Do you consider Thom Hartmann a Democratic leader/figure/supporter?

[BainsBane]

138. Why would a "progressive" focus so relentless on a wealthy media personality

over the lives of the poor and vulnerable? How is it that this version of "porgressivism" involves enforcing absolute fealty to the Kremlin's propaganda arm, RT through this insistence that anyone who fails to defer to the wealthiest and most privileged are not "progressive."?

Why would a "progressive" seek to convince Americans that Putin only intervened in, upended, our democracy and put a fascist in the White House because the US failed to keep promises made by Ronald Reagan? Reagan, who mysteriously managed to rise from a state of dementia to appear in 1990 as an apparition and according to the OP, promise Gorbachev that NATO would not expand, a claim directly refuted by Gorbachev himself?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9428778
Why would that "progressive" fail to acknowledge his mistake and instead follow up his efforts to spread the Putin/ Henry Kissinger view of US-Russian relations by demanding unquestioned fealty to a wealthy entertainer whose comfort is paid for by the propaganda arm of the Kremlin, RT? Why would that progressive not deal with the substance of the 1990 negotiations rather than seeking to cover up for blatant untruths by insisting any questioning of that entertainers account was a betrayal to Bernie and progressivism?

Why would a progressive ignore the impact of Kremlin interference on the lives of the poor and vulnerable in the US and abroad in order to insist that the prerequisite for "progressivism" is absolute fealty and subservience to men of wealth, both Hartman and his employer Putin, the wealthiest man in the world?

Why would someone who contrives an argument designed to convince Bernie supporters that any critical or independent thinking in the face of Kremlin propaganda is because of differences over a long ago settled primary use a Clinton avatar? There are two absolutes in 2017 America politics: 1) those who continue to identify themselves politically in relation to Bernie Sanders would never use a Clinton avatar. 2) Anyone who supported Clinton in the primary and/ or GE does not justify Kremlin interference in democracies on behalf of white nationalism. There are only two reasons why people make such justifications. Either they oppose liberal democracies and seek to promote Putin's global agenda, or they maintain deep resentments over a primary resolved 18 months ago. And the latter would make it impossible for them to use a Clinton avatar.

To understand the collapse of American democracy, people need look no further than this and yesterday's thread. Good, otherwise intelligent people who should know better have supported the thread because, it appears to me, they are taken in by claims of concern about Bernie. The tendency to support anything that people see as supportive of their own political faction or opposed to a politician they resent (ie. Clinton) is what led to Kremlin planted stories dominating and determining the 2016 election. That is precisely how Trump was able to become president. Going along with this is not necessary to promote Bernie. Moreover, Bernie nor his supporters are helped by empowering a global propaganda effort that undermines democracy in pursuit of White Nationalism. Putin's army of bots, trolls, and moles are actively engaged in ensuring Trump retain his grip on power. http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/
They are not your friends or allies. They are using you to promote Putin's effort to spread white nationalist across the West and thereby strengthen his own power.

Did 2016 teach people nothing? Do you really want to see those efforts continue into 2018 and 2020? Progressives, the working class, the poor, and the vulnerable can only come out worse from this. Democracy demands more of its citizens. We must remain critical and vigilant. That anyone is taken in by these efforts reveals we are failing that responsibility.