How many on the progressive wing of the Democratic party were duped by Putin?.

[Ken Burch]

172. I didn't put words in your mouth at all. I simply came to what seemed a logical conclusion.

As to the primary threads, I based my assumptions on very little, because I simply think about those threads that much. I don't think about them that much because I simply don't believe they are very important in the greater scheme of things.

You appear to disagree on that point, and I respect your right to express your opinion.

I would say, in response to your patronizing remarks about my supposed lack of concern for "evidence", that you actually offered no evidence in your thread title-you simply made an inflammatory collective accusation about progressive Democrats-and an ill-informed accusation at that, since you implied that Jill Stein, of all people is part of "the progressive wing of the Democratic Party"-as in the Jill Stein who has repeatedly run for president on the ballot line of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTY.

It appears based on the verbal evidence I derive from the post you made prior to this post, that you believe all sitting Democratic incumbents should be guaranteed absolute freedom from a primary challenge, and that any such challenge is somehow a threat to the entire party. Am I correctly describing your views on that? How many other restrictions, might I ask, would you like to place on free speech and internal democracy within the "Democratic Party"? Are you arguing that, until Trump is out office, no disagreement with anything decisions our party leaders make on tactics, strategy, policy or preferred nominees should be tolerated?

BTW-in that previous post, you repeatedly used-and capitalized-the term "Mainstream Democratic". Therefore, in the search for further evidence, I'd like to ask you a few questions about that term and how you define it:

What, in your view, qualifies someone to be called a "Mainstream Democrat" and what proscribes someone from being so considered? Which political positions, in your judgment, are "Mainstream Democratic" and which are not?

To what degree are those you would label as "Mainstream Democratic" entitled to lecture those you feel are not on the subject of wat is and what is not politically possible? To what degree should whoever it is you see as "Mainstream Democratic" be treated as "the natural leaders" of the Democratic Party?

What electoral advantage comes, in your view, from giving special deference to those you would label as "Mainstream Democratic" when the ideas such people tend to stick with are the ideas that lost us most presidential elections between 1952 and 2004?

Can you accept any political views that are even minutely more progressive than yours as being "Mainstream Democratic", or are all such views anathema and heresy?

And why does it seem to be so much more important to you to lash out at "Progressive Democrats" than to offer constrctive thoughts on how we might unite the country's anti-Trump majority for electoral victory in 2018 and 2020?

In closing, I'd like to ask this: Do you actually WANT the Democratic Party to make a comeback, or do you care mainly about making sure those to your left within this party are silenced and kept out of the loop? It's not really possible to achieve the former objective if you are focused on achieving the latter objective first.