voter suppression with crosscheck and ID laws that are very unconstitutional played their roles, the person I will blame more than any other is the alleged lefty who supported Bernie but wouldnt support Hillary.
I will never forgive those ridiculous people for what is about to happen.
uppityperson
(116,017 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Since I didn't express any loathing, you have no basis for.your assertion.
uppityperson
(116,017 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)They have expressed their irrational loathing of Democrats. Just look at the reaction here against me for simply saying I don't trust radical leftists.
uppityperson
(116,017 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)No one to the right of where we were in 2016 is going to switch over to us, no matter what we do, so why refuse to appeal to the only additional votes we can pull in?
It's about converting minor-party voters and making non-voters INTO voters.
We did everything we could this year to appeal to "moderate Republicans", and none of them voted for us.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I don't appreciate getting knifed in the back.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)When Tim Kaine gave his acceptance speech, the Sanders delegates just wanted to silently hold up signs that said "No TPP". The signs they had brought in were confiscated by convention security, and when they handmade new ones, they were told that if they held them up their delegate credentials would be suspended.
Letting them silently hold up the signs would have done no harm, and no one who still backed TPP was going to vote Democratic by then. What was the point of being heavy-handed about that?
It's not as though anyone in the party OTHER than Obama personally still supported that deal at the time.
These were people new to politics, and rather than welcome them as we should have(which could have been done WITHOUT nominating Bernie, for the record) the party gave them the finger by doing things like that. It should have been enough for the establishment that Hillary was nominated, that her running mate was to her right, and that the status quo language on defense, foreign policy and the I/P dispute was in the platform.
I say this as someone who spent the fall begging young people like this to support our ticket. We could have had those votes(even with Hillary as the nominee) if only our party's leaders hadn't made such a big, arrogant show of putting these people in their place.
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)Holy cow. How does "being asked to follow the rules like everyone else" become "putting these people in their place?"
It doesn't and never will, within the confines of this reality.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)We have done it before and we'll will do again. This was just a very strange election for a number of reasons. Usually the reasonable far left ends up voting Democratic when they figure out how bad the alternative will be. The Republicans are our best allies in this regard. The Socialist, the Greens, etc. will always get their 1% to 3%, but in most elections, especially in swing states, they are not the deciding difference.
With the demographic shifts which are just now starting to exert pressure on the electoral system growing every year, the far left will lose more and more of its clout. Blacks and Hispanics are not far leftist. Unmarried females are most interested in reproductive rights and equal pay for women. Young people more concerned about practical matters, their ability not be drowned in debt getting a college education and having a good job starting out. Once they start their own families and start paying taxes, they will be come less rebellious. None of these future progressives are natural candidates for joining the far left.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)supports a very moderate form of social democracy at the most, and they are antiwar, but this country isn't THAT militarist unless it gets propagandized into it).
What is it that the groups you describe as "far left" that is THAT intolerable? or "rebellious"? And who do you believe the "rebellion" is against? Is there really all that much in the current status quo that we, as Democrats should be content with?
Is it "rebellious", as you see it, to support the following:
Free college? In much of the world, that's a baseline expectation and it's to the good of all.
Single-payer healthcare? Again, most of the world sees something like that as a baseline expectation.
A full-employment economy? That was FDR's goal...do you actually object to that?
Restoration of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush cuts to social services? Is THAT rebellious?
Opposition to further military intervention? Well...so what? We already know that there's little more we can do militarily in the Middle East through the use of force. Why NOT try giving war at least a little bit of a rest.
Oh, and most people of color are well to the left of white people in their views on the issues. It's only the 2016 primaries that created the myth that the left is a whites-only part of the spectrum.
And as to youthfullness...Bernie is almost 75, and a lot of people in their forties, fifties(such as myself)and sixties spent months campaigning for the guy. You do NOT speak for the middle aged or for people of color or for anyone other than yourself.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)To the left of attila the hun us the "far left" to them.
Even sadder, the people they are calling "far left" are like mainstream dems of the FDR era...
These guys let their favorite politicians drag them rightward.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)in November.
Dont know what you are if you (not you personally) didnt vote for her, but you are not a liberal or a Democrat or left.
You might be radical left in some new definition but I hate seeing that word used in any connection with people who made such an irresponsible and selfish decision to support Bernie but not support Hillary.
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)Lots of people who were members of the actual radical left(communists, anarchists) refuse to vote in elections for various reasons. You could certainly argue that it is an irresponsible position, but it's hardly new.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)ever communists or anarchists.
Far from it.
They are many things that I could say all of which would get me in trouble because my attitude about them is very poor and angry.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... it is their absolutely insistence that they are the only ones that know how to achieve those objectives. In the process they confuse the methods they favor with the objectives they seek and in the process lose sight of their original objectives. This is apparent in the way you have stated the objectives of the far left in your post above
Let's take medical care for instance. The objective is not single-payer system, the objective affordable health care for all, including for those with with little or no ability to pay. If other solutions will work well, that's fine with me. Now you can argue that perhaps a a single-payer system is the best way to achieve that objective, but others might for argue that there is no need for the government to furnish free health care to millionaires. Others may be insist that there is no need to destroy the private health insurance industry which provides employment to hundreds of thousands of people.
In an other instance, the objective is not free college, the objective is all of those with the desire and ability to go to college have the financial means to do so. Free college is not necessarily a perfect solution. I would point to the many kids whose parents had plenty of money to send them to college who spent their time drinking and partying and then flunked out after one or two semesters. One could argue that there is no need for the government to replace the parents of these spoiled kids in paying for their education.
I could on, but I am sure you understand where I am going with this. We live in a country which has throughout its history swung back and forth like a pendulum over long intervals of time between favoring right leaning and left leaning policies, but never straying far from the center before reversing course. (I have my on explanation for this phenomenon, but I will save that for a later date.) The only time we have diverged from this pattern was in times of great stress - deep depressions, wars, etc., after which we always reverted to more centralist policies. My point is that people in this country are unlikely to adopt socialist solutions to solve societal problems, just as they are unlikely to adopt the solutions of the far right.
Throughout history there have simply been too few on the far left in this country to effectively promote the changes they advocate and that has continued generation after generation. This is unlikely to change. I think we are entering a era where the people in his country will lean more to left than in the recent past, but never far enough to adopt the socialist proposals of those on the far left.
In addition, the insistence of the far left that that their way in the only way makes them opposed to the compromises necessary to make any real progress towards mutual objectives of all progressives. They rarely make any progress because they are unwilling to compromise and their failure to make progress towards their goals makes them frustrated. There frustration leads them to believe in conspiracy theories which they use to explain why they rarely win. All of this makes them poor allies when it comes to finding solutions the problems we all face.
I think that President Obama was speaking to the far left in this section of the speech he made during the commencement activities at Howard College:
And democracy requires compromise, even when you are 100 percent right. This is hard to explain sometimes. You can be completely right, and you still are going to have to engage folks who disagree with you. If you think that the only way forward is to be as uncompromising as possible, you will feel good about yourself, you will enjoy a certain moral purity, but you’re not going to get what you want. And if you don’t get what you want long enough, you will eventually think the whole system is rigged. And that will lead to more cynicism, and less participation, and a downward spiral of more injustice and more anger and more despair. And that's never been the source of our progress. That's how we cheat ourselves of progress.
mtnsnake
(22,236 posts)Not only do I think we can appeal to them, but as long as we're going to be playing by the rules of the electoral college, we HAVE to appeal to those voters with hopes of winning some of the swing states where we bombed in 2016.
There are more than a few rural folks who would probably switch sides if we stopped stereotyping them as much as we so often do. Maybe if we spent more time getting to know them better, finding out from them what it would take to get them to switch, they might learn that we are not out to take away all their guns and we might learn that many of them aren't all that different from us when it comes to basic human values.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(and also with the idea of doing a major voter registration effort among the rural poor-which is a group of people no one in our party has really tried to connect with since Bobby Kennedy).
What I'm talking about is the folly of trying to appease unionbusters, "law and order" fanatics, deficit hawks, and ceo's. We did that in the Nineties, and the result was a "Democratic" administration that was too far to the right to be distinguishable from a Republican adminstration(in an era where we never HAD to appeal to people who were THAT hostile to our base), and under which deeper cuts in the social wage occurred than would ever have happened under any Republican president.
We can win without losing ourselves like that again.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Oh how can you ever tell the difference?!
You'll bother with the latter group sometime, I hope. You'll need us "radical leftists" when you stop punching us and decide to stop this horror.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Reactionaries win not because the center left is punching the left, it's actually the left punching the center left.
Unfortunately a lot of "leftists" would rather gaslight everyone who disagrees with them than actually address the issue. And the issue is that the center-left and the left more or less have the same goals, just differences on means. But actively trying to sabotage people who have the same goals as you, just with different means, not only does not further left goals, but creates even more division, as you see here. Not to mention that for some "leftists", nothing is EVER enough and they'll spew the same intellectually mendacious tripe to make the center-left candidate even MORE unacceptable, whether it's "social fascism" in the 30s or "not a dime's worth of difference" in 2000.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)media won't still hand the election over to the GOP.You can point at anything you choose to point to, but the bottom line is that the media continues to black-out some stories, misinform on others, and propagandize the population on a daily basis, which is why we can have election fraud, absurd gerrymandering , and voter suppression without the media giving any of it more than an inconvenient peep now and then.
That means, I'm sorry to say, the Democratic Party Leadership is getting played for fools. Either they have to fight corporatism and the corporate media along with it, AND THAT MEANS CALLING THEM OUT LOUDLY AND IN UNISON, or they can keep coming in second.
Cary
(11,746 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 13, 2016, 03:10 AM - Edit history (1)
If you are tired of it, then put it to rest. Refute it, cuz i've seen nobody bother. And don't try to weasel out of it with some bullshit about how its been refuted time and time again. I'll lay it out nicely for you and you can take a swing at it.
Is the media an extension of corporate interests, or is it not?
If it isn't, why the fuck isn't it? Its all owned by megacorps, and it is funded by advertising dollars of other major corporations. Why don't you explain to me how stellar the coverage was by our media giants during this election, or hell, reminisce about all that stellar coverage from previous cycles, or explain it away as them just chasing ratings, like that pittance is anything like the dough their parent companies rake in as a result of their shitty job.
What do you have instead? A lame-ass blame game pointing at the wrong small-time players, for what? So that our ailments seem manageable? So that you don't have to cope with the whole system being rigged? Is it bite-sized enough so that you can make yourself believe that you just need to vilify those damn lefty liberals and everything will be fixed next time around?
I'm sorry to disappoint you. It ain't them. And you know what, unless Russia literally hacked our machines, it ain't them either. Their fake news pales compared to ours. Their propaganda machine operates only by the grace of our propaganda machine, which could have cut off its air in every iteration had it wanted to. And I'm also saying, but you're not hearing, that it wasn't the weak democratic platform that lost us the race. Our platform was as progressive as its been for a while. Our candidate was campaigning on a higher minimum wage, free college, and the assertion that there should not be for-profit prisons. Almost 48% of the voting populace didn't hand Trump the Presidency simply because our platform was weak and needed to cater to more white voters with a stronger economic message. That hardly matters at all if that isn't the message people end up hearing.
The single greatest influence on Trump's rise and success in this election lies at the feet of the media, and I think you know this. You have to know this.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
tecelote
(5,156 posts)Your divisiveness serves no purpose.
It's time to come together.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Because I don't trust radical leftists.
It's good thinking like this that makes me want to trust the radical left.
tecelote
(5,156 posts)Nothing to do with my problems. Distrust whomever you want.
Posting it is divisive and right now we need to unite not divide.
Cary
(11,746 posts)My lack of trust of the radical left is no threat to you. Nor is my expression of it.
Get a grip. I'm allowed to not trust people whom I deem to be affected.
tecelote
(5,156 posts)So, why did you post?
Right now, we need to work together against a much greater threat. Infighting will only weaken us.
Buck up and stop whining.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Your problem with that is your problem, not mine.
My problem is with people dividing rather than uniting at a crucial time for us all.
Priorities. Radical left, left, corporate Dems, Independents, etc. - we all should have a common goal over the next few weeks and we are weaker divided.
You disagree?
no_hypocrisy
(54,885 posts)Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman are dead.
SDS has disbanded.
Black Panthers are kind of mainstream these days.
radical noodle
(10,591 posts)to believe every conspiracy theory and fake news story about a Democrat, they're too far gone for me.
Cary
(11,746 posts)radical noodle
(10,591 posts)We only have to look elsewhere on the internet to see Hillary shaming Trump loving leftists.
Charles Bukowski
(1,132 posts)Shitting on Obama's legacy.
The horseshoe theory in politics is 100% correct.
radical noodle
(10,591 posts)and far left meets far right. I think that's where they've gone.
hueymahl
(2,904 posts)See how that works?
Both our statements are ridiculous on their face.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I have no idea what you think you're talking about and I don't care.
If you're suggesting that I have any influence over irrational loathing of Democrats you're dead wrong.
hueymahl
(2,904 posts)I parrot your EXACT statement back to you using a different subset of the Democratic constituency and you respond by putting words in my mouth about how I am suggesting, with YOUR statement, that there is loathing of Democrats involved.
VERY interesting.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)We don't need you.
And, FWIW, I voted for Hillary. I'm an extreme lefty, not fucking insane.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Nice to see you. Long time.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Get over yourself.
Cary
(11,746 posts)You do realize, don't ya, that no one cares about your projection either? But I note that you do care enough to try to irritate me.
Not that I care. Just saying that you're not being honest.
longship
(40,416 posts)
If it makes you feel any better I had a purpose in posting my simple expression of my own, personal feeling on the matter. And it might ease your apparent distress to know that the response I got will be put to good use.
What does it say about someone who can't handle a simple expression of someone else's personal opinion?
longship
(40,416 posts)That's why. If people are so blinded that they do not understand this very simple concept, heaven help us all.
Find allies against the utter madness. Unite, do not divide.
Cary
(11,746 posts)No one is stopping you from doing what we need to do, except yourself.
And that's the problem with radicals. They are radical for the sake of being radical. They place more importance of. Their own radicalism than on anytbing else, including their tolerance for my honest expression that I can't trust them.
I can't trust people who would cut off their own nose to spite their own face.
longship
(40,416 posts)See how far that gets us.
United we fucking stand; divided we fucking fall.
You choose for yourself. I have already made my choice. I have very little sympathy for your divisive rhetoric.
longship
(40,416 posts)In case you are not paying attention, the GOP has the vast majority of the state legislatures, the governorships, the US House, the US Senate, and now the White House (or if you wish, the Trump Fucking Tower). As the GOP has gamed President Obama out of his justifiable SCOTUS nominee, we'll likely lose that too to a fucking lunatic.
People's personal opinions become important at these times. I am a lifelong Democrat. I will support my party no matter how bad things look. If we do not join together we will be lost. Indeed, we may have already lost because of silly fucking infighting.
Meanwhile, the Christian wackos, the libertarians, the neocons, and the alt-right fucking racists are united for Drumpf.
Here, we fight amongst each other. How fucking idiotic!
Join us all! Please!
DFW
(60,162 posts)They are only happy when they control everything: thoughts, events, and you.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Gahndi, and Eugene Debbs, Jesus, Caesar Chavez, Malcolm X and Galileo, Susan B Anthony, Socrates, the Founding Fathers...
Since the beginning of written history people have been labeling others whatever the prevailing term for radical is, usually because they want to marginalize them and hopefully bury them and their cause.
I would suggest that instead of using such a broad-brush term, you define yours.
Cary
(11,746 posts)So many bumper sticker slogans. How do you keep them straight?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)tossing off one liners, and you are calling my posts bumper sticker slogans? Have a conversation already and quit sucking our collective energy away from something actually constructive with your shit-posts.
PS. I suppose its not by accident that you chose to just drive-by on this one and ignore the other thread entirely.
DFW
(60,162 posts)Just a bunch of dedicated people who cared about others. Radical to me means extremists who want to do exactly what I said in my post: have control over thoughts, events, and other people. You know, like telling what to do, as in "you define yours," after I did exactly that.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 13, 2016, 02:57 PM - Edit history (2)
said something that you know is foolish? I can only hope. Your description doesn't resemble anybody that Cary was actually referring to with the OP, which is my point. You are letting the slur stand while being coy about who those radicals are, except for in my case, so thanks for at least being honest.
There is a difference between characterizing radicals--which by doing so in this post is characterizing some vague block of lefties--and defining your terms of what a radical in fact is.
That's right, by our standards today, none of the people on that list are radicals. I thought that was my point, but thanks for helping to make it.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I have enough friends.
DFW
(60,162 posts)I don't know how many are "enough," but the ones I do have are rock solid, and that is more important.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Rather bemusing the righteous exceptions you take to opinions offered in this thread disaffected with your implicit mistrust of a demographic. Dig in deeper, allow passion to replace rational thought and offer no serious nor supported premise... that always works.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)And you thought it was the Right all along! BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!
Cary
(11,746 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)As long as you're casting blame, just be sure to reserve the bulk of it for actual Trump voters and for the forces that deluded them.
For the record, I would also support assigning some responsibility to, say, Stein voters, but their numbers were relatively insignificant...and we'll never know for sure how many of them were radical lefties rather than mere Clinton-haters.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I am expressing a simple, legitimate thought. Why shouldn't I express that that thought?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)There are some who consider themselves to be the extreme left who posses horrid ideological thoughts. Then there are some who are more left than US society as a whole yet are often described by some as the "radical left". I am one of those.
There are segments on the left who are every bit as dangerous as the extreme right. Those individual are often more personality driven and feel a great desire to be different.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Where does that fit into your cosmology?
Not a comment on you, by the way. Just a question.
Sorry, I am a bit pissy. My cousin just died of lung cancer. Didn't mean that.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)I know who you have in mind, and they are not the left.
The radical left in this country has done a great deal, like bring us the 8 hour day. That is not who these people are.
Their enemy is not Trump, White Nationalism, or fascism. It is the Democratic Party and its voters.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Yes, I know you know.
I don't cede anything to anyone. That's part of the point. 
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Something about "leftism" seems to attract self-centered narcissistic edgelords who throw elections to fascists and reactionaries because they think that's the best way to change the system. The irony is that almost none of these types are actually working class, more like petit-bourgeois weekend """revolutionaries""" who don't want to hear about who might be hurt by their shitty tactics. In the end, however, lack of left unity that this egotistical perspective produces ends up in Hitlers, Nixons, Reagans and Trumps. But at the same time, there's no real way to fix it, not because they're ignorant, but because they don't want to learn, because it would mean they'd have to get to the hard, long, unglamorous, non-ego boosting work of building a leftwing movement, and that doesn't satisfy their feels.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Half the population has an IQ under 100. I heard Jared Bernstein talk about how we try our best to be logical and credible and that's where I am. My IQ is considerably above 100 but unfortunately there are plenty of liberals who don't measure up in one way or another. There are a lot of liberals who are racist and sexist and atrocious in many other ways, such as not allowing a solid citizen such as myself to express my simple truth.
That's pretty fucking stupid. So there are people on the left who have IQs under 100 and who will resort to the same idiotic emotional flim flam that "conservatives" live by.
You needn't worry about my ego. My ego is non of your fucking business, nor any of your concern. Work on yourself.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)when I meant ego I meant the ego of people on the "radical left" not you
With that said, I don't believe in IQ.
Cary
(11,746 posts)As I stated below, I'm really disappointed.
I need a posting break. See you.
Cary
(11,746 posts)"Something about "leftism" seems to attract self-centered narcissistic edgelords who throw elections to fascists and reactionaries because they think that's the best way to change the system."
Few and far between. I think maybe you're referring to the Susan Sarandon types? These people are gone, and never really were in the here and now. I'm not the least bit concerned about them. What were they? Maybe 10% of Sanders' supporters? How many votes did Stein get?
And I'd just call them stupid.
"The irony is that almost none of these types are actually working class, more like petit-bourgeois weekend """revolutionaries""" who don't want to hear about who might be hurt by their shitty tactics."
True, but again they are outliars. They are fringe. They aren't worth the bother.
"In the end, however, lack of left unity that this egotistical perspective produces ends up in Hitlers, Nixons, Reagans and Trumps."
Perhaps. I'm not exactly sure how this plays out.
" But at the same time, there's no real way to fix it, not because they're ignorant, but because they don't want to learn, because it would mean they'd have to get to the hard, long, unglamorous, non-ego boosting work of building a leftwing movement, and that doesn't satisfy their feels."
You have a point, but it's not easy build a political party. I don't think they have the right stuff and you're right, they have to compromise and that's not in their skill set.
IQ is not an end all and be all of anything but as a general proposition it serves a purpose. I could state my proposition a different way. Human beings are capable of some 15,000 different tasks. The best of us, the most gifted, can do perhaps 200 of those tasks passably well. In other words we are all disabled and mostly we are inept. I have found that I could easily outperform almost anyone just by putting in a little extra effort.
There is a way to "fix it." Shun them.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)They're definitely few, and if not for the Establishment trying to rig the election to destroy Hillary (and I'm not being unironic, how do you get more Establishment than the FBI, the media, billionaire Donald Trump, the Russian Federation, multiple state officials, the Koch Brothers, and more) they wouldn't have mattered. But given all those factors, that 10% of "leftists" did matter.
Perhaps. I'm not exactly sure how this plays out.
The primary reason Hitler was able to win a fair election was because Socialists and Communists in Germany (and there are major distinctions between the two camps) refused to work together, largely because Communists didn't feel like the Socialists (who were more moderate) weren't good enough, in fact they were called "social fascists". Ted Kennedy torpedoed Carter, though Carter would have won if THAT election wasn't rigged. McCarthy supporters torpedoed Humphrey. We all know about Gore vis a vis Nader, though tbh that was the most excusable because Bush ran as a moderate with his "compassionate conservatism" mumbo jumbo.
Honestly, we on the Left need to maintain an ironclad perspective to this principle - Vote for the Democrat, because everything you dislike about a given Democrat will be 10x worse under the Republican. Also the thing about the American system is that unlike in Europe where you'd have your coalition that's 70% Center-Left, 15% Left, 5% Far Left in different parties and that proportion shifts within the coalition, here they all have to get along within the Democratic Party (there are a few outside parties that work with the Democrats, such as the Working Families Party) and the leftward parts of the coalition have to build support within the auspices of the party and slowly convince the Center-Left to become more Left and the Left to become more Far Left. But because we have a WTA system, all members of the coalition have to vote for the Democrats, and then use the primary process to create the pressure for a more left orientation.
Cary
(11,746 posts)10% of Sanders' supporters.
Forget it. You're never going to get them. It's just the way things go.
There was a lot more going on in Weimar Germany and that's a complicated matter. Carter was kind of an accidental president, coming off of Ford essentially being appointed by a disgraced Richard Nixon. Further Carter undid himself in the debates.
"Honestly, we on the Left need to maintain an ironclad perspective to this principle - Vote for the Democrat, because everything you dislike about a given Democrat will be 10x worse under the Republican."
I hear you, but I wouldn't phrase it this way. We have plenty in common. Just focus on that. We have more than enough to do without having to do battle over things we might not agree on. And let's give each other then benefit of the doubt for God's sake.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)that this thread hasn't been hidden yet. Any criticism of left wing extremists is considered "divisive".
Cary
(11,746 posts)Frankly I'm extremely disappointed in all of us. I expected better.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)Had two of my threads hidden for calling out their behavior during the primaries. They were only up for a few minutes. I'm shocked this one is still up.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I said I didn't trust radical leftists. I'm entitled to state my own feelings. There's a significant difference.
Of course people could approach this in a constructive way, if they wished. But I'm not surprised that no one has stated that I have a right to feel whatever I feel. I'm not surprised that no one has really engaged me, and asked how we might make this sorry state a little better.
See, that's the problem. How do you get beyond divisive when people don't engage?
My apologies to those who did engage me, and whom I have overlooked. But hey you're kind of on my "side" and I'm not directing my comment to you.
And my cousin died, so I am out of sorts.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)I had a thread locked for pointing out that fascists and reactionaries win because a segment of the Left decides people not as left as them are the enemy, as opposed to the reactionaries.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)what happened to me twice. I appealed but admin never responded. How the fuck do we learn from our mistakes if we are being censored to spare their feelings? My anger isn't directed at you btw.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Exactly.
I don't understand why we're doing this to each other.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)so...
who the heck are they?
Cornell West for instance?
we should not trust him...why?
Chomsky? Hersh?
we should mount an intellectual attack upon the leaders of the radical left immediately, before they multiply!
or like someone said, we could lighten up on the misplaced emotionality.
i don't trust people who can't explain their opinions most of all.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I am interested in moving forward. The differences between the people whom I consider to be radicals, and myself, are all procedural and not much substance just like the differences between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were really not a whole lot.
And this frustrates me to no end.
Further there are clearly right wing trolls who are exploiting this condition, and that really pisses me off.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)"Irrational loathing of Democrats is not going to earn my trust and I'm pretty sure I'm in the majority."
what does that even mean? and what about rational fact-based distrust of Democrats?
pick any random Democrat in federal office and look up where they get their money to be there on opensecrets dot org.
there's at least a 75% chance that what you see will be...deplorable?
" the differences between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were really not a whole lot. "
that is kinda incorrect. compare their issues page side by side, they're *radically* different.
look at what HC and BS are up to today. big difference there too.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/
but really- don't trust all of these folks then?
why?
United States
Communist Party USA
Green Party
Justice Party (United States)
Socialist Labor Party of America
Socialist Party USA
Peace and Freedom Party
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Socialist Equality Party
Working Families Party
Freedom Socialist Party
Labor Party
Socialist Action
Socialist Alternative
Socialist Workers Party
World Socialist Party of the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_left-wing_political_parties#U
Cary
(11,746 posts)My mistake for trusting you, and assuming you were responding in good faith.
Gothmog
(179,632 posts)I also do not trust the radical left
Cary
(11,746 posts)Although Comey certainly played a huge role.
Vinca
(53,954 posts)liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)any of Bernie's supporters who vowed not to vote for Hillary which indirectly nominated the fuhrer.
otohara
(24,135 posts)how about those on the airwaves like Thom Hartmann, TYT and countless others who demonized Hillary for over a year then couldn't reel them back ....
Those sites/people are dead to me.
TYT was always dead to me - those folks are fugly.
Vinca
(53,954 posts)I do real Salon and listen to Thom Hartmann. Here's a suggestion: look to expand our base not limit it. Otherwise, we'll be enjoying life in Communist USA for 8 years.
otohara
(24,135 posts)to whom ever you want.
If you really want to feel the hate towards Democrats - there's David Sirota
I stopped listening to Hartmann in 2012 when Sen. Sanders used his hour to badmouth President Obama and Democrats with every caller. Same damn talking points over and over again...then his "someone" should primary Obama - took him forever to admit, yeah it was him thinking about taking out Obama.
Salon demonized Hillary every damn day - the two writers who wrote favorable stories about her were slammed with nasty ass comments by Sanders cult.
I hope you realize the rantings of some of these folks helped drive down votes - now people in their own communities are feeling the brunt of hate - Muslims - Cenk Uygur, Jews, Sirota, Blacks, Killer Mikey...
Vinca
(53,954 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)the Bernie/Busters didn't give a shit about him - their minds were made up by months of hateful bullshit rhetoric against Democrats and Hillary.
We may never recover because of them - they turned a generation against the Democratic party - they will rehash the Dem primary long after I'm dead.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Here they are:
1. Find common ground and move forward;
2. Fight, wound ourselves and make ourselves weaker against our real enemies; or
3. Ignore each other totally.
Number 3 would be great, except radicals know that their numbers are marginal. They cannot prevail in their own right, so their only hope is to knock down the moderates and hope somehow the mainstream will enable their radicalism.
God forbid radicals would be satisfied with finding common ground, which is virtually everything, and moving forward.
otohara
(24,135 posts)galore... then we can talk.
Response to Post removed (Original post)
bowens43 This message was self-deleted by its author.
mike_c
(37,048 posts)eom
Cary
(11,746 posts)I didn't invent the current environment and if it were at all up to me this isn't how things would be. It's not a matter of moral superiority.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)I have to explain it to you? Really?
Why don't I trust people who will badmouth Democrats?
Again, really?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Badmouthing ALL Democrats is another.
But if you feel that the term radical leftists includes socialists, does this mean that you reject socialism in all of its forms as inherently bad?
Do you reject the VA?
Do you reject the US Postal Service?
Do you reject farmer and manufacturer co-ops?
Do you reject public hospitals?
Do you reject public utilities?
Do you reject the police and firefighters?
If I call Joe Manchin a corporate Democrat does that make me the enemy?
Cary
(11,746 posts)It is an apt term for people who will not compromise, and who seek some kind of ideological purity.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with policies.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)So if you mean ideological purists, that purity must still involve policy at some level.
One example:
During the negotiation that eventually resulted in the ACA being passed with no GOP votes, the President wasted quite some time looking for moderate Republicans with whom he could reach a compromise. He failed in this. But he also basically took the single payer option off the table, significantly weakening his position, with no movement from the GOP. When only one side compromises that is not compromise, it is movement (in this case) to the right.
Cary
(11,746 posts)They know what they can and can't do. You blame President Obama when the real culprit is Republicans and Blue Dogs, and you play right into the "conservative" ploy. That's exactly what they want you to do and to make matters worse you proselytize. You sow their discord and discontent.
Sad.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Blue Dogs like former Senators Baucus and Lieberman, and current Senator Joe Manchin are part of the reason that the "both sides are the same" argument is made.
Cary
(11,746 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)but a certain number of voters who generally vote Democratic obviously bought something.
Cary
(11,746 posts)forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)There's no excuse for Lieberman, period. CT is deep deep deep blue. There's no excuse for Blue Dogs in strong liberal states. And Max Baucus really did hurt healthcare reform. But when it comes to winning in red states (because our system is designed to give rural conservative constituencies representation far out of proportion to their numbers), if the choice is a moderate to conservative Democrat and a Republican, you take the Dem. The question is, where can the Dem afford to compromise? For example, to me a Dem who panders to racism, sexism, anti LGBT bigotry is unacceptable. However, a Dem that may take a pro-gun stance and say some nice things about corporations can make me "hold my nose" so to speak.
I don't like the Blue Dogs but we may well need them.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Are you sure you're a radical? You sound totally pragmatic to me.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Successful radical movements generally have one thing in common - the ability to play the long game. Playing the long game involves cultivating alliances (especially with people who aren't quite as radical), accepting compromises, and being pragmatic while having a clear endgoal and set of principles in sight.
For example, we both want to help the working class and marginalized. I favor some sort of socialization of production and business, while you'd prefer to just beef up regulation and rebuild the safety net. We work together to get to the latter, THEN we debate the merits of going farther to where I want to go. Even if I'm unable to convince you to go all the way with me, we've achieved gains for workers and the marginalized, which SHOULD be the goal of any radical movement.
Cary
(11,746 posts)It's strategic and incremental.
And it's sane and rational, not emotional.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)
kentuck
(115,401 posts)Because it would be absorbed by the Republican Party. We have seen it in action
otohara
(24,135 posts)who do you think drove down votes with their relentless hateful criticisms of Hillary?
It wasn't FOX news or conservatives.
Cary
(11,746 posts)The radical left just followed their lead.
Cary
(11,746 posts)And you know where I first heard that schtick?
I first heard that from Ron Paul cultists.
There is a huge difference between even the worst Democrat, and the best Republican. I don't even know who the best Republican would be. Mark Kirk? He's insane but at least he has some environmental "concessions." The rest of them are what? Have you seen the video of Mitch McConnell bragging about keeping his promise not to do his job until President Obama left office?
You want to know why I can't trust certain leftists? It's because of rhetoric like you just barfed up here. I'm a moderate. You ought to be able to find common ground with me.
kentuck
(115,401 posts)The left is the yeast that causes the Party to rise. There is no passion in the moderate middle. They twiddle their thumbs looking for compromise. I say that, understanding that the far left is not always in the majority thinking but are a necessay ingredient for the survival of the Democratic Party. Without the left the Party will die...deader than a doornail. And vice-versa.
Cary
(11,746 posts)And your "revolution" isn't going anywhere.
It's not that I oppose you. It's that I don't believe in you. I am 99.9% sure you could never in your wildest dreams pull off what you imagine.
kentuck
(115,401 posts)and a healthcare system for all? If the left doesn't fight for it, who will? Who fights for social justice? Who fights for peace around the world. Granted, we seldom win.
But, without the voice of the left, the Party is dead. D-E-A-D.
seaglass
(8,185 posts)I'm guessing these are the people Cary is speaking of.
I personally wouldn't align with anyone who would throw over POC, women, LGBT, Muslims, Jews, disabled etc. out of bitterness/purity. Those are all the Bernie supporters who didn't vote, voted for Stein, wrote in Bernie, voted for Johnson, voted for Trump. They aren't trustworthy
Pholus
(4,062 posts)the Democratic Party is apparently not ready to get to the urgent business at hand -- stopping Herr Gropenfuerer.
That's a shame. I guess you'll wait until Trump has stolen 3rd base?
kentuck
(115,401 posts)Not appropriate at this time. Sorry I got engaged in it. 
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Wandered off to Discussionist a while back because I got tired of these endless horribly bitter arguments with people I considered my philosophical allies -- I'd decided that if it always had to be a fight I'd rather argue black and white versus which shade of gray. Given the current nightmare, I just returned kinda hoping DU would be that wonderful oasis it was in 2002 when W was turning the country to shit but it seems like a whole lotta folks here are too busy rehashing the Primary!
This divisive stuff turned me off at first, so I tried lurking at JPR but if anything they're even worse right now (a pity, because I really liked Manny and WillyT back in the day). So many of the JPR crowd are still gloating about Hillary, even cheering on Don the Con's kleptocratic picks. Madness!
Anyway, Kentuck, it's actually great to see you're still around! Thank you, because I think I'll be spending many days leaning on your insight as the darkness falls!
seaglass
(8,185 posts)of topics are being discussed.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)seaglass
(8,185 posts)election conversations.
JHB
(38,184 posts)...as the "radical left", that's not only meaningless, it's counter-productive.
Guaranteed that there are people in this country who count YOU as "radical left". And others who you don't count as "radical left" but think you include them with who you're raging against.
We all know what I'm referring to. No need to be obtuse.
TrekLuver
(2,573 posts)bit smarter...which makes them more dangerous. At least with the alt-reich you know what you are getting...these "progressives" are just wolves in sheep's clothing.