On the topic of critical party-reflection.

I'm of the opinion that critical party-reflection, like critical self-reflection, is not only healthy but vital, and that DU should be welcoming of Democratic Party critiques (not to be confused with the bashing of individual candidates). The Republican Party (in spite of being a batshit crazy institution) has the White House, the US Senate, the US House, a clear majority of state legislatures and a clear majority of governorships.

Race-based gerrymandering and race-based voter suppression are two big reasons why. But has the Democratic Party been as vocal as it should be about those issues, or has it fallen victim to the bashing of identity politics (by Republicans and media personalities but also the likes of George Lakoff and Sam Harris)?

The media is also complicit (with its false equivalencies and habit of suggesting there are no facts or falsehoods, only opinions). But has the Democratic Party been vocal enough about that, or has it been continually on the defensive for the last several decades as the Republican Party successfully/strategically bashes the "liberal media?"

Has there been over the years too much emphasis placed on converting Reagan Democrats or Trump supporters, and not enough on inspiring the base (while taking persons of color for granted)?

Now, those are obviously leading questions that indicate where I stand, but I think those questions need to be asked...I would hope party leadership is pondering them.

But maybe such questions are off limits on this "underground" site.

But it has no chance of passing...

The "no chance of passing" argument doesn't work for me. Nothing Democrats propose has a chance of passing right now, but we still need to make a push. The last thing we want to do is feed into the narrative that Democrats don't stand for anything or that Democrats aren't doing anything.

By putting forth legislation (imperfect thought it may be), even with Republicans in control, we send a message to would-be-voters and put forth a blueprint for what we could follow once we (hopefully) take back control.

A knee-jerk reaction to anything with a certain Senator's name attached to it is both transparent and unhealthy.

The notion that there are "2 wings within the Democratic Party", as someone posted, is dangerous.

And it plays into Republican hands. It used to be that people would talk about how the Democratic Party is a big tent. It always went without saying that some platforms or campaign strategies play better in some districts/states than others.

But now I'm seeing more and more people highlight this notion that there are 2 distinct wings within our party. By some of the same people who, rightfully, bash 3rd party voting. They don't seem to realize that the dichotomous rhetoric risks driving people, particularly young people, toward the very thing they abhor. It's that very rhetoric that feeds into an existing narrative that there's "corporate" Dems and "progressive" Dems (never the twain shall meet; no gray area whatsoever).

As frustrated as I am with Bernie Sanders (primarily for his dismissal of the role racism played in Trump's rise, and for contributing to the misunderstanding of the relationship between social justice and economic justice) and (to a greater extent) many of his divisive celebrity supporters, the knee-jerk reaction to all things Sanders or "progressive" is not healthy. Again, it promotes the same kind of divisiveness for which Sanders is criticized.

The Democratic Party should engage in critical self-reflection, but not dichotomous rhetoric. That may be a tricky balancing act, but it's necessary. The Republican Party (in spite of being a batshit crazy institution) has the White House, the US Senate, the US House, a clear majority of state legislatures and a clear majority of governorships.

Race-based gerrymandering and race-based voter suppression are two big reasons why. But has the Democratic Party been as vocal as it should be about those issues, or has it fallen victim to the bashing of identity politics (by Republicans but also the likes of George Lakoff and Sam Harris)?

The media is also complicit (with its false equivalencies and habit of suggesting there are no facts or falsehoods, only opinions). But has the Democratic Party been vocal enough about that, or has it been continually on the defensive for the last several decades as the Republican Party successfully/strategically bashes the "liberal media?"

Has there been over the years too much emphasis placed on converting Reagan Democrats or Trump supporters, and not enough on inspiring the base (while taking persons of color for granted)?

Are such questions off limits on this "underground" site?

Putin and Republicans share a common purpose.

While it's likely that Putin's Russia has dirt on various Republicans, including Trump of course, some of the posts I read about Putin and Republicans seem to be overlooking a key aspect. The Republican goal for the last 5 decades has been to undermine the effectiveness of and trust in the US government. That's also Putin's goal.

Republicans seek super-individualism and super-privatization, an end to any notion of there being a commons, an end to collectivism. The Powell Memo helped get the ball rolling.

Key to that, of course, is denying or ignoring injustices, including any notion that past injustices could possibly continue to impact the present. This ideology has a natural ally in white supremacy, as well as male supremacy.

CA Republicans wising up to top-two primary.

So not impressed by the outraged Republicans

To the Republicans outraged by Trump:

You created this monster. 50 years of Southern Strategy/dog whistling, race-based gerrymandering and voter suppression, a racist "Drug War," "liberal media" bullshit, denying science or getting in bed with those who do, off-the-charts hypocrisy and actively undermining trust in government has led to this moment.

There's blood on your hands. Take responsibility.