Heard some disturbing things on Hartman's program this week

[Cheezoholic]

and on DU for awhile now and amongst like minded folks I know. Thom did a rant about getting physically involved in the Democratic party using Bannon pushing this on the other side. Not the first time he's ranted about this. Agree with him totally. He immediately started taking calls from those who have had it with the inner workings of the DNC top to bottom. I agree with him, if you don't like it fix it. I agree with them, there's a ton of house cleaning to be done across the board.

But right now, at this moment, and I wish Thom would've spoke more about it, the Democratic party needs to be unified. All of us. We can't be infighting with what's at stake in less than 8 months.

If we can't at least retain what we have in Nov its over folks. i heard people on his show saying they wouldn't vote because the party is corrupt. Have seen it here. Guess what, we lose in Nov you won't have a party to worry about and you will never again have a vote period.

Screw 2024, right now we need to win 2022 period. Then we can talk about party reform. If we lose in Nov, truly we are screwed from that point on. I honestly believe that

[Beakybird]

2. Yup. Thank you!

[Conjuay]

200. Will Rogers said it best:

"I'm not a member of an organized political party - I'm a Democrat."

[Hekate]

217. That joke hit its sell-by date 70 years ago. If we can't unify NOW in 2022, the party is over...

Just as the OP pointed out. Over. Done. Finis. Pau. Kaput. Buh-bye.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. You have an obsession about this fact that is older than 5 years old

You too can judge a person by their character and writings and recorded media, rather than five year old guilt by association.

RT is banned in 2022. Hartmann used their studio and distribution until 2017, but all that time was distributed on other media including Democratic Underground.

Get over it.

[FreepFryer]

7. Bernardo please stop the personal attacks on me. I'm entitled to my opinion.

Hartmann is highly problematic, and we are not expected to ignore his longstanding relationship w Russian military intelligence.

They don’t pay for nothing.

[gab13by13]

13. Your opinions are way off base,

there is no better advocate to saving our democracy than Thom Hartmann. IMO Hartmann should be given Rachel's cable news spot, there is none better. Bashing Thom because he was on RT getting his message out is a far cry from implying that he had a relationship w Russia.

These sudden attacks on Thom make me wonder why. Thom Hartmann is my favorite democractic advocate, we need more voices like his.

[ChazII]

72. +1 n/t

[Ferrets are Cool]

106. Thank you so much. Seems as if someone here has a personal axe to grind

[WhiteTara]

165. personally, I think his refusal

to leave RT (He was on there for a very long time AFTER 2017) indicates his political leanings.

I find everything he says tinged with Russian propaganda.

[live love laugh]

188. You have a right to your minority opinion.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. Your opinion that he is a spy is unfounded

Guilt by association is bad enough but making a huge leap to "longstanding relationship w Russian military intelligence" is worse and more wrong.

You have no evidence that there has been a "relationship" at any point over the past five years (5 years).

By extension, you would be accusing DU of being in bed with Russia by your guilt by association because DU allows (correctly) Hartmann (who you accuse of carrying Russian water today) to post on DU and his podcasts to be shared here.

The objective fact is that you have an obsession because anytime I see a posting referencing Hartmann, there you are tarring him. I'm sorry you object to the word "obsession". Perhaps "fixation" or "compulsion" or "preoccupation" would suit better. I'm not attacking you personally. I'm attacking your preoccupation.

[FreepFryer]

18. I asked you to stop making (Nasty) personal attacks. And I never called him a "spy" (Nt)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. You implied it and put your toe over the line with "relationship with Russian military"

The best you can offer is 5 years old and it's rather bogus guilt by association even then.

Identifying your fixation with Hartmann is not attacking you. It is attacking your fixation.

[FreepFryer]

25. I've pointed to facts. You've just pointed at me and been nasty. (Nt)

[FreepFryer]

21. 5 years ago we knew what Russia and RT were doing to undermine our election and nation.

It was hardly an innocent time to be an agent of Russian disinformation.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. Again you go with the spy accusation, calling him an "agent" with no evidence.

Despite ample opportunity, you have NEVER presesented any evidence that he is spreading Russian disinformation.

[FreepFryer]

28. His show was on Russia Today, a branch of Russian Military Intelligence. Now banned in the USA. nt

[eShirl]

30. +1

[Bernardo de La Paz]

36. Still no evidence & certainly not current. Books? He wrote 30. Podcasts? Hundreds. You have nothing.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

37. Hartmann has never been banned in the USA. Your title smears. It's all you have, a smear

Hartmann is welcome on DU.

Take it up with the admins and give your obsession a rest. Your fixation. It is not an attack against you. It is an attack against your single-minded preoccupation.

[FreepFryer]

38. Welcome by some. Not by others. We'll see. (Nt)

[Cha]

202. That's right.. Not everyone thinks

he's all that. Mahalo, FF

💙💛

[sheshe2]

234. ...

[live love laugh]

186. There's nothing personal in the response to you.

[pnwmom]

57. Just because he signed up on Democratic Underground doesn't make his profiting

from his appearances on Russia Today okay.

[gab13by13]

59. Why did Russia want to promote Thom?

[pnwmom]

62. To give the network credibility with Thom's progressive fan base. nt

[WhiteTara]

194. exactly.

at best, a useful idiot.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

78. Why has nobody succeeding in cancelling Hartmann on DU after more than 5 years?

Answer: Hartmann is a positive force for Democrats and progressives.

[WhiteTara]

167. Why? Because of people like you

We tolerate your opinions, but you are being way, way too defensive and it makes me to think deep down you know he's not our friend.

[Cha]

203. Aloha!

💙💛

[WhiteTara]

210. aloha

Slava Ukraine
How wonderful to see you!

[Cha]

211. You too, White Tara.. Mahalo!

💙💛

[pnwmom]

181. I'm not aware anyone has tried. I haven't seen him post anything

that in itself would have gotten anyone banned.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

182. Exactly. . . . nt

[Hekate]

218. I don't know about being "a positive force," but he apparently has not crossed the line...

… sufficiently to ever be asked to leave. His account’s public record shows his last post was Nov. 22, 2021, thus has has zero posts hidden in the past 90 days. He self-deleted whatever it was he said.

Someone who never causes trouble here, and has no hides, isn’t going to be evicted.

Edited to add: Taking RT’s paycheck was a major red flag for me — if I knew better, he as a journalist certainly did. If he comes around bashing Dem candidates, that will not be tolerable.

[Beastly Boy]

83. Trumpism is older than five years. And this is a direct consequence of what happened in 2016.

Don't deny Hartmann's place in the history of that election. He co-produced his program with RT, he was paid by RT, and he remained on their payroll way past the tome of joint US intelligence agency report publishing evidence of Russia's interference in the US election on Trump's behalf, a report that mentioned RT by name, if I recall.

Sorry, there is no getting over it. I will joyfully stop obsessing about this when we no longer suffer the consequences of the Trump presidency. I am very much looking forward to this day, but I am not holding my breath.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

102. Funny how nobody provides links or quotes of Hartmann carrying Russian water or tRump water

But they endlessly assert it.

It's not as if he didn't write 30 books or make hundreds of podcasts. You'd think with all that out there they'd be able to provide reams of evidence to back their smears.

But perhaps they are only smears.

[Beastly Boy]

130. That's a deflection

Hartmann's employment at RT is a fact that does not require a Hartmann quote. Hartmann's relentless criticism of Hillary is undeniable (I am not blaimong him for expressing his views here, he has every right to do so). RT's strategic use of content produced by Hartmann in their campaign to undermine Hillary's candidacy has been confirmed by all five US intelligence branches in their published report. Just because a donkey does not acknowledge pails of water on its back doesn't mean he is not carrying water.

[jrthin]

134. +1000 nt

[PortTack]

170. +1000. He lost me when he started bashing HRC..enough said

[betsuni]

216. +1

[LetMyPeopleVote]

236. I remember that bashing

I have never paid attention to Hartman but got pissed when he bashed Hillary

[Cha]

207. Bravo!

💙💛

[pnwmom]

183. Because that wasn't the issue. The issue was that he condoned the network

by his presence on it -- even during the Georgian war, when the propaganda station was claiming that Georgia was the aggressor.

Hartmann himself didn't say that. But he gave the network legitimacy, and increased its fanbase, by using its platform.

[live love laugh]

189. Without links it's just a smear campaign.

[WhiteTara]

195. He didn't have to.

His existence gave it gravitas.

[Cha]

204. A Reality Check.. Refreshing.. TY!

💙💛

[KPN]

65. What is your goal? You consistently for years now harangue about

Thom Hartmann being a willing agent of Russia with zero factual evidence. What is your purpose in consistently attacking perhaps the most effective promoter of Democratic progressive thought, ideas and goals on America’s airwaves over the past two decades? What good are you trying to accomplish? The unsubstantiated smears are tiring and seriously make me wonder what your goal is. I see none of value. I see the opposite frankly.

[FreepFryer]

76. Understanding sources of news is crucial. Hartmann's past is not fiction. RT is disinformation. (Nt)

[KPN]

91. Understanding sources of news is important. Key word: understanding, not making stuff up

unsubstantiated allegations and endless character attacks based on nothing but a perception. Thom Hartmann is a legitimate and, quite frankly, powerful voice for our party. Your harangue every time his name comes up serves no useful purpose that I can see. As I said, I have to wonder why you keep driving this wedge.

[FreepFryer]

99. I just explained it. RT means he is no voice for my party. That opinion is my right to have. (Nt)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

103. You've still provided no evidence of what he has said and written

Bibliography

1992 (first edition): ADD: A Different Perception. Underwood Books. 1997. ISBN 1-887424-14-8.
1993: The Best of the Desktop Publishing Forum on CompuServe. Peachpit Press. 1993. ISBN 1-56609-064-4.
1994: ADHD Secrets of Success: Coaching Yourself to Fulfillment in the Business World. Select Books. 2002. ISBN 1-59079-017-0.
1994: Focus Your Energy: Hunting for Success in Business. Pocket Books. 1994. ISBN 0-671-51689-2.
1995: ADD Success Stories. Underwood Books. 1995. ISBN 1-887424-03-2.
1996: Beyond ADD. Underwood Books. 1996. ISBN 1-887424-12-1.
1996: Think Fast!. Underwood Books. 1996. ISBN 1-887424-08-3. by Thom Hartmann and Jane Bowman, with Susan Burgess
1997 (2004 revised ed.): Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight. Three Rivers Press. 2004. ISBN 1-4000-5157-6.
1998 (2004 revised ed.): The Prophet's Way. Park Street Press. ISBN 0-89281-198-6.
1998: Healing ADD. Underwood Books. 1998. ISBN 1-887424-37-7.
2000: Thom Hartmann's Complete Guide to ADHD: Help for Your Family at Home, School and Work. Underwood Books. 2000. ISBN 1-887424-52-0.
2000: The Greatest Spiritual Secret of the Century. Hampton Roads. 2000. ISBN 1-57174-166-6.
2003: The Edison Gene. Park Street Press. 2003. ISBN 0-89281-128-5.
2004: What Would Jefferson Do?. Harmony Books. 2004. ISBN 1-4000-5208-4.
2004: We the People: A Call to Take Back America. Coreway Media, Inc. 2004. ISBN 1-882109-38-4.
2004 (revised ed.): Unequal Protection. Rodale Books. April 24, 2004. ISBN 1-57954-955-1.
2005: Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK. Carroll & Graf. 2005. ISBN 0-7867-1441-7. by Lamar Waldron, with Thom Hartmann
2006: Screwed: The Undeclared War Against The Middle Class and What We Can Do About It. Berrett-Koehler. 2006. ISBN 1-57675-414-6.
2006: Walking Your Blues Away: Practical Bilateral Therapies for Healing the Mind and Optimizing Emotional Well-Being. Park Street Press. October 19, 2006. ISBN 1-59477-144-8.
2007: Cracking The Code: How to Win Hearts, Change Minds, and Restore America's Original Vision. Berrett-Koehler. 2007. ISBN 978-1-57675-458-0.
2008: Legacy of Secrecy: The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination (by Lamar Waldron with Thom Hartmann). Counterpoint. 2009. ISBN 978-1-58243-535-0.
2009: Threshold: The Crisis of Western Culture. Viking. 2009. ISBN 978-0-670-02091-1.
2010 (second edition): Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became "People" – And How You Can Fight Back. Berrett-Koehler. 2010. ISBN 978-1-60509-559-2.
2011: Rebooting the American Dream: 11 Ways to Rebuild Our Country. Berrett-Koehler. 2010. ISBN 978-1-60509-706-0.
2013: The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America—and What We Can Do to Stop It.
2013: The Last Hours of Humanity: Warming the World to Extinction. Waterfront Digital Press. ISBN 978-1-939116-47-5.
2019: The Hidden History of Guns and the Second Amendment Penguin Random House ISBN 9781523085996
2019: Hartmann, Thom (2019). The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America. ISBN 9781523085941.
2020: The Hidden History of the War on Voting: Who Stole Your Vote and How to Get It Back Berrett-Koehler Publishers ISBN 9781523087785
2020: The Hidden History of Monopolies: How Big Business Destroyed the American Dream. ISBN 978-1523087730.
2021: Hidden History of American Oligarchy: Reclaiming Our Democracy from the ruling class. ISBN 978-1523091584.
2021: Hidden History of American Healthcare : Why Sickness Bankrupts You and Makes Others Insanely Rich. ISBN 978-1523091638.

[KPN]

111. That's not a purpose. You haven't explained anything. Seems like you simply want to

be divisive.

[FreepFryer]

113. Not at all, we can disagree vehemently on Hartmann without it automatically being my bad faith.

Unless you see Democratic values differently than many of us do.

[JustAnotherGen]

229. +1

What you permit you promote.

[live love laugh]

190. ✔️

[pnwmom]

199. He was a willing host of a show on the Russian propaganda network, helping to legitimate the network

by his presence, and attracting his fan base to the network.

That's the evidence. And he did this even during the war on Georgia, when the network was claiming that Georgia was the aggressor -- not Russia. He should have taken a principled stand and left.

[Eyeball_Kid]

84. Wow. I've got to jump in here.

Hartmann did, indeed broadcast on Russian TV for a time. My guess is that it was a business decision made at a time when it appeared that Russia was relatively benign, and that his pro-democracy themes, of broadcast within Russia, would benefit those inside Russia in their own quest for a better quality of life. I've been listening to Hartmann for decades. I've never heard him say anything that would engender suspicions that he was anti-democracy or pro-Russian or pro-Putin. Hartmann has been as consistent as the atomic clock in that regard. He's always looked unfavorably toward corporatism, corruption, and the Republican Party. IMO, Hartmann is there to remind us that our own "democracy" has multiple weaknesses... BECAUSE IT DOES. And he's always done what he can to point the way toward more equitable self-governance.

I'm nearly the same age as Hartmann. He's talked about his education, training, and background at irregular times on his broadcasts. I've always seen him as a harder working, (even luckier), more talented, and maybe even more intelligent version of myself. Our educational backgrounds are similar, as are our reasoning abilities and moral sensibilities. Maybe it's just that our vocabularies are similar. In any event, there is no better person, IMO, in public media who can articulate the strengths and weaknesses of our methods of self governance, and what we can do to make it better.

A good question to ask Hartmann is why he left RT when he did. My best guess is that Russia was turning more belligerent and was poisoning its citizens because they opposed Putin, and Hartmann didn't want to be associated with any of it. I appreciate the motivations of some to aggressively identify those who are surreptitiously or visibly enabling authoritarian and fascist movements domestically or internationally. The spread of fascism is real and there are numerous reasons that the fascist movement has taken hold in the US. But, IMO, those who are pointing a finger at Hartmann as another propaganda arm of Putin or the GOP or right wing whackery are barking up the wrong tree.

So there's my "rant" for this morning.

[FreepFryer]

90. I appreciate the good faith you attribute to those w this concern. Thanks eyeball.

Is there any link to his own explanation of why he remained on RT, prior to and during 2016’s election?

There were already clear signs...

Thom Hartmann Sticking with RT despite Resignations over Putin's Actions in Ukraine
March 10, 2014

In the wake of last week's on-air resignation of Russia Today (RT) anchor Liz Wahl over the Russian government's actions in the Ukraine, Thom Hartmann announced on his RT program today that he is editorially independent and "we value the relationships" with organizations like RT.

"I own my own show," Hartmann said in an apparently prerecorded segment at the beginning of today's episode of "The Big Picture". Referring to "the drama at RT," he said, "it seems important to clarify my status and position." He claimed that he has "total editorial independence" and "nobody at RT has ever in any way tried to influence our content."

Wahl charged RT with exerting strong if indirect control over the content on the cable news channel, which is widely regarded as pro-Putin. “In order to succeed there you don’t question," Wahl said. "In a way you kind of suppress any concerns that you have and play the game.” Wahl also made her feelings clear. “It actually makes me feel sick that I worked there,” she said. “It’s not a sound news organization, not when your agenda is making America look bad,” Wahl said, adding that RT fools "hipster generation" Americans into believing Kremlin propaganda.

Hartmann did not address the crisis in Ukraine on his television program, but during his radio program earlier in the day he discussed the situation with Stephen Cohen, who has written recent pieces in The Nation magazine entitled "Demonizing Putin" and "Distorting Russia." During the interview, Hartmann and Cohen accepted as fact the conspiracy theory thatsnipers on the side of the new anti-Russia government fired on their own side in the main square in Kiev so that the now-ousted president Viktor Yanukovych would be blamed.

Hartmann and Cohen also referred the new anti-Russian Ukrainian government as "extremists." "The extremists came to power sharing, they are sharing power now," Cohen said, to Hartmann's agreement. "Obama unwisely keeps declaring the government in Kiev as legitimate," Cohen added.


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/3/10/1283668/-Thom-Hartmann-Sticking-with-RT-despite-Resignations-over-Putin-s-Actions-in-Ukraine

[FreepFryer]

114. I'm sure Hartmann calling the Ukrainian leadership Neo-Nazi was a complete coincidence.

This 2014 talking point delivered by Hartmann on RT is of course purely coincidental to the same Russian big lie selling their war on RT to the Russian people in 2022. I’m sorry for even doubting it.

Same link as above:

Hartmann suggested that the new anti-Russia government in Ukraine were neo-Nazis. "If you listen to the words of these guys in the cabinet, if you listen to the words of the party, they are openly antisemitic, they are openly nationalistic, they are open aggressive," Hartmann said. "Some may think calling them Nazis is a slur, some of them wouldn't refer to themselves that way, but some of them embrace swastikas."

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/3/10/1283668/-Thom-Hartmann-Sticking-with-RT-despite-Resignations-over-Putin-s-Actions-in-Ukraine

[JustAnotherGen]

230. I remember this - it turned me off to his Opinions

Seemed to take sides with the Russians. I also kind of blame him for accusations from the Left that if we didn't love Russia - we were Russophobes

[judesedit]

105. I agree

[Ferrets are Cool]

112. Nice rant

[uponit7771]

150. +1,

[NightWatcher]

197. Hartmann only left RT when DoJ wanted people on RT to register as foreign agents.

His job was to put a "friendly" face on RT. He gave RT credibility (look around at how many people here are still supporting him and ask yourself how many people who have been paid by Russian propaganda channels are posters on DU or are still considered "progressive" democrats?).

He also advocated for Bernie and that was seen by and in russia. His job was to siphon off just enough voters from Hillary...and it worked (see trump).

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/production-company-registers-under-foreign-agent-registration-act-agent-russian-government

Production Company Registers Under the Foreign Agent Registration Act as Agent for the Russian Government Entity Responsible for Broadcasting RT

Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security Dana J. Boente announced today that T&R Productions, LLC (T&R), a Washington, D.C., corporation, registered today with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) as an agent for ANO TV-Novosti, the Russian government entity responsible for the worldwide broadcasts of the RT Network (RT). The National Security Division’s FARA Registration Unit is reviewing T&R’s filings for sufficiency.

“Americans have a right to know who is acting in the United States to influence the U.S. government or public on behalf of foreign principals,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Boente. “The Department of Justice is committed to enforcing FARA and expects compliance with the law by all entities engaged in specified activities on behalf of any foreign principal, regardless of its nationality.”

[Magoo48]

97. Oh, horseshit.

Hartmann is an insightful American progressive and not anyone’s tool. He is as outraged by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as any of us who love freedom.

He consistently speaks of the fascist threat to Democracy and building a stronger Democratic Party.

The people who don’t agree with him are usually so called moderates and centrists who generally prefer the shuffle and lateral slide approach as opposed to trudging forward with direct actions.

“No to be trusted” is an unfounded and undeserved slander.

[FreepFryer]

101. It's deserved. Trust is earned. And being supported by RT wasn't the way to earn it (Nt)

[Ferryboat]

3. 1st out of the gate of course!

This talking point has been debted in the past to the point of flogging a dead horse.

Thom like most of us have made mistakes. Pointing out that Bannon advocates taking over at the local level (school board) up through the party to drive the the agenda.

OP is right, after 2022 we are screwed unless we get out the vote.

So take your vote and sit it out like a cry baby or do the work to GET OUT THE VOTE !

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. I think you mean to reply to FreepFryer, not to the OP. . . .nt

Last edited Sat Mar 26, 2022, 07:37 AM - Edit history (1)

[overleft]

6. You are right. The quote ( I don't remember who said it.)

"We either hang together or we shall hang separately." is what we have to keep in mind. Keep our petty differences in check and defaet the larger foe. The gqp.

[gab13by13]

14. Please explain specifically what you are talking about.

What is it that Thom said about the DNC that is terrible? I don't expect an answer. Maybe Thom's suggestion was helpful not hurtful?

I'm sorry I missed that episode I usually listen to Thom, he is one of the few who gets it.

[niyad]

60. I believe it is attributed to Ben Franklin.

[paleotn]

96. niyad is correct. That's Franklin...

paraphrased a bit over the years, but the gist is the same. Spoken after the declaration of independence. From the British view, a signed document admitting to treason, so, yes, they would have all had a date with the gallows if captured.

[eShirl]

8. What does this mean:

getting physically involved in the Democratic party using Bannon pushing this on the other side.

[FreepFryer]

9. Excellent question. Bothsidesism and sideways calls for political violence. Feels Russian (Nt)

[gab13by13]

16. No no no,

you took out a snippet of what Thom said, if you actually listened to Thom's segment I want to know more. Stop with the Russian bs, if you want to bash Thom you are going to have to explain what he said that was so terrible, don't hide behind his being on RT.

Does Thom want the DNC to fight harder? OMG how Russian of Thom. Do I need the sarcasm thingy?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. It means attending meetings, door knocking, internal lobbying, speaking rather than posting, etc. nt

[eShirl]

19. So where does the Bannon stuff come in?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

27. Bannon pushes attending meetings, door knocking, internal lobbying, speaking rather than posting,

... because it has an impact.

It works for Democrats too.

[eShirl]

32. I just think it's weird to use Bannon as an example to model.

Bannon is known for riling people up and playing dirty.

[intheflow]

137. Bannon is also known - among his base - as a leader and organizer.

He's been very effective getting conservative GQPers to run for local elections, one of the most successful public figures to do so, using the might of his microphone. Hartmann is using the most effective (for the right) example of what Democrats need to do to take back our government, using the power of his microphone.

[eShirl]

146. Bannon (equals sign) Satan

apologies to Satanists

[Cha]

206. Yeah, "Bannon" is Not Any

kind of model to emulate.

💙💛

[Hekate]

221. Using Bannon as an example for anything leaves a stink. He explicitly wants to overthrow the US.

[NightWatcher]

10. He's a Russian tool who only stopped being a tool when DoJ wanted people on RT to register for FARA

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/20/rt-wants-to-spread-moscows-propaganda-here-lets-treat-it-that-way/

His job was to convince enough Bernie voters to not vote for Hillary and he did just that and helped get trump elected. He did his part, whether he knew it or not.

[betsuni]

12. +1

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. Your evidence is Hartmann saying the GOP is stupid more than 5 years ago. :eyes:

Perhaps you believe that the GOP is not stupid.

Perhaps you believe that the Russians want Americans to believe the GOP is stupid.

Otherwise, it would be foolish to post a screenshot of him saying the GOP is stupid.

[betsuni]

11. "Physically involved"? What "inner workings of the DNC"?

What the hell does that mean? He calls Democrats both-sides corrupt neoliberals all the time. Claims FDR was a populist! That Trump was a "genuine populist movement in American history."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. Simple, but those with prejudice against TH can't imagine speaking at meetings, shaking hands,

... knocking on doors, etc.

[FreepFryer]

23. "Prejudice against TH" "remember his show's relationship to Russian Military Intelligence"

[gab13by13]

31. No, I don't remember Thom ever backing Russia, remind me please.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. Again, you give no evidence, least of all current evidence from his writings / podcasts / books. nt

[FreepFryer]

34. No evidence? That's hilarious. I'm realizing now you're just naysaying.

“Yes, his show was produced and broadcast for Russia Today for years.”
“Yes, Russia Today is a proven arm of Russian Military Intelligence created and dedicated to countering US perception and power abroad.”
“Yes, Russia Today is now banned in the USA and across the world for this disinformation campaign”

But

“How dare you be concerned about Hartmann, he left RT, and as of yet has not been forced to disclose the financial and editorial details of his relationship and arrangement with Russia Today!”

And there’s something wrong w me for even asking.

Do I understand your argument correctly?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

39. You are the naysayer wanting to cancel Hartmann. Ball in your court. You have no evidence

The best you come up with is a 5 year old smear.

But despite his 30 books you can't point to anything he has said or written.

Despite having 5 years.

[FreepFryer]

41. "Cancel", eh? Hardly. Wow, that one is a classic right wing BS move. Thanks for the chuckle (Nt)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. Still you provide nothing he ever said or wrote. You have nothing. . . nt

[FreepFryer]

44. As I told you in another thread, you dont get to demand actions of others.

I’ve pointed to facts and you’ve just cast aspersions and made false characterizations of what I have said.

You have less than nothing.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

50. You feel you are privileged because you are demanding actions of others, but nobody else can

You demand that DemocraticUnderground .com cancel Hartmann.

You demand that DU members cancel Hartmann, not post his stuff or refer to him except negatively.

[FreepFryer]

51. I've done no such thing, you're flatly wrong. "Canceling" is bullshit. Have a great day! (Nt)

[sheshe2]

235. Hmm. Thirty Books.

How many have you read cover to cover? Can you point to anything he has said in all those books?

[gab13by13]

40. Then I'm also naysaying,

you produced no evidence. My claim is that years ago when Thom worked for RT he actually bashed Russia, I remember the episodes.

You have given no evidence why Thom Hartmann is pro-Russia other than he supported Bernie Sanders and if that makes Thom pro-Russia there are 10's of millions of Democrats who are pro-Russia.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

43. No, you don't understand the argument at all and are reduced to misrepresenting it. . . . nt

[FreepFryer]

45. Thanks for correcting my obvious ignorance! (nt)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

46. You are welcome. . . . nt

[MontanaFarmer]

64. The evidence is that he took Russian money

to broadcast a talk show, at a time when Russian disinformation was very actively being used to try to elect their preferred candidate. He's no better than Ed Schultz, who was once a voice in our party more powerful than Thom. Is this circumstantial? Not really, as we see Thom, a Bernie acolyte, working for Russia, at the precise time Bernie primary voters were being encouraged to not vote for Hillary, by a coordinated effort that included Russia. Now we're going to follow this person's advice on how to treat the Democratic party? No thanks, I'm out.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

71. Ah, the Bernie spectre is resuscitated again as a reason to fear Hartmann. . . . nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

74. Show us that he took MONEY, your allegation. PROVE IT. You can't. It's a dishonest smear. . .nt

[betsuni]

86. How can he prove Democrats are corrupt?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

110. I think that's a lie. I think you misread the OP, for whatever reasons, laxness possibly among them

The OP wrote:

i heard people on his show saying they wouldn't vote because the party is corrupt. Have seen it here.

Somehow you transform that into Hartmann saying it.

[betsuni]

132. "The neoliberal system Reagan and Clinton pioneered is collapsing under its own weight of corruption

and bloated, obscene wealth ... ." The Democratic Party is "sabotaged by the neoliberal old guard who're still deeply embedded in their wealthy and corporate donors' Citizen's United cocoon."

Thom Hartmann says Democrats are corrupt all the time. You must not be very familiar with him. He supports populism.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

138. What is it with people can't provide links? And that is not what is claimed

Why is it such a great difficulty for all these people pumping out this stuff against Hartmann to provide the links.

We have to do your work for you, because we are even handed:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/11/3/2061984/-Last-Night-s-Election-Proves-America-is-Standing-on-the-Edge-of-a-New-Populism

And the second quote, we have to dig it up the link for you.

"neoliberal system Reagan and Clinton pioneered is collapsing"

https://hartmannreport.com/p/america-is-standing-on-the-edge-of

So, having done your work for you, we can address your point:

I think it is a reasonable criticism to say that the Democratic Party is too beholden to wealthy donors. It is debatable. But it is certainly a point held by many on here on DU. Do you condemn them for "sabotaging" the Democratic Party?

Essentially Hartmann is saying that the party could do better by taking a more populist way. That is not carrying Putin's water. It's a reasonable discussion of strategic direction.

But more exactly Hartmann was not attacking the Party with the second quote. He was saying that the populist Sanders part was being sabotaged by other parts. Do you feel there is truth to some of that?

But the Democratic Party as a whole missed it, although progressives within the Party totally understood what’s going on and have worked hard to have the Party meet this progressive populist moment. But they’re being sabotaged by the neoliberal old guard who’re still deeply embedded in their wealthy and corporate donors’ Citizen’s United cocoon.

The neoliberal system Reagan and Clinton pioneered is collapsing under its own weight of corruption and bloated, obscene wealth; like flowers coming out of a cow patty, two new populist movements have been birthed.

Do you feel that anyone who writes here on DU against neoliberals is sabotaging the party?
Do you feel that Clinton had no part in a neoliberal (whatever that is) orientation of parts of the party?
Do you feel that neoliberals should be universally condemned or universally praised or is there room for debate about positions in the middle of that spectrum? Debate including Hartmann's position?



But rather than have that discussion about the direction of the Democratic Party, FreepFryer chose to derail the thread with the first post by attacking the man, not his words.

[betsuni]

142. Hartmann thinks the Democratic Party is corrupt, supports populism.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/11/03/democrats-have-choice-embrace-progressive-populism-or-suffer-trumpian-fascist

I don't have time to provide all links of him calling Democrats corrupt.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

151. SAME text I posted links for you twice. And it does NOT SAY what you think it does

Here are the five paragraphs that mention "corrupt" or "corruption". Three highlight tRump corruption, one discusses a court ruling, and one highlights NeoLiberal corruption. Neoliberals are not allowed to be discussed or attacked or supported?

None of the five mentions call the Party corrupt.

1: Courts

The big break between Americans and their government began in the late 1970s when the US Supreme Court, in the Buckley and Bellotti decisions in 1976 and 1978, ruled that when billionaires and corporations (even foreign corporations) bought US politicians it was no longer corruption or bribery, but instead was First Amendment-protected "free speech."

2: tRump

While Trump's racist and paramilitary base gets most of the attention, he represented a genuine populist moment in American history, one in some ways like Andrew Jackson's (and just as ignorant, brutal, and corrupt). His puppet-master, Steve Bannon, was and is a Goebbels-level populist PR and political arts practitioner, both intellectually and morally.

3: Neoliberal system

The neoliberal system Reagan and Clinton pioneered is collapsing under its own weight of corruption and bloated, obscene wealth; like flowers coming out of a cow patty, two new populist movements have been birthed.

4: tRump cabinet

It should have been shockingly obvious to Democrats that something new had taken hold when the American people were willing to overlook Trump's 20+ rape and sexual assault charges, his bankruptcies and fraud convictions, his ties to Putin and attempt to bribe the president of Ukraine, his incompetent handling of the Covid pandemic, his payoffs to porn stars, the wild corruption in his cabinet as member after member was busted for self-dealing (5 criminal referrals), and his Big Lie about the 2020 election and fascist assault on the

5: tRump is corrupt

The simple reality is that Americans are so desperate to once again have politicians—even corrupt ones like Trump—who they believe care about them and act on their behalf that they'll overlook almost any character flaw and even major felonies.

You'll have to try again.

[betsuni]

154. He says the Democratic Party is corrupt.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

156. Wrong. He says the * Neoliberal system * is corrupt. Read:

"The neoliberal system ... is collapsing under its own weight of corruption"

It's very plain and clear.

[betsuni]

158. He says Democrats are neoliberals and corrupt.

Populists put the Democratic Party into the "Them" corrupt immoral evil category and love the words neoliberal, corporatist, elites, establishment.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

159. But your links don't say that. And your text ignores Democratic populists. . . . nt

[betsuni]

160. Yes my link does. Liberal Democrats aren't populists.

Populists view liberals as the true roadblock to progress.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

162. Nope. Bernie Sanders does not view liberals as a roadblock. He is liberal. Or you think he is a CON?

[betsuni]

164. Who said Bernie said liberals are a roadblock? Where?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

171. Sanders is a liberal populist Democrat. You said populists can't be liberal or Democratic AND

... and you said populists view liberals as roadblocks.

Since you said you think populists view liberals as roadblocks then logically you must think Sanders (a populist) views liberals as roadblocks. But your logic is circular and self-contradictory. Sanders (a liberal populist) is expected (by you) to view liberals (including Sanders) as roadblocks. By your logic Sanders views himself as a roadblock.

Assuming:
Populists view liberals as roadblocks

Sanders is a populist
thus

Sanders views liberals as roadblocks
but

Sanders is a liberal
* self-contradiction

The only conclusion that remains is that the assumption is untrue, that populists can't be liberal Democrats or that populists automatically view liberals as roadblocks. Those two things are untrue.

[betsuni]

213. Bernie is a democratic socialist, a populist, he is an independent. He is not a liberal Democrat.

I'm surprised you don't know who Bernie is!

[MontanaFarmer]

88. Um. RT hasn't disclosed his salary, strangely.

But he was paid by Russia Today to produce content, correct? Or are we thinking he was in their production studio and being broadcast on their airwaves for free?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

98. Your allegation, ball in your court, put up credible links. . . .nt

[MontanaFarmer]

108. The US government asking all contributors on RT to register

under FARA isn't good enough? There's a whole US state department public document at the top of a Google search but ai can't link to a PDF.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

115. RT used to be popular on DemocraticUnderground around that time. Condemn DU?

Guilt by association is weak tea at best and five year old weak tea.

People seem to be unable to attack the man for what he says and writes. So they attack him by association. It's the same kind of guilt by association attack that attacks Bill Clinton for flying on Epstein's plane (which he in fact did).

By the guilt by association theory we shouldn't listen to anything anyone in the Clinton family says or writes.

Let's not start cancelling Clintons on DU and stop trying to cancel, eject, smear, or disrupt Hartmann on DU.

[MontanaFarmer]

123. Yes, guilt by choosing to be

associated with a Russian propaganda outlet. If the democratic party ran the way Thom is advocating, TODAY, not 5 years ago, we'll be a permanent minority and shut out of most states completely. Large swaths of the country (geographically), which we need, are closer to Jon Tester, Joe Manchin etc than we on this site care to admit. If you want a picture of what it might look like, watc Nevada this fall after the folks thom is pressing to take over the DNC have a shot at running things there. We're in trouble there after being fairly dominant for years. I think Thom's rhetoric is dangerous today, and i question his motivation given his past ASSOCIATION with Russian propagandists.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

127. Still no credible links to anything he has said or written. And you continue to walk back the MONEY

Link to something he is "advocating TODAY" (your emphasis) that would make Democrats a "permanent minority".

All these smears and nobody is able to back them up.

MONEY? Nope. Crickets.

"Agent"? Nope. Crickets.

"TODAY" should be easy. So far there are crickets.

[MontanaFarmer]

135. Asking for people to take control of the DNC like

Steve Bannon. The topic that started this thread. That's dangerous rhetoric imo.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

139. You smeared with "took money". Invoking Bannon is what-aboutism at best and diversion. . nt

[MontanaFarmer]

144. Thom invoked Bannon. Not me.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

155. Bannon has nothing to do with your indefensible smear that Hartmann TOOK MONEY. . . . nt

[MontanaFarmer]

174. Does working for someone not indicate "taking money?"

What am I missing here? Does Lawrence O'Donnell take money from MSNBC? Tucker from newscorp? Lemon from CNN? You're correct, I can't produce Thom's pay stubs from when he was broadcasting on RT but seems a fair assumption he was paid for his time, no? And what is RT again? A Russian propaganda outlet. Failing to see the smear.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

176. You are missing that he wasn't "working for them"

He used their studio. That's not "working for them".

They used his content, unedited on their network. That's not "working for them".

Since you can't produce evidence, drop the TAKING MONEY smear.

I don't know, maybe he did take payment for his content. I doubt it, but it is possible. You, however, have provided no evidence and still maintain the assertion as if it were the truth. Maintaining it is the smear. You have presented no evidence.

[MontanaFarmer]

185. There's no burden of proof for me to meet, sorry.

Seeing things like Thom referring to the anti-russian government in Ukraine, circa 2014, as "neo-nazis" does make one wonder the motivation. https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2014/3/10/1283668/-Thom-Hartmann-Sticking-with-RT-despite-Resignations-over-Putin-s-Actions-in-Ukraine

Having Stephen Cohen on, a Russia apologist, makes one wonder. All circumstantial, agreed. Certainly good enough for a discussion on a board. The fact that you think no money changed hands between Thom and RT goes way beyond straining credulity, but i clearly won't convince you otherwise.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

116. You said MONEY. You haven't provided any evidence of your smear that he TOOK MONEY

People with cases don't have to resort to such smears.

[MontanaFarmer]

126. It's not a smear. He worked for RT. That's a fact. I'm not trying

a case. Goodness.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

128. You said "took MONEY", and provide no evidence. That is one of the smears. . . . nt

[betsuni]

225. Democrats are accused of "taking money" all the time as if campaign contributions

go right into their pockets instead of what it actually goes to, paying for things. Accused of corruption, it's a smear and bullshit.

[Emile]

87. Why are you still fighting the 2016 primary?

[MontanaFarmer]

94. I'm not.

Bernie lost. Then trump won. Russia played a part in that, that's the impetus for this conversation. Bernie primary voters not voting for Clinton played a role in trump winning. Thats not relitigating the primary that's called disgussing true things that happened.

[Emile]

168. Lumping all Bernie primary voters not voting for Clinton IS REHASHING the 2016 election!

[MontanaFarmer]

172. Wasn't what i said.

What i said were that some did not, which was a factor in trump winning. Russia was involved in the disinfo campaign/ratf##*ing that targeted those voters. If you feel that lumps in every bernie primary voter i feel like that's on you, not me.

[Emile]

175. I went back and reread your post and the key word "some"

is not there!

[MontanaFarmer]

184. My post never said Bernie primary voters didn't vote for Hillary.

"Were being encouraged not to vote for Hillary." And i also never said all. There was a coordinated effort including the trump/Russia nexus to depress the vote. Someone else in the thread noted that that crossed with Thom's time working for RT. Those things are all true.

[Emile]

187. I know, it's a shame because many Bernie voters did vote for her.

[MontanaFarmer]

191. I agree. The vast vast majority did,

and many donated and worked on her behalf. My point was not to say they didn't, which i never said. My point was that during this time of RT having US talk show hosts on air there was a major vote depression operation run by Russia going on here, targeting Bernie primary voters. While limited in its success, that empty headed con artist Jill Stein got votes she would not have without that effort.
While not the entire cause, those stein votes helped trump run the table in the rust belt. Others didn't vote at all. Ditto re: trump's win.

[Emile]

192. True the vast majority did, but this is what you said: Bernie primary voters not voting for Clinton.

As a Bernie voter that ended up voting for Clinton, I was offended!

[MontanaFarmer]

193. Again, not what i said.

I said "Bernie primary voters were being encouraged not to vote for Hillary." Unless you're referencing a different post. Big difference from saying they/ you didn't.

[Emile]

198. Post 94

EOM

[MontanaFarmer]

205. OK you're correct. I said it

as a response to a response to post 64, but you're right i could/should have qualified it. Didn't mean "all," meant "those who didn't, " but point taken about how i wrote it.

[betsuni]

47. His words are his words. Nothing to do with "prejudice."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

48. It is prejudice to imagine Hartmann means violence by "physical" INSTEAD of normal meet-and-greet.nt

[FreepFryer]

49. No it's not, freedom of speech means you don't get to regulate interpretations, that's Russian.

Especially when an ostensible progressive (formerly of Russia Today) invokes one of the architects of the insurrection in so doing.

This is basic shit, Bernardo.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

53. But you are "Russian" (your term) because you want to regulate interpretations of Hartmann

You want to regulate DU's interpretation by lobbying incessantly to get DU to forbid his presence here or any reference to him that does not mention the five year old guilt by association RT thingy and go on to denounce him as an "agent".

Give it up.

[betsuni]

52. But what does getting "physically involved in the Democratic Party using Bannon pushing this

on the other side" mean?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

55. It means attending meetings, door knocking, internal lobbying, speaking rather than posting, etc. nt

[eShirl]

58. BANNON.

[gab13by13]

70. Have you listened to any of his pod casts?

He does a fantastic job getting people to vote, does my saying that make me pro-Bannon?

[eShirl]

73. Bannon's? No.

[betsuni]

75. It's the myth that the Tea Party was "grassroots" and that there will be an alliance

between left-wing and right-wing populists.

[mountain grammy]

122. He's always pushed for local involvement.. grassroots

The GOP's been doing it for years and it's working for them in areas where it used to work for Democrats.

The difference is the GOP appeals to people's worst natures and the Democrats used to appeal to daily bread and butter issues. Then they kept going and we quit. I live in a red area. Democrats that run here get no support from the state or national party as I was told by a local Dem when I gave him some $ to get a few signs printed. We work like hell, but the republican bullshit is prevalent. They held a wake at the bar for Rush because that's where they get their "news".. disgusting.

Elections are won at school board meetings and local town meetings. Democrats need to be visible and vocal.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

124. Exactly. . .. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

231. Trump was a genuine Fascist Racist movement

Him calling it populist puts him in the same league as Woodrow Wilson.with me.

[gab13by13]

26. OK now I get it,

Thom supports Russia because he backed Bernie Sanders. It took me a while. People here are still fighting the 2016 primary.

Hey you Thom bashers, I was a Bernie supporter also, I dare you to call me pro-Russia.


Here's another reason someone can call me pro-Russian, I plan on voting for the populist candidate John Fetterman in Pa. over the moderate Conor Lamb. Why not do a thread on that one?

I finally figured out these anti-Hartmann threads, that even spell his name wrong. These threads are meant to get progressive and moderate Democrats fighting, and that is what will divide Democrats.

[Emile]

35. Bingo +1

[Tommymac]

121. +1

[leftstreet]

166. +1

[doc03]

54. I listen to some of Thom Hartmann's program and Stephanie Miller on the Progressive

Channel nearly every day. I find Stephanie Miller's program more entertaining but Hartmann is
the best advocate for democratic values on that channel. Sometimes both are a little too far
left for me. I guess some people can't handle a little constructive criticism. This is a major
reason the right dominates talk radio, the left parses every word our own say to find something
to disagree with. I would like to see Hartmann on TV again. Who else do we have? People complain
they hate this one or that one for bothsiderism. There are two sides Democrats are not always right
about everything.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

56. +1. Some are doing everything they can to silence & deny one of the strongest Left voices. nt

[gab13by13]

66. Democrats are not always right about everything,

If the DNC backs Conor Lamb in the Pa. Senate race that's its decision. I know this that John Fetterman is who I am voting for, regardless of a DNC endorsement and I am not alone. Fetterman is leading Lamb 2 to 1 in a 3 man race where the 3rd party is a liberal candidate who should take votes away from Fetterman.

I have nothing bad to say about Conor Lamb, he is a fine candidate, but I'm not donating money to the Pa. DNC, I'm donating directly to Fetterman, does that make me bad?

[Tommymac]

212. No they're not. I live in Connor's district vocally and visually supported him in his first campaign

But damn if I didn't write him a torrid letter scolding him about his PAC doing the hit on Lt.Gov Fetterman. Not good behavior this year in particular. Unity is everything.

Lamb needs to reign in his PACs and campaign on the issues in the primary and stop this attempt to demonize progressives. He is not ready yet to be a Senator IMHO, and his campaign now reflects that fact.

He has never had my vote or support for the Senate - I've been supporting John since before he announced. Financially and on the ground. I think it was a bad decision for him to run this year. He's young - Id take him over Bob Casey anyday.

Vote John Fetterman US Senator 2022


#GOTV2022

[TexasTowelie]

237. PACs are not allowed to collaborate with campaigns.

Therefore, Lamb cannot reign in the independent political activity of PACs as you suggested.

[Liberal In Texas]

107. Mostly agreed. Not too far left for me.

His show is on daily on Free Speech TV.

I won't speak for him, but back in the RT days it is my belief that he was looking for someplace to do a long form TV broadcast about contemporary issues not someplace to disseminate Russian propaganda. Trying to find a network to broadcast progressive ideas was and still is problematic. I don't know for sure, but I don't believe he was paid by them, I think he paid them for air time.

Thom is a national treasure. He is also a DU poster. I wonder about the rule to not personally attack another DUer being ignored frequently around here. I also wonder what ulterior motives this Hartmann bashing might be evidence of.

[JustAnotherGen]

232. I'll stick with Urban Radio - Joe Madison and company

They "Progressive Channel" hosts don't really understand people like me. Black Women Democratic Party members are side bars - not the base on that station. I've tried too many times to listen with positive intent.

I love the constant pressure on Urban to Get Out The Vote! The hosts are right . . . once again black women are going to have to save America in 2022. *sighs*

Try listening/calling into Joe Madison sometime - he will get you fired up to dominate the Right!

[multigraincracker]

61. Thom has a 50 year history of speaking for Progressive

Democrats. Corporate Democrats hate him and look hard to discredit him.

[BlueJac]

63. Thom Hartmann is a good Democrat...

He does not deserve to be trash on this site. Bitching about Democrats does not build a strong party. The DNC has made plenty of their own mistakes in the past. It is time for party unity! The post makes sense to me. K&R

[Traildogbob]

95. Thank you all

That are speaking up for Thom. The man has more historical facts than 20 encyclopedias. We have very few voices in media that fight for democrats compared to White Wing radio and TV. Oh shit, I said Fight!!😱😱 I might be pushing Russia and trumpism violence?
Damn John Fugelsang, he might be a Russian Christian. He knows way to much about the BuyBull.
I’m sick of the Hartmann bashing. Spend some time on Bannon, Jones and Tucker, and that prick at the Natzeeeeee Rally Marginal Trailer Queen spoke at. Now there’s some Russian pushing BS.
Ya wanna bash some Russian Democratic spies, rant about Tulsi Gabbert. Just my opinion. I will keep listening to Thom, my ears, my choice.
Ya hate Thom, do as I do to any right wing Russian humpers. Don’t tune in.
Tucker Carlson, that’s a Russia media Darling. Betting he gets more Pooty media time than Hartmann.

[Liberal In Texas]

125. +1000

I'm really starting to wonder if we don't have some long term trolls that manifest themselves when the Hartmann bashing starts.

[Traildogbob]

145. The same rant

Is becoming once a week. But ya know, they are free to speak. I back that. I will do as I do to Fox, OANN, News Max, Bannon, Jones or any Q crap. Stay as far away as I would from a trump Natzeeee Jamboree with a thick mist of Covid soup swirling around from the rabid screaming and worship of the REAL Russian asshat. Like one of Stephanie Miller’s famous sound bites Chris pulls up,
“Take that line of crap down to the corner store, cause we ain’t buying that bullshit here at this 5 and dime.”
Putting Thom anywhere near a Russian threat on the level of Carlson, Traitor Green, trump and his aged spent sperm, and all his minions like Flynn and Manafort, is ridiculous.
They really think Thom’s once a week openly gay congressman taking calls for an hour would be allowed anywhere Putin’s airways?
Thom is a brilliant Mind and I am damn glad to have him in our battle for democracy against the billionaire corruption.
Fox, Carlson and everything trump are full blown, in our face Russian butt lickers.
I hope the Hartmann badgers are not getting paid in Russian currency……….., no wait, I hope that is exactly the case.

[Celerity]

220. +1

[ybbor]

67. I heard that segment

Those who are bashing it have no understanding of the message. He was saying that the left has to use the same tactics the right has been using since Newt began pressing it in the 90s. We need to take control of our party at the local level: school boards, town councils, dog catcher.

While I was listening to his use of Bannon’s words, I was aware that he was sharing them to show what is happening on the other side. How they are organizing.

The GOP stressed taking control at the local/state level. Controlling state houses that draw up districts so that they control the majority of seats. Here in Michigan the statewide positions are all Dems, but the house and senate are controlled by Rs due to this local level concentrated effort.

Thom is the biggest proponent of small d democracy I have known. This twisting of the word physical to mean anything other than to put your physical body/mind into the “game” is ridiculous. He is a pacifist as far as I can tell. He would never advocate for violence.

His use of the Bannon sound bite was to show how the other side is organizing at the very elemental level and how we need to follow suit. He is correct!

Rant over.

[doc03]

77. The county I live in was nearly 100% controlled by Democrats 20 years ago, now every single

elected office is held by a Republican. Our Congressional seat was held by Democrats for decades now
we have a Republican and the way Republicans have gerrymandered the district we won't ever get rid of
him unless maybe he gets caught having sex with a 6-year-old. Since his head is up Trump's ass he would
probably be excused for that.

[gab13by13]

80. Well said,

Steve Bannon does a good job getting Republicans involved in politics, in getting them to vote, my saying that does not make me a Stever Bannon lover.

This post reminds me of the Merrick Garland threads where people want DOJ to do more and are blasted for it. Thom Hartmann wants the DNC to do more.

[Escurumbele]

68. Those who claim the "party is corrupt" must explain why they think so, they need to provide proof

Too many people throw one-liners without supporting them, enough of that. If you can't explain yourself about what you claim then stay quiet, otherwise it is just trolling.

[betsuni]

79. I've been asking for years for evidence the party is corrupt and it never comes.

Enough is enough. It's shameful and only helps Republicans.

[Cha]

209. Exactly what I want to know.. that's

a GD Broad Brush to Smear the Democratic Party with.. you know the party that is on the Front Lines Fighting Against the Fucking Fascists.

💙💛

[stonecutter357]

69. lol fuck putin !

[Cha]

208. Yep and All his Enablers to his fucking Death Squad..

💙💛

[mcar]

81. I listened to him once on Sirius

As soon as he started on a Dems suck diatribe, I was out.

These losers suppress votes. They do it every midterm.

[gab13by13]

104. I hope you are right,

all we have to do is be rah rah and hope that GOTV overcomes rigged elections. We shall see.

I vote in a district that will never see a Democrat win today when we had Democrats win back in the 70's, something went wrong, ignoring that isn't the answer. Why back in the 70's I was elected for 2 terms to borough council as a Democrat because I was involved in my community, standing up for the interests of the townspeople. I organized people to attend council meetings to get things done, maybe that is what Thom is talking about. I had to get physical to win.

[mcar]

141. I live in a county that was pure Democrat when I got here in '92

There always was a wingnut faction - back then it was the UN Helicopters and the virulent hatred of Bill Clinton.

Then came Rush, Fox, and Jeb Bush - and gerrymandering - and I watched my county slowly go red. It's now so red a Democrat doesn't have a chance here.

Yes, I stand up. I helped to found a Democratic Women's Club chapter here and it's one of the state club's big success stories. We have an active Democratic Party and lots of clubs and caucuses. We phone and text bank, knock on doors, do GOTV drives, etc. That's what local parties do.

What we don't do it continually run down the Democratic party to make people believe voting isn't worth it. That's voter suppression; that's what I've seen happen from so-called progressives for decades.

[DownriverDem]

82. Divided we fall

I'm a proud member of the Democratic Party. We must focus on beating the repubs. Infighting is no way to beat the repubs.

[FreepFryer]

85. +1. (Nt)

[LiberalFighter]

89. His rantings indicate his lack of understanding of how the party works.

He demonstrates that he doesn't know the structure which consists of the precinct members, county parties, district parties, and state parties that are part of the DNC. Each state party elects DNC members to the DNC.

As for electing Democrats to Congress and local government that is primarily on the candidate with the assistance of the county/state or state/national party. If a candidate doesn't run a good campaign or have good staff to run their campaign it will be difficult.

[Beastly Boy]

93. Hartmann is not a friend of liberal democracy, he is not a friend of the US Constitution, and he is

friend of the Democratic Party.

[Emile]

100. Of course he is a friend of the Democratic party!

[Beastly Boy]

131. He is a populist. Populists don't particularly care about the parties they happen to affiliate with.

[gab13by13]

140. Hate to say this,

I am voting for the populist John Fetterman in Pa. Conor Lamb is a good man, liked by the DNC, but Fetterman is going to win in a landslide.

Yeah, we need to stop electing populists like FDR and Ted Kennedy and start electing more moderates like Joe Lieberman who cost Democrats the public option, and Kristen Sinema who cost Democrats the voting rights and BBB bills.

Our Democratic party is in big trouble if people are bashing Thom Hartmann, keep doing what you are doing Thom, I will keep listening to you. I particularly liked your segment last week bashing Reagan and blaming not taxing the rich as a cause of our putting our democracy in danger.

[betsuni]

143. FDR and Ted Kennedy weren't populists, they were liberal Democrats.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

153. They were liberal Democratic populists. The three appellations are not incompatible at all

FDR was called a "traitor to his class" by 1 percenter richies.

[betsuni]

157. No, not populists. Liberal Democrats.

[Beastly Boy]

163. FDR and Ted Kennedy are not populists.

They are the definition of establishment politicians in a liberal democracy. Just because their policies were popular with voters, doesn't make them populist.

And, call me a middle-of-the-road establishment neoliberal incrementalist, I would rather vote for Sinema and lose BBB than vote for Deedra Abboud and lose the Senate majority along with the entire Democratic agenda.

[Liberal In Texas]

109. Not a friend of liberal democracy or the Constitution?

Where on earth do you get this nonsense from? Have you ever listened to his show?

[Beastly Boy]

136. I get this nonsense from the likes of Bannon and Trump

Populism is antithetical to liberal democracies. If, especially in light of Hartmann's recent comments mentioned in the OP, you still want to argue he is not calling for populist tactics to push the boundaries of the US Constitution in the same way Trumpism does and the Tea Party did, I am all ears. State your arguments so I can respond to them. Don't dismiss mine as nonsense.

[Liberal In Texas]

147. Populism is neither bad nor good. It's a method.

pop·u·lism
noun
a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. -Oxford Languages

He is not pushing "the boundaries of the US Constitution in the same way Trumpism does and the Tea Party did." What an ignorant thing to say. His idea is to suggest if people want change they need to get into the party mechanisms is to try and push the more staid and corporate dems into doing more for the average joe. You know, those fringe populist ideas like universal health care and taxing the wealthy.

And I certainly dismiss this equating Thom Hartmann with Banon and Trump as pure nonsense based on nothing but your opinion.

[Beastly Boy]

149. Populism is antithetical to liberal democracy.

"Bad" or "good" are subjective labels. To a populist, whatever their background, it is always "good". That's the problem with advocates of populism: they, and only they, get to define what is "good" and what is "bad". Not the voters.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

161. Nonsense. Populism is democratic and frequently liberal and Democratic

Populism is not the exclusive domain of any wing, left or right, socialist or libertarian, conservative or progressive.

Populism is by definition a subset of democratic activities.

When populists win elections by receiving the most votes that does not make them or the election or the voters anti-democratic.

Populists are not inherently authoritarian or fascist. They can be but it is a gross error to automatically align populism with "bad".

[Beastly Boy]

169. You like the word "nonsense" a lot, don't you?

The elections don't make populists anti democratic, and the elections are not the only means for a populist to gain power. It's what happens after take power that makes them anti-democratic.Just look at 1/6. Sometimes insurrections succeed. Sometimes populists succeed in undermining democratic pinciples, democratic institutions, majority rule, or all of the above. What makes a populist a populist is not party affiliation, but the fact that they don't consider themselves bound by the established rules and institutions that govern liberal democracies. This is the central thesis of populism, no matter what plitical or ideological wing it comes from. They get to define whose vote counts or not, who "the people" are and who the "enemy of the people" are. This is what I saw one of the leftist sources advocating for calling it "extra-parliamentary" methods of government That's why saying that populism is antithetical to liberal democracy is not nonsense. It's a historical fact.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

173. Good start, but you lost me in the middle at equating populism with disregard for law

Your point about insurrections by populists as other means to power is good and of course the Jan6 example is spot on.


tRump had and has disregard for the law, so he fits that mold of populist.

But the other populists like Sanders and FDR should not be thought of as having disregard for the law.

Historical fact.

[Beastly Boy]

177. Please, Don't drag FDR into this! He is not a populist, he is the establishment

And Bernie made it clear in’16 that, as President, he doesn’t intend to govern by consensus, he intends to govern by the power of executive office while dismissing the legislative branch to the greatest degree possible.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

118. You haven't tried to prove that smear by anything he wrote or said, despite ample access

Bibliography

1992 (first edition): ADD: A Different Perception. Underwood Books. 1997. ISBN 1-887424-14-8.
1993: The Best of the Desktop Publishing Forum on CompuServe. Peachpit Press. 1993. ISBN 1-56609-064-4.
1994: ADHD Secrets of Success: Coaching Yourself to Fulfillment in the Business World. Select Books. 2002. ISBN 1-59079-017-0.
1994: Focus Your Energy: Hunting for Success in Business. Pocket Books. 1994. ISBN 0-671-51689-2.
1995: ADD Success Stories. Underwood Books. 1995. ISBN 1-887424-03-2.
1996: Beyond ADD. Underwood Books. 1996. ISBN 1-887424-12-1.
1996: Think Fast!. Underwood Books. 1996. ISBN 1-887424-08-3. by Thom Hartmann and Jane Bowman, with Susan Burgess
1997 (2004 revised ed.): Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight. Three Rivers Press. 2004. ISBN 1-4000-5157-6.
1998 (2004 revised ed.): The Prophet's Way. Park Street Press. ISBN 0-89281-198-6.
1998: Healing ADD. Underwood Books. 1998. ISBN 1-887424-37-7.
2000: Thom Hartmann's Complete Guide to ADHD: Help for Your Family at Home, School and Work. Underwood Books. 2000. ISBN 1-887424-52-0.
2000: The Greatest Spiritual Secret of the Century. Hampton Roads. 2000. ISBN 1-57174-166-6.
2003: The Edison Gene. Park Street Press. 2003. ISBN 0-89281-128-5.
2004: What Would Jefferson Do?. Harmony Books. 2004. ISBN 1-4000-5208-4.
2004: We the People: A Call to Take Back America. Coreway Media, Inc. 2004. ISBN 1-882109-38-4.
2004 (revised ed.): Unequal Protection. Rodale Books. April 24, 2004. ISBN 1-57954-955-1.
2005: Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK. Carroll & Graf. 2005. ISBN 0-7867-1441-7. by Lamar Waldron, with Thom Hartmann
2006: Screwed: The Undeclared War Against The Middle Class and What We Can Do About It. Berrett-Koehler. 2006. ISBN 1-57675-414-6.
2006: Walking Your Blues Away: Practical Bilateral Therapies for Healing the Mind and Optimizing Emotional Well-Being. Park Street Press. October 19, 2006. ISBN 1-59477-144-8.
2007: Cracking The Code: How to Win Hearts, Change Minds, and Restore America's Original Vision. Berrett-Koehler. 2007. ISBN 978-1-57675-458-0.
2008: Legacy of Secrecy: The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination (by Lamar Waldron with Thom Hartmann). Counterpoint. 2009. ISBN 978-1-58243-535-0.
2009: Threshold: The Crisis of Western Culture. Viking. 2009. ISBN 978-0-670-02091-1.
2010 (second edition): Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became "People" – And How You Can Fight Back. Berrett-Koehler. 2010. ISBN 978-1-60509-559-2.
2011: Rebooting the American Dream: 11 Ways to Rebuild Our Country. Berrett-Koehler. 2010. ISBN 978-1-60509-706-0.
2013: The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America—and What We Can Do to Stop It.
2013: The Last Hours of Humanity: Warming the World to Extinction. Waterfront Digital Press. ISBN 978-1-939116-47-5.
2019: The Hidden History of Guns and the Second Amendment Penguin Random House ISBN 9781523085996
2019: Hartmann, Thom (2019). The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America. ISBN 9781523085941.
2020: The Hidden History of the War on Voting: Who Stole Your Vote and How to Get It Back Berrett-Koehler Publishers ISBN 9781523087785
2020: The Hidden History of Monopolies: How Big Business Destroyed the American Dream. ISBN 978-1523087730.
2021: Hidden History of American Oligarchy: Reclaiming Our Democracy from the ruling class. ISBN 978-1523091584.
2021: Hidden History of American Healthcare : Why Sickness Bankrupts You and Makes Others Insanely Rich. ISBN 978-1523091638.

[Beastly Boy]

148. I can gauge the damage he has done without contributing a single penny to his royalties.

And, by extension, the damage inflicted on the US Constitution and liberal democracies worldwide by Trump's presidency.

Friends don't do this to friends, no?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

152. Your excuse is hollow and avoidable. Still not evidence from what he said or wrote. . . . nt

[Beastly Boy]

178. Your definition of evidence appears to be exceedingly narrow.

Surely you are not suggesting that evidence ought to be limited to what Hartmann wrote, disregarding all else as inadmissible!

Yet this is exactly what you have done here.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

179. My mistake. I thought we were discussing Thom Hartmann. . . . nt

[Beastly Boy]

180. Very observant. We do indeed.

A subject not at all limited to, and at times quite separate from what Hartmann wrote.

[GB_RN]

117. Reading The Comments Here...

I gotta say, we are fucking MASTERS of the circular firing squad.

That being said, I have never once seen any evidence that Thom Hartmann is any friend of Putin's, a tool of the FSB (the successor to the KGB) or the GRU (which is the Russian military intelligence agency). I have only seen him bash the GOPQ and advocate for progressive causes.

Just my two cents.

[FreepFryer]

119. Posts 90 & 114 might help provide a few bits of context. Agreed, RU and the GOP is the threat. nt

[gab13by13]

120. In summary;

Democrats must nominate moderate candidates, progressive candidates are Russian tools.

Is that the gist of this thread designed to get Democrats to fight with one another?

[BlueJac]

129. Well, I see we are all on the same page.

Infighting will lose everytime. 2022 is huge, 2024 is gigantic and a must win!

[Farmer-Rick]

133. I like listening to Hartmann

He makes me think.

Yeah he was on RTs platform when Russia was trying to get TFG elected. He made a mistake. But Russia conned a lot of people.

And it was legal back then. The US apparently approved of RT or they wouldn't have allowed it.

He caught on afterwards. Too bad he couldn't see through the manipulations by Russia back then.

But a lot of people were conned back then. Sometimes the bad guys do manipulate you no matter how on guard you are.

But we need to work together and quit finger pointing if we are going to beat the GOP.

[Hortensis]

233. He left RT when he was required to register as a foreign agent.

Not when he realized Russia was working hard to defeat Democrats and elect tRump and Republican majorities all over the country.

Or when he was astonished (MUST have been astonishing, right?) to discover that his long-time employer was the Kremlin's main propaganda dissemination organ.

Those who want to beat the Republicans should get serious about not helping them.

[bdamomma]

196. We

need to be unified, do we really want McConnell to take the control again, and the rest of those traitors

2022 first step and then 2024. Let's move forward not back.

[SalviaBlue]

201. Hartmann has been advocating for grass roots involvement in the Democratic party

Long before anyone knew Bannon’s name; long before and long after after he rented studio space from RT.

His tag line on every show is something like: “Democracy is not a spectator sport. It's about all of us getting involved, everybody needs to get active … Tag. You're it!"

[Cheezoholic]

214. Wow .....

Dylan went electric man, move on lol

[betsuni]

215. 1965. What has that got to do with anything?

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2022, 05:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Five years ago isn't 1965. Hold feet to the fire. Authentic. Moral. No double standards.

[Cheezoholic]

219. Nothing, it has nothing to do with it

I have a hard enough time treading shallow water with the obvious anymore. My OP wasn't about TH, it was about this shit. There is something greater at risk than who is right. The fucking tiger, not the fox, is at the door. My OP was about apathy and defeatism, not Thom Hartman. I dont give a flying fuck what anybody thinks about Hartman. Maybe theres too many who have eaten the golden eggs the goose laid. Maybe there's too many not willing to sacrifice their 2 car garage and cookie cutter suburban house too prevent these fuckers from putting people worldwide at even more jeopardy than they already are. Trust me, read history, if we fall here, in this half assed fucked up vulnerable experiment in democracy we have, if we lose it, the loss of life in Ukraine will pale to what will happen. It's bad enough now, a new dark ages will prevail if we let it fall arguing our petty differences when WE are the only thing between a free world or a world dominated by dictators and filthy rich motherfuckers.

[Celerity]

222. your reply reminded me of this slice of absolute superbness from the end of the noughties

Maybe theres too many who have eaten the golden eggs the goose laid. Maybe there's too many not willing to sacrifice their 2 car garage and cookie cutter suburban house too prevent these fuckers from putting people worldwide at even more jeopardy than they already are.

[Cheezoholic]

224. I gotta thing about suburbia

[Celerity]

226. The Business - Suburban Rebels

Label: Secret Records (8) – SEC 11
Format:
Vinyl, LP, Album, Gatefold
Country: UK
Released: 1983
Genre: Rock
Style: Punk, Oi

[Cheezoholic]

227. Woke my partner up lol

[Celerity]

228. oopsie! (it is after 1 pm here)

Here is another of my favourite songs from The Business (from their first demos, never on a proper album, and one of the incredibly rare Oi! 'love' songs, most are almost always about having a ruck, and/or getting on the lash, or politics)

The Business - Unevenly Pretty

cheers

[betsuni]

223. Apathy and defeatism is blaming Democrats for what Republicans do.

Sometimes TH promotes this and is wrong, sometimes his information is correct and he's great. American culture is individualistic and selfish, but money isn't automatically corrupting for everyone. Americans can be very generous. The Democrats Party isn't corrupt.

There's a hungry tiger (Republican) in the room, and people freak out about the kittycat (Democrat) in the same room. Why doesn't the kittycat stop the tiger from killing everyone? Let's not vote for the kittycat in the next election, teach it a lesson.