what is the populist movement creating today in the sanders campaign? inclusive? exclusive?

[seabeyond]

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. I thnk they are trying to succede where they failed in 1980.

Carter was not viewed by the left back then as this liberal lion. He was a southern, fiscal conservative, social liberal.

Success means they have elected someone from the far left who can initiate a "left" revolution.

One hopes their failure, if that happens, does not end with some Republican Reaganite wannabes in control of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.

[seabeyond]

2. in their group, they have an OP. change DU to Pu. be the teabagger of the republican party, to the

democratic party.

well. if that is what they are looking for then i think we have to admit, it is exclusive. and not inclusive.

[cyberswede]

3. Any DU group has absolutely no bearing on the outside world

And the idea of being the "teabagger of the republican party, to the democratic party" really only means they hope to get the Democratic Party to address their concerns - there's nothing wrong with that.

I sincerely doubt they intend for that to mean the Democratic Party can't address social issues as well as economic ones.

A populist position doesn't exclude a socially conscious one.

[seabeyond]

6. social network has importance this election as i stated intiially when addressing sanders campaign.

du is part of that social network. it is how sanders has got to run his campaign and build support. i think that is a major part of the campaign discussion

And the idea of being the "teabagger of the republican party, to the democratic party" really only means they hope to get the Democratic Party to address their concerns - there's nothing wrong with that.

even in your kindest way interpreting what is being said. look at what the teabaggers has done to the republican party. ya. i get it. they want to do to the democratic party, what the teabaggers did to the repug party. i do not think that is a pretty picture. further, because of it, they have allowed dems the win of 2016.

would any democratic suggest this is a good idea?

A populist position doesn't exclude a socially conscious one.

yes. they have. and i and others repeatedly point out examples of just that.

but some people do not want to listen. hence, my post toward sanders people, imploring them to rethink this. and actually listen. lol. that was locked. by the hosts. as a thread attacking me was allowed to stand.

kinda thinking we are being told our conversation is not allowed. just another example.

[cyberswede]

11. I get that focusing only on economic issues CAN exclude social issues...

but it's doesn't HAVE to.

And I did read your examples, which I'm not refuting.

I should have said "a populist position doesn't require exclusion of a socially conscious one."

Sanders does support social issues.

July 16, 2014 S 2578 Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014 Cloture Not Invoked - Senate
(56 - 43) Yea

April 9, 2014 S 2199 Paycheck Fairness Act Cloture Not Invoked - Senate
(53 - 44) Yea

Nov. 7, 2013 S 815 Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 Bill Passed - Senate
(64 - 32) Yea

Nov. 7, 2013 S Amdt 2013 Exempts Religiously Affiliated Employers from the Prohibition on Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Amendment Rejected - Senate
(43 - 55) Nay

Feb. 12, 2013 S 47 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 Bill Passed - Senate
(78 - 22) Yea (also co-sponsor)

Dec. 4, 2012 Treaty Doc. 112-7 The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Treaty Ratification Failed - Senate
(61 - 38) Yea

June 19, 2012 S Amdt 2172 Rescinds Bonuses to States for Administering Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Amendment Rejected - Senate
(41 - 58) Nay

June 19, 2012 S Amdt 2174 Limits Eligibility for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Amendment Rejected - Senate
(43 - 56) Nay

Dec. 18, 2010 HR 2965 Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act Concurrence Vote Passed - Senate
(65 - 31) Yea

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VV9RoVO9b6Q

(Your post was locked because it was meta - referring to other DUers for "jump{ing} on your ass" etc. - not because anyone wants to tell you the conversation isn't allowed. I'm not aware of the thread attacking you - was it even alerted?)

[seabeyond]

15. one, fuckin sentence. in the whole OP that was political. couldnt ask me to take it out? cali

has a post, that keeps being kicked that attacks me personally, and a whole thread of the same ole attacking me personally, yet was allowed to stand.

ya

not buying it.

and cyber.....


I get that focusing only on economic issues CAN exclude social issues...

but it's doesn't HAVE to.

when the black, gay and feminist community is saying you are not addressing social, one would think they would listen.

there was a thread..... sander on feminist side

it was about free college. no, that is not social, that would be economic justice. the social part? that same day, college administrations ignoring rape of our girls being sent to those universities. was a big story. the same day he declared free college. and get raped....

not a word. addressing that too? that would have been a feminist stance.

just saying

opportunity lost

[polly7]

21. Cali never made an OP attacking you personally.

I read it - you weren't mentioned. The thread got 157 recs and contained a lot of good information and insight, imo.

[cali]

25. thanks. no I did not make an OP about her.

I wrote an op that was information based to counter misinformation.

[cali]

27. that is boldfaced false. I did not write an op that attacks you

If I had, it would have been rightfully hidden. Why don't you link to it so people can judge for themselves.

[seabeyond]

28. in the title you called me out per an OP of mine. those in the conversation were aware,

hence the posters you got in that thread.

[socialist_n_TN]

116. If you were "...called out per an OP of mine...", then it sounds as if you were..........

"called out" over your stand on the ISSUES and NOT called out over personality. I would consider that legitimate.

[R B Garr]

35. Talk about boldfaced lies. You tee'd off on her thread because you

objected to the word "stunts." Remember?

[cali]

37. that was hardly all there was to it. I object to misinformation

and deliberate misleading crap.

And I wrote a substantive OP that was not an attack on anyone.

this is a typical op from the poster. It's predictably devolved into a food fight with nothing of substance either in the end run op or the thread.

[seabeyond]

41. exactly. everyone listening to calli on that thread, saw her call out in the OP. nt

[NaturalHigh]

112. There was no callout. I can't imagine how you could call it that.

[Bobbie Jo]

53. Results

Last edited Fri May 22, 2015, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Fri May 22, 2015, 12:10 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Talk about boldfaced lies. You tee'd off on her thread because you
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6711815

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling another DUer a liar, refuses to link.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 22, 2015, 12:17 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Cali can handle this gem.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "boldfaced" is in the post being responded to. And by the way, it's "bald-faced".
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Are you kidding? cali is one of the most - if not the most - rude and obnoxious posters on this board. Bar none. I'm surprised she doesn't get pushback like this more often. Leave it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

eta: for clarification, I was either juror 2 or 6.

[cali]

58. lol. yes, I think I can handle it.

[R B Garr]

66. LOL, thanks. That's hilarious.

"refuses to link" -- just fucking hilarious. omg, and responding to someone else being called a liar.

Thanks for the chuckle and the vote.

[NaturalHigh]

113. Everyone who read your OP knows that it was NOT a callout.

If anyone thinks it was a callout, I wish they would alert instead of whining about it here in this thread.

[R B Garr]

34. sea, one of your mis-information specialists is at it again.

It's obvious the thread you referenced by Cali was meant to tee off your thread about Bernie's "stunts". "Stunts" was the big word that riled them up in your thread, so they tee'd off on your thread. But her thread was all good "information." LOL.

They're just trying to get personal so they can get posts hidden, which is why I've noted the lack of credibility.

Have a great day. They really aren't worth your time.

[cali]

39. codswallop. and I have no interest in having her posts hidden

you're acting more than a wee bit paranoid.

[R B Garr]

67. No, paranoid would be following someone around reading things into

everything they write as if it all is some passive-aggressive affront to you personally and then starting threads based on your misinterpretations. Lots of people don't know Bernie and every question isn't a potential confrontation.

All I know about Vermont is you have some kick-ass syrup. Vermont isn't on everyone's radar as some political epicenter.

[seabeyond]

42. yes. nt

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

30. WHAAAAAAAAAAAA????

The TeaParTY exists to address their concerns?

As if they have legitimate concerns that arent addressed by the BLACK president?

Let me laugh for a little while

Jesus, the teaparty was formed for the sole purpose of opposing the skin color and Muslim sounding name of our President

the proof of that is he has done NOTHING that a middle class or lower middle class person could be against.

NOTHING


OK, maybe TPP but we all know for the first 6 yrs my statement is true

[cyberswede]

33. The teaparty wanted to get Republicans to support their ideas.

That's what I meant.

Their ideas are fucked up and wrong, but the Republicans pander to them anyway.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

43. After they were formed by the billionaires, maybe. I was just making sure people understood

who they really are, and I am sorry I used you as a platform to scream at them.

I could go on for hours about their primary agenda, racism.

Or how ignorant they are that they want to deconstruct the very thing that made their middle class lives possible.

etc

[MaggieD]

101. "Formed by the billionaires"

So true. People forget that. Biggest frigging AstroTurf built group in history.

[cali]

4. what are you referring to?

[demmiblue]

7. This is basically an ill-disguised call out/meta thread.

She is chasing a boogieman, as far as I am concerned.

Liberals/progressives have always been at the forefront regarding social issues.

[cali]

8. sure. her last one got locked.

I see it the same way re saying of Sanders supporters that they aren't really committed to social issues. It's false. It's a pretty sleazy accusation, but oh well.

[seabeyond]

10. i am asking you all to think. instead you prefer to lock, and change the conversation. nt

[cali]

18. think about what? Can you be specific?

Are you asking if the Sanders campaign is inclusive? Are you asking if liberal populism is inclusive? What exactly is it that you think people should be thinking about?

[seabeyond]

19. i was and have been pretty damn specific in the OP that was locked and examples i have given you...

locking our way, the last handful of days. you ignore each and every example. if nothing else, peruse the 87% black support for clinton, thread. adn count the many ways

the populist group here on du are failing.

[cali]

23. You may think you were being specific in that locked thread but you

really were not. the examples you gave were just you complaining with no evidence that your complaints were rooted in facts or reality.

Your last line make it clear that this op is just an end run around meta rules and you're just taking the opportunity to slam a group of duers.

It's passive aggressive to the maximum degree, and it's nonsense.

You might want to engage in some reflection about why you feel compelled to try and skirt DU rules and why you're making this all about seabeyond.

[seabeyond]

24. no. mine was locked cause it was NOT passive aggressive. saying it bluntly. YOURS was not

locked because it WAS passive aggressive.

being in my op talking about sanders stunt.... then starting a thread of your own, with that in the title. everyone in the conversation KNEW you were calling me out. hence the names and attacks, insults mocking and ridicule, thru out the OP of yours.

that is an example of passive aggressive.

blunting saying what i said, got the lock and honest speech, instead of manipulative speech.

[cali]

29. balderdash. I posted a thread to clear up misinformation. that simple

I was not calling you out- as you may have noticed, I have no problem confronting you head on when I see you posting misleading stuff or misinformation. And I am not responsible for what other people post here. I didn't call you out in any way.

It's just not all about you.

[seabeyond]

26. here is a definition of passive aggressive. you have accused me of it too often. nothing passive,

in my aggressive

pas·sive-ag·gres·sive
adjective
of or denoting a type of behavior or personality characterized by indirect resistance to the demands of others and an avoidance of direct confrontation, as in procrastinating, pouting, or misplacing important materials.

[demmiblue]

14. Yes, it is sleazy and has no basis in fact.

I have seen this allegation spread a wee bit in other posts.

Some people will stoop to any level in order to steer the narrative.

[seabeyond]

17. are you saying i am sleazy?

[demmiblue]

32. 'It' being the operative word, not 'she'.

Yes, I agree with cali, your accusations (NOT YOU) are sleazy.

Again, trying to steer the narrative. That is also sleazy.

[seabeyond]

44. then you are not listening. which is my point. i am far from the only one discussing this. nt

[demmiblue]

48. People can discuss, but that does not mean it isn't some made up boogieman devised...

to fit your narrative.

Why in the world would I want to give that any credence?

[seabeyond]

51. then you own it is not my own boogie man. so you are calling many.... boogieman. in essence

the same as the posters calling black community uniformed because 87% support clinton.

[demmiblue]

52. There you go again.

Have you no self-awareness or shame?

[seabeyond]

54. or maybe... it is not about me.

[demmiblue]

55. Oh, yes, it most certainly is.

[seabeyond]

56. hence, again, the blind of the issue with sander campaign. whatever you do, put it on me and ignore

ALL the voices talking to you.

[demmiblue]

59. More false accusations and steering. You are a real piece of work. n/t

[seabeyond]

60. one has to wonder about your posts simply being attacking me and not discussing the bigger issue

of politics that i keep trying to 'steer' you to.

[demmiblue]

61. Lol... truly pathetic.

[seabeyond]

62. more insults. lol. who is pathetic? oh me.... sure. outta here. nt

[demmiblue]

63. Good, because my initial post stands:

"This is basically an ill-disguised call out/meta thread."

THAT is why you will get nothing from me. You deserve nothing when you start a meta thread.

[seabeyond]

64. ya. cause you kept it there, post after post of insults instead of discussing the POLITICAL issue.

[demmiblue]

65. Lol.

[Bonobo]

68. Wow, it must SUCK when people attack you personally instead of addressing political points!

I mean, WTF! Who the fuggin' hell would do that!

[seabeyond]

69. found another thread to go after me. your words. smacked a dude. want to smack clinton. right thing

Bonobo (25,078 posts)
59. Yep, I'm pretty sure Heritage Foundation made her say that and giggle like that.

I would never giggle over someone's death. It is just impossible for me. I don't go there emotionally. Some people do.

I remember back in 1991 (or was it 1992) on the first night of the original shock and awe bombing.

I was in grad school and watching with friends on TV as we watched the banks of the river in Baghdad light up with explosions.

A friend, a few years younger than me, starting giggling like that, like it was so fucking cool...

I will never forget how I reacted. Without thinking a smacked him in the back of the head and told him that he was watching people die horrible fucking deaths and that it was no movie.

It shocked him. I knew it was the right thing to do.

That is what I would like to do when I see her giggle like this. It literally sickens me to my core and I am surprised that it doesn't you as well given your love for the animals of the earth of which humans are most definitely a part.

gonna follow me thru out du accusing me of something i did not do, but call out YOUR own words? how long will we play this game.

[Agnosticsherbet]

36. I was referring to the election of 1980.

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. Progressives want to fundamentally change the direction of the nation

They have no patience with the historical method of incremental improvement over time. Senator Sanders and Senator Warren are appealing because they appear to offer dramatic change. Senator Sanders offers more than Warren because Warren's focus has been on economics and Senator Sanders interests touch on so much more.

It is inclusive if we go along. If we don't it is exclusive.

The Teaparty label carries a lot of bad baggage, but, in general, it is not a bad model. They impose strict a ideological control over those they support. Step even slightly out of line and they run a primary with someone who says all the right right-wing things.

I think they would like to be so successful that even the threat of a progressive primarying a elected official from the left causes the person's cojones to tune to jello. They don't have that clout, so they are focusing mostly on putting a standard bearer like Senator Sanders.

Here at DU, I don't think progressives tend to be exclusive. They do not accept any disagreement and attack their opponent with anything that comes to hand, whether it is an accurate criticism or a right wing troll talking point.

As a liberal, I do not agree with progressives as I think the methods of change through incremental improvements have created a better society and do not care to see the improvements threatened an unsuccessful revolution.

[seabeyond]

12. Teaparty label carries a lot of bad baggage, but, in general, it is not a bad model.

they destroyed the repug party to mockery and a win for dems in 2016.

and when my posts talking about populist gets locked and an attack thread on me is allowed to stay open by hosts, i will disagree it clitnon supporters that are overly sensitive.

and if you think progressive is exclusive asking to sit at the table, you might want to peruse the 87% black support of hillary thread.

[Agnosticsherbet]

20. The Teaparty has elected a controling majority to the House

and keep the Senate in line.

In 2014, most of the Republican wiinners ran with a Tea Party message. The sharp right lurch of the Government is the result of the Tea Party movement.

The mainstream bussiness cadre of the Republican Party are angry because the Teaparty has had a few colossal failures. (We all remember "I am not a witch.&quot

Today, every Republican up for election must kiss the teaparty ring, even if they have no intention of delivering on the Teaparty's legislative agenda.

They must talk and walk and sound like the Tea Party.

Through 2000, there were centrists Republicans that we used to Call Rockefeller Republicans. Mostly, they have either gone independent or become third way and blue dog democrats.

The Tea Party, as a movement, may be coming to an end becasue the interfer with governing. But they have been remarkably successful at moving this country to the right.

[seabeyond]

22. yes. and the american public reject. nt

[sabrina 1]

49. 'Their group'. So you are not a Bernie supporter. Didn't you say you were, or was that someone else?

Want to know what is going on with Bernie, amazing stuff. He's on FIRE with WomenforBernie eg, being he was FOR women's rights and Gay Rights while other prominent Dems were 'evolving' on the subject.

The more people see of his RECORD, the more supporters he is getting.

Bringing people BACK to the Dem Party too.

So excited about this campaign.

I guess if you were a supporter you would not have to ask the question in the OP.

No problem everyone is entitled to support their candidate. I am just confused by your OP since you did state you were a Bernie supporter afair.

[Cha]

70. What's "PU" stand for? Purity Underground?

[seabeyond]

72. lol. populist underground. they think they should own this site. as well they lead by example. nt

[NaturalHigh]

114. Populist:

noun: populist; plural noun: populists



1.



a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.



a person who holds, or who is concerned with, the views of ordinary people.


adjective: populist



1.



of or relating to a populist or populists.

"a populist leader"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow that just sounds awful, doesn't it?

[merrily]

102. Is this the OP you keep posting about?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776124

What do you think should have been done with a post in the Populist Group that hoped to work from within the Democratic Party to make the Democratic Party more populist and to work from within this board to make DU more populist? Can you even articulate what is wrong with that desire?

Did you look at the replies? All half dozen of them?

You're going to keep vilifying an entire group for this? Really? Why?

[merrily]

122. PS The author of that OP is a member of the Hillary group.

[Agschmid]

137. What do you mean by member?

Are they a host?

[merrily]

141. I've never seen anyone use "member" as a synonym for "host."

[Agschmid]

149. Well it's really hard to be a member of a group since we don't have those.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. The difference is Ted Kennedy was a mainstream Democrat with huge potential appeal

The difference is Ted Kennedy was a mainstream Democrat with huge potential appeal who undid most of his appeal himself. He was also incredibly charismatic and a great orator, ergo:

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. In 1980, progressives split the party and could not support Carter

when he won.

In a close election it doesn't take much to give the victory to one side or the other.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I don't believe we would have won regardless...

The perception was the nation was in a ditch and we were being clowned by the Ayatollah...

[Agnosticsherbet]

38. Perhaps, but party infightin caused damage

We are still paying for that loss.

[seabeyond]

46. yes it does. hence me saying. lets not have that infightin'. nt

[merrily]

106. Did it? Proof? In 2008 we were told how healthy a primary battle that went on well beyond

any mathematical possibility Hillary had of winning was for the Democratic Party. So how come we're now back to the false meme that Kennedy's challenge to Carter cost Carter the election? Is the real message that anything that Hillary might not like is bad?

Besides, Carter was a sitting President. Hillary is not.

And who says a democratic (small d) primary is either party infighting or bad for the Party.

The Party is us. IMO, it's very bad for us and for the country not to have a primary--and preferably one without such heavy thumbs on the scale.

[Agnosticsherbet]

120. It is not a false meme. It is history.

In that real history, a populist left refused after an eletion to support the candiate who won. I lived through it and remember it well.

Now, do I think history willl repeat itself. Ask me Next year. I expect we will see five candidates run a good campaign and we each will have a chance to support a candidate we think would be our representative in the Executive Branch of the government.

I hope when the primary is over, whoever wins the nomination will have the full support of the Democratic Party because a lot important programs are on the line.

[merrily]

121. No. It's history that primary challenge happened. That it cost the election is a meme and a

false one to boot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=8209

If it were history, you could have linked me to proof of your statement.

[Agnosticsherbet]

125. You don't have to like the history.

And you don't have to accept it.

I hope that in the general election that progressivrs and populists will support protecting critical programs and appointing a supreme court that supports the poor, middle class, and programs we all need.

I will be voting for Democrats in the General election.

Senator Sanders and Senator Warren will be voting with mr for whoever wins the Democratic nomination.

I hope you will be there voting with them.

[merrily]

140. I am able to distinguish between history and someone's interpretation of history that is designed to

eliminate primaries. However, at that, again, Carter was a sitting President. Hillary is not.

It is one thing to eliminate primaries when we have a sitting President, though I think that disgusting and undemocratic enough. Seeking to eliminate them when no incumbent is running, however, is beyond the pale. Super delegates are bad enough. I value democracy.

[Agnosticsherbet]

142. Primaries are not eliminated with a sitting President. Most of the time, no one runs against

that President. Primaries are held for the many other offices that are being contested.

At no time in this cycle has there been an attempt to elimnate the primary.

[merrily]

143. Strongly disagree with everything in your post.

[Agnosticsherbet]

144. There are a number of good hisory books that cover the development of primary

elections.

They were developed over time by the parties and are enshrined in state laws.

The information is out there.

[merrily]

145. They cover whether primary challengers for 2016 have been discouraged?

History books are enshrined in state laws?

[Agnosticsherbet]

146. The rules goverment primaries are enshrined in state laws. The are histories that cover their

development.

Becaue primares are held in each of the 50 states, they could not be stopped. We do not have national elections. We have coordinated state elections.

At no time was there a move by the Democratic Party to abolish the primary in each of the fifty states.

[merrily]

147. Wow. Straw men aplenty. You've gone all over the place, but you still have not

provided proof that a primary challenge was the reason a sitting President lost an election to Reagan. Start with that.

In fact, you have not provided proof of any claim you've made, but, again, start with the proof I requested many posts ago.

[merrily]

123. Depends on how you define mainstream. His fellow Senators dubbed him the Liberal Lion.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

126. I campaigned for Ted Kennedy

My mom, God bless her, was a Kennedy delegate at a Florida straw poll.

It was the liberal senators who urged Ted Kennedy to run. The sad thing is when his campaign faltered at the beginning those same senators abandoned him.

Most of my stuff is in storage but in that storage is a letter from RFK that I got when I was ten years old. I also have a letter from Ted Kennedy that I got in 1980 along with a signed photo and copy of his 1980 Convention speech.

I am pretty, for lack of a better word, cynical when it comes to politicians but I still look at Robert Kennedy as a saint.

[jwirr]

31. I voted in the Iowa caucus for Carter. As I remember it we just saw him as someone who was

honest - very honest. That rings a bell today.

[Agnosticsherbet]

40. Carter is the best elder dtatesman we have ever had.

[jwirr]

47. Exactly.

[MaggieD]

45. Their message seems simple to me....

"We hate Democrats!"

That about sums it up as far as I can tell.

[PowerToThePeople]

73. We Hate DINOs. FTFY.

Edit - I hate DINOs. I can not speak for anyone else.

Edit2 -

[MaggieD]

77. When you think everyone to the right of...

Marx is a DINO the term tends to lose its meaning.

[PowerToThePeople]

79. Yeah

oh

[Scootaloo]

76. well that may be because you're heavily biased.

[MaggieD]

82. I am biased toward Democrats

Very much so.

[Scootaloo]

83. Can't tell from all the hate you post against us.

Including your very evident belief that anyone who would support a candidate other than the one you favor is not a democrat.

[MaggieD]

84. Just tired of you guys bashing Dems

I figured it was time someone spoke up about that. I know. How dare I, right?

Quit smearing Dems on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND and I will be super nice to you.

[Scootaloo]

86. And I'm tired of so many Dems doing shit that deserves bashing.

Our political party is that, and only that - a political party. And it happens to be a deeply flawed one, at that.

I want you to do something for me. I don't need you to "be nice to me," I could give a shit less. But if you could do one thing for me?

pretend, even for a moment, that ethics are not decided solely by political affiliation. I joined the democratic party because of the two primary parties it best reflected my ethical stances and standards. I did not decide those stances and standards according to what my political party does. i want you to do the same. if only for a day.

[MaggieD]

87. All politics are flawed

Ours are just less flawed than the other side. If you want to win you need to think more pragmatically. You need numbers, the majority, control of the WH. And when you get the WH for long enough you also get the courts. And if we get the courts that's worth A LOT.

In facts it's worth most of the (eventual) change you want to see.

You have to think more strategically. And honestly, you have to get a seat at the table. I'm very liberal and agree on principle with most of you here. Maybe not FP, but with just about everything else. I'm just saying you're going about it the wrong way. IMO.

P.S. I already knew you didn't care if I was nice to you. That part was a joke.

[Scootaloo]

92. How much are you willing to sell off to "win" MaggieD?

What, or who, in specific, are you willing to fuck over in order to claim victory?

Give me a list.

[MaggieD]

94. That's the wrong question

.... The real question is how much are YOU willing to lose? Most of the shit that happened because of Bush winning will take decades to repair. Some of it will never be fixed.

And you know what happened last time we went for the majority and accepted a few Dinos into the party to get a majority? We got the ACA (20 million people!!!), an increase in taxes, the first increase in minimum wage in almost a decade, out of Iraq, marriage equality, and a lot of good judges, etc.

Compare and contrast, my friend.

[Scootaloo]

95. No, it's not.

There's this constant refrain from you guys that we "need to be more pragmatic." Okay. Well, obviously that means we have to sacrifice ideals, correct?

I want to know, in specific, what ideals you think we need to sacrifice in order to "win."

[MaggieD]

98. I see it differently....

I think you guys want us to sacrifice important victories, and risk more irreparable harm to the country for what is really pie in the sky idealism.

[Scootaloo]

99. You're evading. What ideals and principles must we sacrifice, in specific, to be more "pragmatic"?

[MaggieD]

100. I'm not evading anything....

There is no list of sacrifices. I think we all want the best government we can get as Democrats. You want to make a giant list of everything that is important and then try to get as much as you can off the list. The list is called the democratic agenda. And you don't get anything on the list if you don't win.

Also, I think it would be lovely to live in Norway or Sweden. But this country is not either of those.

[Scootaloo]

104. Yeah, you are

You presented the argument that we need to be even more pragmatic to win. Well obviously you think we aren't pragmatic enough already. And pragmatism is counter to idealism.

So to get more pragmatic,, one needs ot shed ideals.

I want to know which ideals, what principles, you think are expendable to "win."

You keep trying to change the subject. That's evasion.

[MaggieD]

105. You don't shed "ideals"

Do you shed your "ideals" when your preferred candidate loses in the primary and you vote for the Dem nominee? Of course not.

I know you want your way of thinking about it to be the ONLY way to think about it. But it just isn't.

[Scootaloo]

107. To become more pragmatic, one must be willing to sacrifice their ideals.

I want to know which ideals, in specific, you are willing to sacrifice in order to "win."

You can't have both.

[MaggieD]

108. This is why you guys never win

Because you're so convinced and impressed by your own purity that you think the purity is more important than the entire agenda. It's not. Not even close.

You care more about that ideal (your identity as pure) than you do, say, 20 million people having access to healthcare.

I'm sorry - I just fundamentally disagree with your premise.

(And my use of the terms you and you're are the extreme left in general. Not necessarily you, personally)

[Scootaloo]

110. What are you willing to give up to win, MaggieD?

It's a simple question, and since you're still snarling about my "purity" I must assume you have some answers to the question.

Tell me what must be sacrificed. What can we live without? Be specific.

[MaggieD]

115. Your repeated question....

Despite my repeated responses explaining why your premise is false lead me to believe you don't understand politics.

[Scootaloo]

132. You've just been trying to change the subject

You snarl and spit about "purity" but refuse to talk about what sort of "imburitis" must be embraced. You think that prgmatism can be embraced without sacrificing - even though htat's exactly what pragmatism entails.

But alright, you don't have a list... because you don't actually have a clue what you're talking about. You have no ideas, nothing.

You're just trying to shit-talk and insult progressives.

[seabeyond]

96. you know what happened last time we went for the majority and accepted a few Dinos into the party to

you know what happened last time we went for the majority and accepted a few Dinos into the party to get a majority?

We got the ACA (20 million people!!!), an increase in taxes, the first increase in minimum wage in almost a decade, out of Iraq, marriage equality, and a lot of good judges, etc.

i too am not a fan of the dino. no loss as far as i was concerned. and then you had to bring forward some facts. that make me question my wrongheadedness on this.

what an excellent point and this alone should be an OP. thank you for making this statement to give me a more accurate perspective.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. It's a huge mistake to confuse Bernie or his campaign with the festering antique lingo of a few DU

straight white guys. Bernie Sanders is a naturally inclusive person in his personality and his politics, he himself is a member of a minority. The handful of DUers who keep trying to create some binary combat scenario pitting 'economic issues VERSUS social issues' are nothing at all like Bernie, they have been playing that same record for months and months, first on the Liz Warren label now claiming Bernie as their motivation.
It was not Liz's fault, and it's not Bernie's. If I had judged Obama by his supporters on DU, I'd have voted for anyone but Obama. Hillary has a few real pips herself, it comes with the territory. People make use of candidates as devices of their own agenda. A viable candidate has to attract so many people that some of them are likely to be all manner of things from good to unfathomable.

There is a small, repetitive crowd on DU that wants to make divisions that do not exist. They are not the Sanders campaign. They are DUers retreading old material same as they always do.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

118. You seem very obsessed with "straight white guys"

You'll go into a thread about kittens flying kites or the price of tea in China and make it all about how straight white guys are bringing you down. It's not that you don't have good points to make, but you do seem a little obsessed with the topic.

[Hiraeth]

57. I do not see Sanders and/or the populist movement excluding anyone except, the 1%.

[MaggieD]

71. Couldn't tell that from reading DU

[Hiraeth]

75. I can not speak to that. I am not here long enough to really know what goes on around here.

[LWolf]

124. Bullshit. nt

[Scootaloo]

78. Of course it's inclusive, seabeyond. You're welcome to join in if you wish

[seabeyond]

80. good to hear. i will continue to try to shoulder my way to the front line, to stand beside you all.

[Scootaloo]

81. Come on in, the water's fine

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1280

[seabeyond]

85. "I Will No Longer Settle For The Lesser Of Two Evils - Go Bernie Go" here is the problem i see more

and more.

we are on a democratic board, to support our democrats. sanders stepping into the democratic primary and his voting record, makes him a dem, in my book.

this is not about sanders. it is about the populist group here on du. and the more and more i hear this cutsey little meme, and the more people i hear refuse to vote if sanders does not win, is NOT inclusive, because they are saying, fuck you.... too ALL the people that need a dem win. that their want, takes precedent over peoples lives.

this Op is about populist. not sanders.

i do not need populist, to support sanders. but crap like this, on du? no. the water is not fine.

[Bonobo]

88. If it is about the Populist Group on DU as you say, then this is Meta-crap. nt

[seabeyond]

89. take your best shot, bonobo

[Bonobo]

90. No shot, seabeyond. It is clear as day.

If your complaint is with the Populist Group, than you are being Meta-crap into GD.

Period. End of story.

[Scootaloo]

91. Have you considered that your worry is misplaced, Seabeyond?

Okay, you say a whole lot of people are saying "I won't vote for the lesser of two evils." Okay.

Now from reading your posts - and you seem to make them two a day, same subject, same targets, so i think i can claim familiarity - you believe the only conceivable reason someone would not be a straight ticket, 110% party loyalist at absolutely every turn, is because they are hateful, irrational, and idiotic creeps.

But what if that's not actually the case? have you ever asked these people what's going on, or do you just ball up your fists and scream hate at them?

People are increasingly disgusted by a system that does not respond to them, seabeyond. The problem is not the people whoi are disgusted, but the system that steps over them even when they participate.

[seabeyond]

93. " they are hateful, irrational, and idiotic creeps.""scream hate at them"

first i would like to start where we do not make up shit for a win in argument.

people are fed up. k. i hear ya. seeing how i am people too.

i also walked a woman thru abortion 3 months ago and i know the consequences for our women and girls if we do not have a dem in office.

ya... i want more.

am i willing ot give up the supreme court for decades, to get my message across?

hell, why dont i just cut my nose off to spite my face.

[Scootaloo]

103. Isn't that the case?

Look at the argument you present in this post. You present the case that people who don't vote don't care about a woman's right to an abortion. That they're willing to "give up the court." You present them throughout this thread as short-sighted, irrational, terrible people.

i think they're simply people whose trust has been exhausted. I'm nearing that point myself.

I'm encouraging you to think that maybe the cause isn't a dysfunction in the people you are targeting and haranguing, but a dysfunction within the political party you refuse to look at or criticize.

[seabeyond]

117. listen to yourself. "That they're willing to "give up the court."

You present the case that people who don't vote don't care about a woman's right to an abortion. That they're willing to "give up the court." You present them throughout this thread as short-sighted, irrational, terrible people.

first. they are willing to give up the court. that is a fact. not about me smearing. they wont vote clinton. they are giving up on the supreme court. i am allowed to say it out loud. it is a fact.

You present the case that people who don't vote don't care about a woman's right to an abortion.

yes. i do present the case that they are turning their backs, do not care, say fuck you, to women and girls willing to let the supreme court be taken over by repugs for decades.

this is a discussion board. we discuss. i absolutely present a case that they do not care about our women and girls.

why do you have a problem with me presenting the case that people advocating dems lose 2016 are turning their back on our women and girls?

You present them throughout this thread as short-sighted, irrational, terrible people.

i certainly see it short sighted giving up a part of our gov to repug for decades to be short sited.

irrational? ok. ya. want to accomplish all this shit, hardly makes sense to give up a third of our govt body to repugs for decades

terrible people? i think it is very short site, irrational, self centered and absorbed, stupid.... so, terrible people?

ya, i have a tough time with that one. but i do think it is a pretty terrible choice. not a lot of respect to the person that would be wiling ot allow the supreme court to fall in repugs hands for decades

as i am watching state law totally crash down on women and girls. our crt tel women we are not part of 14th amendment.

but wtf right dude?

[seabeyond]

119. over and over again we are being told populist has a huge concern for social issues. listen to

Last edited Sun May 24, 2015, 12:26 PM - Edit history (1)

yourself and others validate not voting in 2016. listen to you tell US how exhausted and disappointed you are.

so really... cant we understand the frustration, you have with our dems?

hey... we are talking about girls lives. we are always talking about the oppressed.... so FUCKIN sick and tired. sick and tired of being sick and tired of discussing the ill treatment and deaths. and here are the oppressed, once again asking to be at the table. begging the fuckin populist on their fuckin high horse to PLEASE do not let the supreme crt go. cause that is all that we have, at this time

and what do the populist tell us. how immoral we are. just not having that purity on. why arent we as sick and tired as you all. why do we not also walk away. what is wrong with us

because.

it is the lives of our girls and boy. our sons being shot in the back. our girls taking a hanger to themselves.

so yes. i will take on the immoral role, the selfish role, .... of saying.... wont you fuckin populist let us social justice be a part of this campaign

when you tell me how tired you are, that you do not want to vote 2016? you are confirming what me and others KNOW. you do not give a flying fuck about the social justice issues.

economic. the god almighty $. is the only priority

[WorseBeforeBetter]

130. The African-American unemployment rate is 11.4%, twice that of whites.

Who the hell are you (besides a white, upper middle class woman per another thread) to dismiss economics?

economic. the god almighty $. is the only priority

What an obnoxious sentiment.

[seabeyond]

134. you have your story wrong. i do not dismiss the economics. what i have over you... i do NOT

dismiss the social justice aspect of the story either.

btw... sanders? well help me, that upper middle class white, more then the poor african american community.

sanders will help all of us by appointing a liberal justice.

and i will enthusiastically support sanders also.

do you see a difference here? is it sinking in yet?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

136. Pony up some links that *prove* I dismiss the social justice aspect.

I'll wait. Actually, I'm going to watch a movie, but I'll be back in about two hours.

And educate yourself as to what thousands of us are involved in here in North Carolina:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Mondays

[seabeyond]

138. Excellent and outstanding. I mean that sincerely. Enjoy your movie. Nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

139. Thanks. (n/t)

[randys1]

128. It is irrational to call yourself a liberal and then act in a way that would elect someone

who is far far far to the right of the other choice which is what not voting for the Democrat, whoever that is, would be.

The social issues difference, religion, abortion, race, between the two sides is LIFE AND DEATH for many.

NO MATTER the economic or foreign affairs positions taken, even if identical.

The liberal looks at the situation, realizes one group is not acceptable and works to fix the other, less offensive group to improve in their less responsible stances.

OR

You could say let the racists, war mongering, dominionist assholes take complete control and the harm and death and environmental destruction would be so horrible that it would shock the rest of us into doing the right thing, that might work too...Lots of damage and death for sure, but it could work.

I might even be on board for that after everything else failed.

[Scootaloo]

133. But that's what we're constantly told to do

See maggieD in this thread. Or several other posters, who all insist we must be more "pragmatic," we must "compromise," we have to stop being "idealistic" and get rid of "purity"

That we have to sell out to the right wing to win, in other words.

The problem there is, this results in us ending up in the same place no matter what. Electing Semicrats is the same as electing Republicans. The decay is a little slower, but it's still decay.

and the really stupid thing is when people come out and rally for these sellout fuckfaces, against real liberals in the primaries. And hten try to talk down to liberals for "not being on board."

[seabeyond]

135. IF clinton wins primary and it a 2016 vote. hell ya. i am saying the same. she is not telling

people to vote clinton over sanders, i do not think.

she is standing up for clinton, when people do not give the correct facts. or she has provided facts and education about clinton. but, when people say they will not vote for clinton, ya.... she talks about the advantages with clinton over a damn repug.

and then listen to you going after people that support someone you do not like. how are you better?

i want sanders. i reject the populist movement on du. end of story. many of the posters have fought me on womens rights for three years.

if sanders doesnt win, i will easily vote clinton.

if people refuse? they are walking away from peoples lives. justify, excuse, validate? your choice. i do not respect it in the least.

i differ in opinion from a lot of long time friends and allies on du. if i can compartmentalize this, then i am hoping the friends and allies can too.

and those that are no more now than what they have been for three years? will continue to be the same irritants another three years from now.

[G_j]

109. wow!

Last edited Sun May 24, 2015, 06:02 AM - Edit history (1)

What the hell are you people talking about? This thread is a crazy trip down the rabbit hole.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

131. Evidently a "Populist Underground" OP with 14 replies and 7 recs is a "movement."

Someone has way too much time on her hands.

[Bonobo]

148. +1 nt

[NaturalHigh]

111. Hopefully a move to the left...

or at least a discussion of some leftish ideas in the presidential race.

I'm voting for Hillary Clinton, and I want her to bring out some of her inner populist when debating Bernie Sanders and hold on to those thought when debating the republican candidate. No moving to the center after the nomination.

[Marrah_G]

127. I think Sanders wants to change the direction of American politics in a big way

I see Clinton as someone who doesn't want things to change all that much. She is better then a Republican, but Sanders is far closer to my view on the issues.

[seabeyond]

129. sanders is far closer to my view on issues, also. nt