If you'll vote for Sanders if he's the nominee, then he is EXACTLY the same as every other candidate

[ProfessorPlum]

so you can shut up about his party affiliation.

You will vote for one candidate. You will not vote for any of the others.

You will probably have lots of reasons to vote for one or the other of them. And if the label is completely disqualifying for you, then great, you've eliminated one out of the dozens of candidates. Based on what I think is the dumbest reason possible, but hey, to each their own.

THE ONLY time that Sander's label matters is if you won't vote for him if he's the candidate. That's a de facto vote for Rump.

SO, if you are making a big deal about Sander's party, that means that you will vote for Rump over the nominee if it is Sanders. That's the only reason to even mention it.

[Squinch]

1. Are you planning on posting anything that doesn't include

browbeating everyone on behalf of BS anytime soon?

It would be a nice change.

[MrsCoffee]

7. Right?

Telling folks to shut up?

I guess someone has to test the boundaries around here.

[LongtimeAZDem]

9. +1

[leftofcool]

60. +1

[NastyRiffraff]

67. Unfortunately, probably not

It seems to be a theme, and I'm afraid that's not gonna change. I rarely do this, but I'm just going to use the Ignore feature so I won't be bored silly.

[SKKY]

86. I'm glad someone said it...

...cause it needed to be said.

[Squinch]

87. I begin to suspect it's performance art, and the persona is a tantruming 9 year old who finds

differing opinions "gross, boring and stupid" and really, really icky.

I think we should give him a video game and call him when it's time for dinner.

[SidDithers]

89. That's just how the Sanders camp rolls...nt

Sid

[Amimnoch]

96. +1 more.

Anyone but.

[IluvPitties]

2. If Bernie happens to be our nominee, I'll vote for him.

That doesn't mean I have to like the guy or even consider him a true Dem...

[ProfessorPlum]

14. who on earth is asking you to ?

[LongtimeAZDem]

3. That's ridiculous; just because I won't hand it to a Republican by dafault doesn't mean

that I have to ignore Sanders' history of attacking the Democratic party.

This is getting surreal.

[ProfessorPlum]

15. no one is asking you to ignore anything

have your reasons, that's great.

[LongtimeAZDem]

18. His affiliation is integral to his candidacy, and you're telling me to "shut up"

that means I have to ignore it as part of the discussion.

I'll refrain from using the language I think your post merits.

[ProfessorPlum]

38. What I'm saying is the party label is superficial and boring as fuck as a reason

It's like saying "I don't like Klobuchar because she has a sneer on her face".

Ok, that's a reason not to vote for Klobuchar, but it's a stupid reason.

[LongtimeAZDem]

39. No, it's not like that at all, and I seriously doubt that you really believe that

He has maintained his independence jealously, and has attacked the Democratic party repeatedly, for decades.

As such, his affiliation is extraordinarily relevant to the question of whether he is "a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishments, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrate that the candidate is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States".

[LongtimeAZDem]

43. You're simply trying to provoke an alertable reaction. I'm done.

[Squinch]

63. You noticed that too, huh?

[LongtimeAZDem]

78. It was kind of the elephant in the room

[George II]

75. Bazinga!

[George II]

77. So, using your logic, should we rename this site "Superficial Underground"?

[qazplm135]

79. to you

not to tens of millions of people.

[lapucelle]

88. Party labels are superficial?

In the legislative branch, the majority party sets the agenda and the calendar, holds the chairmanship and majority on committees (in addition to enjoying supoena power), controls debate in both chambers, and the Rules Committee in the House.

What's boring as fuck is having to explain this stuff over and over again.

[LongtimeAZDem]

90. +∞

[George II]

97. Yeah, that's why I rooted for the LosAngelesNewEnglandRamsPatriots in the Super Bowl.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

4. So you are saying those who don't vote are Trump-enablers?

Because I agree.

My beef with Bernie Sanders not affiliation to our party, beyond the grave damage he's done us electorally, it is that I do not share his ideology (to put it mildly).

I'm a liberal Democrat. Sanders is a self-described Democratic Socialist.

I don't feel that we are in the same party, which has been the literal case of things for decades.

I'm a Democrat. I support Democrats.

Party matters. Ideology matters.

[ProfessorPlum]

16. you've said exactly nothing

if there are actual policies that he likes that you don't, then vote for someone else. See? that was easy

[CrossingTheRubicon]

22. I have said something. It goes beyond policy differences to profound ideological differences.

I do not share Bernie Sanders' Democratic Socialist ideology.

I'm a liberal Democrat. He is not.

[ProfessorPlum]

36. yes, the yawning chasm between liberal Democrat

and Sanders is perhaps inches wide.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

41. Grand Canyon.

[ProfessorPlum]

50. LOL. Good heavens

[George II]

98. As the saying goes - an inch is as good as a mile. So, you admit there's a "chasm".

[Squinch]

35. How are you so pissed off at everyone so early in the process?

[pangaia]

37. If Sanders is a "self-described Democratic Socialist,"

the why aren't you a self-described Capitalist, or something...?


Nothing against you at all.
But, have you noticed most of the media use terms for Sanders, AOC as 'self-described" 'self-described" 'self-described" 'self-described"-- over and over and over and over. But, NEVER self-described Capitalist, or Communist,, or whatever...

So now 'we' start to pick up on that insult....

See what I'm getting at... ?
Don;t get sucked in to that garbage..

[CrossingTheRubicon]

40. I am a self-described pro-capitalist. For sure. 100%.

I believe in advanced well-regulated capitalism combined with liberal democracy with social programs to help citizens in need and a solid infrastructure paid for with the wealth that's generated by a capitalist economy is the best way to have both prosperity and freedom.

I'm proud to be a liberal in the great tradition of the Democratic Party.

Democratic Socialism is not for me. If you feel Democratic Socialist is an insult, take it up with BS.

[ProfessorPlum]

44. Sanders represents one of our best hopes for getting back to New Deal sensibilities

in my opinion. He understands and advocates Keynesian-like, demand side economics.

and if "liberal in the great tradition of the Democratic Party" doesn't encompass the ethos of the New Deal, I don't know what it means.

tl;dr I think you are either talking nonsense or your analysis is flawed.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

70. We surely do not see eye to eye.

FDR was a reform-minded capitalist. Nothing at all like Bernie Sanders.

[pangaia]

48. I think we agree on the politics.. mostly.

I did not mean Democratic Socialist is an insult. I meant the media and others USE the term that way, the same way many try to use Liberal as an insult.

[George II]

99. That's because Sanders and Cortez go out of their way to remind everyone.

[hedda_foil]

100. Cut to the chase please. Will you vote for him if he becomes the nominee of the Democratic party?

[liberalnarb]

5. Glad someone finally said it.

[lapucelle]

6. ...

[MrsCoffee]

8. Why even have political parties then?

[GlennRuss]

20. Simply

To keep us in herds. We need people inside the party to challenge the status quo.

[MrsCoffee]

71. I'm all for people inside the party creating change and challenging

the "status quo".

It's those that want to change the party from the outside by throwing stones until it benefits them to come inside that really don't interest me.

[R B Garr]

10. His party affiliation is a top consideration at all times.

Just like double standards and hypocrisy. It goes to transparency, and if you’re going to criticize other Democrats then you should be transparent yourself. No one should be told to shut up about questioning his party label. Unreal.

[LongtimeAZDem]

45. Indeed. +1

[QC]

11. I would vote for a big bucket of horseshit if that would get Trump out of our lives.

Every other concern pales in comparison to that, especially this whole junior high cafeteria mindset that has taken this place over.

[R B Garr]

12. It's not junior high to learn from the 2016 election that badmouthing

Democrats gives Trump ammunition. So don’t do that. It’s just common sense.

[JudyM]

25. Hmm, now you've got me mulling over the relative merits of horseshit vis a vis tRump...

And it’s not even close.

[ProfessorPlum]

27. LOL

[QC]

65. Horseshit is great on the garden!

Trump, not so much.

[NYC Liberal]

13. It's entirely relevant to making a decision about who to support in our primaries.

Just because I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being does not mean that Sanders’ status as a non-Democrat is irrelevant now.

He is not a Democrat and as such should not be permitted to participate in the Democratic Party primaries. That does not preclude him from running as an Independent, if he really wants to run as a spoiler. Me saying such also does not mean I wants Trump to win; quite the opposite.

[Trumpocalypse]

23. Well said nt

[Pachamama]

101. +100000

Completely Agree....

Thank you for stating that so clearly....

[Chichiri]

17. Well, no . . .

If Jill Stein somehow becomes the Dem candidate, I'll vote for her.

If Michael Bloomberg somehow becomes the Dem candidate, I'll vote for him.

But they ain't the same, baby.

[ProfessorPlum]

28. no one is saying all the candidates are the same

except if they get the nomination, we'll all vote for them in the general. In the primary, vote for whom you like the most, of course.

[WeekiWater]

19. The point about party affiliation...

Is that he shouldn’t be afforded the opportunity to be the nominee. That is what I mostly see. Not what you have outlined.

[floppyboo]

21. But the Democratic Party thinks otherwise

Kinda funny. I mean, your opinion means you don't agree with the Party. This has gotten out of hand. Time to put the blinkers away.
Edit - opps - gotta re-read the rules.

[WeekiWater]

47. And what is my opinion from what you just replied to? NT

[ProfessorPlum]

29. DU doesn't control that

if you disagree with the Democratic national party, talk to them.

[WeekiWater]

46. This is a discussion board.

People discuss things.

[ProfessorPlum]

49. they do indeed

to death, especially this particular boring topic.

[WeekiWater]

51. I thought we were responding to your op about it.

The topic seems to have your interest. Others as well.

[ProfessorPlum]

53. The topic of discussing Sanders, and all the candidates, on their actual merits

has my interest.

The topic of discussing Sanders' party name has been beaten to death, buried, dug back up, beaten to death again, re-animated, beaten to death again, and then bludgeoned to a fine pulp. Then mixed with water to form a clay, shaped into a vessel, and smashed into a million pieces. And then eaten and pooped out by worms.

It is boring, and useless.

[WeekiWater]

56. You are still discussing that which you call boring and beaten to death.

Is what it is. You seem to be anything except bored about the topic. You seem to be pretty passionate about it.

[Squinch]

64. So you keep starting threads about it.

[floppyboo]

55. Here is what I think is problematic:

'he shouldn’t be afforded the opportunity to be the nominee'. That's your opinion, but apparently, not the opinion of the party. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. It seems there are a few hoops to jump through - some pledge? And I should think that if Sanders doesn't cross all his t's and dot his i's his name will be dropped from the header of this 'primary' page.

[WeekiWater]

58. .

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287489#post21

[Trumpocalypse]

24. I'll vote for the lesser of two evils

But hope it won’t come to that and a real Democrat is the nominee.

[ProfessorPlum]

31. you do that

[wasupaloopa]

26. You can't tell us to shut up during primary season. It is early, chill.

[ecstatic]

30. Not exactly the same. I think he's the least qualified of the bunch,

as far as educational background and real world / life experience. Aren't all the rest of them Ivy league educated lawyers/prosecutors/etc.?

[ProfessorPlum]

33. That's at least a reason. His party label is the most boring, stupid reason

to vote or not to vote for someone (IMHO), especially since he is a strong ally and knows his policy

[Horizens]

32. Sander's Only as A Last Resort.

ProfessorPlum wrote:

"SO, if you are making a big deal about Sander's party, that means that you will vote for Rump over the nominee if it is Sanders. That's the only reason to even mention it."

What a load of horse hockey.

I mention it because I find Sander's using the party offensive and to urge people not to vote for him in the primary

Just as offensive is your telling people to "shut up" which only reenforces my putting BS at the bottom of my Dem candidate list.

BTW Many of the Birney Bots I know didn't vote in 2016 and I've never forgiven them.

[ProfessorPlum]

34. "Many of the Birney Bots I know didn't vote in 2016"

Dear Penthouse, I never thought this would happen to me . . .

[Gothmog]

52. Here are the rules that sanders needs to agree to and the oath that he must take

This is the actual rule that governs whether sanders can run as a member of the Democratic party https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P20/2019-01-03-2020_Call_for_the_Convention_12.21.18_w-attachments.pdf

The term “presidential candidate” herein shall mean any person who, as determined by the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, has accrued delegates in the nominating process and plans to seek the nomination, has established substantial support for their nomination as the Democratic candidate for the Office of the President of the United States, is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishment, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that the candidate is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States, and will participate in the Convention in good faith. At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat. Each candidate pursuing the Democratic nomination shall affirm, in writing, to the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee that they:

A. are a member of the Democratic Party;

B. will accept the Democratic nomination; and

C. will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.

This requirement of written affirmation shall not supplant any necessary qualifications a candidate must satisfy at the state level, but is in addition to such affirmations required by individual states and territories. The written affirmation shall be done via an approved format by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee appended to this Call

There is an oath that sanders and other candidates will have to take
https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P20/2019-01-03-2020_Call_for_the_Convention_12.21.18_w-attachments.pdf

Presidential Candidate Written Affirmation

Pursuant to Article IV of the Call for the 2020 Democratic National Convention, I hereby affirm that, upon publicly announcing my candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in the 2020 election, I am a member of the Democratic Party. I will run as a Democrat, accept the nomination of my Party, and I will serve as a Democrat if elected. I understand that signing this form does not supplant any legal or Party requirement by any state or territory to qualify for ballot placement in that jurisdiction.

Further, I acknowledge that in submitting this form to the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, I am subject to the provisions of Rule 13.K of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2020 Democratic National Convention and Article VI of the Call for the 2020 Democratic National Convention that authorize the National Chairperson to determine whether a presidential candidate has established substantial support for their nomination as the Democratic candidate for the Office of the President of the United States, is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishments, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrate that the candidate is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States, and will participate in the Convention in good faith.
___________________

NOTARY AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF ______________
COUNTY OF _______________
I, ____________________________________, a Notary Public, do hereby certify that on this ____day of ___________________, 20____, personally appeared before me ______________________________, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and swore and acknowledged to me that they executed the same for the purpose and in the capacity therein expressed, and that the statements contained therein are true and correct. _______________________________________________ Notary Public, State of __________________ Name, Typed or Printed: __________________________________________ My Commission Expires: ___________________________

[LongtimeAZDem]

54. +1

[rgbecker]

93. Yeah...but what about his birth certificate?

[bottomofthehill]

57. not really, I would vote for George W ush if he won the nomination on write in ballots

if he was running against tRump

[leftofcool]

59. So all those who voted for a gorilla in 2016 voted for Trump right?

[randr]

61. If, big if, Bernie becomes our candidate

and Trump destroys him, we will never know if a new young Democratic candidate could have beaten the Trump. I'm ready to hand it over to the new generation and give them the shot at ending the disgrace we are living with. At least for now. Could be a whole different world a year for now so I'll concentrate on making the year a good one.

[pecosbob]

62. Personally I'm extremely tired of reading people here trashing Sanders non-stop for two years

As a lifelong Democratic voter I'll lend an ear to anyone that espouses issues such as a fair wage and raising taxes on the one percent. Just to be clear I am not a Sanders supporter...if I were to vote today, it would be for Warren or Brown. If Sanders is nominated any Dem that does not vote for him might as well be a Republican IMO so get over it and move on.

[ProfessorPlum]

66. well said

me too

[pnwmom]

68. No, that isn't true. I will vote for Sanders if he's the nominee

but I won't support him in the primaries.

And one of the reasons is his insistence on holding himself separate and apart from the Democratic party; even refusing to share his email list with the DNC for the 2018 Congressional elections.

[NurseJackie]

69. He'll never be the nominee.

Never.

[Adrahil]

72. What? Bullshit!

I’d vote for a yellow dog running as the Democratic nominee. That does not mean I think the yellow dog is qualified for the nomination.

Sanders is not a Democrat. IMO, that disqualifies him for the nom. And I could not give less of a shit what anyone thinks about that. But if he wins the nom, I would vote for him. Because despite his failings, he’s a helluva lot better than Trump.

[MrsCoffee]

73. +1

[Cha]

74. Thank You, Adrahil!

[shanny]

76. Indeed.

[George II]

80. Who are you to be telling people on a discussion site to "shut up"? I would appreciate a response.

[MrsCoffee]

82. Not possible.

Pretty sure OP is locked out of the thread by now.

[quickesst]

81. Haha

I thought the gobbledygook word salad essay contest was next week. Dang!!

[Martin Eden]

83. The OP is totally illogical

Voting for the D nominee in the general election does not make all candidates EXACTLY the same in the PRIMARY or in their likelihood of winning the general election.

That aside, I don't care whether or not Bernie has the D label as long as he meets the requirements to run in D primaries. Better to have him in the tent than siphoning off general election votes as a 3rd party.

[Jokerman]

84. EXACTLY!

Thank you for saying what needed to be said.

[LanternWaste]

85. Your premise is flawed.

Additionally, antagonism is a reaction, not a means to a goal.

"but hey, to each their own..."

[NurseJackie]

91. No he's not.

[SidDithers]

92. Voting against Trump is not the same as Voting for Sanders...nt

Sid

[Gothmog]

94. Sanders has not signed oath yet

Link to tweet

[Amimnoch]

95. Well.. then he's NOT "exactly the same for me."

Not going into more detail than that. I'm not giving you the satisfaction of a hide this early.

[bigbrother05]

102. Actually that would make you a Democrat; none of the candidates are EXACTLY the same

We'll all have reasons to cast our primary vote for our candidate. Then we should vote for the nominee.

Easy Peasy