Why?????????? Damn!!!!

[boston bean]

Democratic rising star Kamala Harris has a “Bernieland” problem

Freshman Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has recently become the subject of much speculation about a potential 2020 presidential run. Several major news outlets have run feature-length profiles of Harris, and top Democratic donors are starting to coalesce around her as their preferred candidate to take on President Donald Trump.

But not everyone on the progressive left is feeling Harris-fever, and if the senator wants to win the Democratic presidential primary in three years, she’ll have to start making inroads with a growing grassroots movement that remains highly skeptical of Harris’s progressive bona fides.

Nomiki Konst, a Bernie Sanders supporter who serves on the Democratic National Committee’s Unity Commission had three words for Democrats interested in Harris as a candidate: “Follow the money.”

“The Democrats will not win until they address income inequality, no matter how they dress up their next candidate,” Konst said. “If that candidate is in bed with Wall Street, you may as well lay a tombstone out for the Democratic Party now. Voters are smart; they can follow the money.”

https://mic.com/articles/183105/democratic-rising-star-kamala-harris-has-a-bernie-sanders-problem

This pisses me off! Kamala Harris is a solid progressive.

[guillaumeb]

1. And me also.

An endless game of eliminating all of the less than perfect candidates will result in no candidate at all.

[elleng]

5. Exactly!

[NurseJackie]

53. Bingo!

[aikoaiko]

56. Are you saying Kamala Harris doesn't smoke weed either?

[Warren DeMontague]

98. A lot of "experts" about Kamala Harris in midtown manhattan, all of a sudden.

I wonder if they've ever been west of the Lincoln Tunnel.

[BainsBane]

175. Few would even know Harris was considering running

If this crowd weren't so focused against her. They've done more to elevate her to national attention than any donors. There is bad political strategy and then there is thus, in a category all to itself.

I just planted the seed of a Schiff candidacy. I'm hoping they'll devote themselves to smearing him because he could use the free publicity.

[Warren DeMontague]

177. Given that it's August of 2017, it's all silly season.

I've said repeatedly, the main thing I want for 2020 is a big field, a diverse field, and I'd like to see some younger leadership coming from the West Coast- KH fits that bill perfectly.

But I want a lot of candidates and a real debate on a whole bunch of issue points. I want our bench broadened.

Aside from my own personal preference that we move past 2016- I don't really want to see a Bernie, Hillary, OR Biden run next time, honestly- I think it's foolish to talk about disqualifying anyone or shooting them down just as it is foolish to imagine we're gonna come up with a "front-runner" any time soon.

But Harris is impressive and smart, I know that from California. Any attention she gets will be to her advantage, I think.

[BainsBane]

184. They feel oppressed

Because they claim she's been anointed. And we're supposed to take that angst seriously. if they don't get to decide who is and isn't allowed to run, the primary can't be fair or competitive.
It's too absurd for me to begin to comprehend.

[heaven05]

271. please....

[aikoaiko]

324. I was just teasing.

Snark vs snark.

[heaven05]

331. in these times

I am losing my ability to appreciate humor....I feel pretty sarcastic about...EVERYTHING except my animal family Sorry for me misunderstanding...you

[Bernardo de La Paz]

81. Oh, that would be Obama the pot smoker. . . . . nt

[Warren DeMontague]

99. drop it, man, there's hippies to punch!

And a few minutes ago I saw a word or two scuttling through an alleyway that didn't have "--bro" slapped on the end of it!

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Oh, are we going after pot smokers, now?

Kamala Harris is from California. She represents the voters of that state. The state with a population of 34 million people, that just legalized recreational marijuana.

Maybe you've never been there?

[yuiyoshida]

277. come at me bro!

[lunasun]

301. + 1 Perfecto

[guillaumeb]

108. Are you prejudiced against pot-smoking progressives?

Which part, or is it both parts, do you disagree with?

[Warren DeMontague]

111. So.. would you say that any Democrat who supports legalization is too "fringe" to be in leadership?

just curious.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I think she's great! Tough and smart, which is what we need.

[Squinch]

3. I'm sorry, but how damn stupid are they? Idiots.

[elleng]

4. How useful to characterize as a 'Bernieland' problem.

because a Bernie Sanders supporter who serves on the Democratic National Committee’s Unity Commission had three words for Democrats interested in Harris as a candidate: “Follow the money.”

PLEASE drop it, and TRY to coalesce.

[Eko]

9. Well,,,

"The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has finalized its "unity commission" roster........ now tasked with healing the party's divisions."
Too funny.

[Docreed2003]

38. Excellent point Ellen....

Seems incredibly divisive....FWIW, I'm a Bernie supporter that loves Harris...why can't I get some news! Lol

[elleng]

88. You and me, Doc, PLUS

interested in others (whose names I won't mention now!)

[Chevy]

112. lol lol as if that is the only thing

she has said.

[pnwmom]

151. Until Citizens v. United is overturned, being able to fundraise will continue to be critical. n/t

[elleng]

213. ABSOLUTELY!

'Our' financing methods seriously distort politics in the U.S. so as to make the whole system almost untenable.

[Agschmid]

303. That's not true.

The 2016 primary campaign proved it.

That talking point is bullshit.

[pnwmom]

307. The primary campaign did NOT prove that fundraising isn't critical.

It proved that substantial sums can be raised from small donations, or from people breaking their bigger checks into smaller amounts. But until Citizens v. United is overturned. corporations will be free to pour unlimited sums into politics.

[Agschmid]

326. Okay... but money doesn't win. Trump & Sanders proved it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

[pnwmom]

334. I don't see figures comparing how much Hillary and Bernie raised in here.

And the comparison between Hillary and DT fails, because she did win 2.9 million more votes -- despite the millions of votes that were suppressed, for example, by Russia's tampering with voting registration rolls.

And there's no way to know how much the DT team overall spent, because we'll never know how much Russia spent.

[Agschmid]

335. She didn't win the electoral college and that's what matters.

She way outspent him, she paid much more for every vote cast, it didn't work.

We should learn from that.

[pnwmom]

336. We don't know and will never know how much the DT team spent, including ALL his outside sources.

All we know is that her official campaign raised more funds legally than his did. That doesn't mean that less money was spent on his win than on her loss. He just leaned a lot more heavily on outside, unreported sources.

[Agschmid]

337. But we do know, and most/a lot of it was reported.

It's right there in the link, we also know she lost.

There are facts here to base our reasoning on.

[Eko]

6. This is the really funny part.

"Nomiki Konst, a Bernie Sanders supporter who serves on the Democratic National Committee’s Unity Commission had three words for Democrats interested in Harris as a candidate: “Follow the money.”

"The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has finalized its "unity commission" roster, a group made up largely of supporters of former Democratic presidential primary rivals Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) now tasked with healing the party's divisions."
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329163-dems-announce-unity-commission-members

Way to heal there Nomiki. Way to heal.

[leon8822]

12. I wonder how some of these democrats who complain about money in politics

Expect for any democrat to win elections.When the republicans spend millions on attack ads defining democrats

[JI7]

25. They don't want democrats to win

[leftofcool]

42. Bingo! We have a winner!

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. Ding! Ding! Ding! The Democratic Party has been infiltrated by BOB'ers, who have an agenda...

and it's not what they say it is.

[brush]

302. Anything to damage potential Sanders opponents for the nomination

[yuiyoshida]

278. BAM!! HEAD SHOT!

that's it...

[moda253]

280. This. Is. Correct.

They have no interest in Democrats winning. Quite the opposite.

[JHan]

43. Thing is Konst is not a democrat.

As far as I can tell she's .....


Actually let me just leave it there. She is not a democrat and nothing she has ever done or said leads me to believe she sincerely wishes to strengthen the Democratic Party.

Often the sort of people you describe who complain about money in politics have no idea how to fix the problem, have never actually campaigned on the ground or are just plain naive. I don't even think I can trust them to raise money for a school trip.

[snowy owl]

164. Democrats spent more than trump. There is a way if we let go of 2016 and focus on future.

[Orrex]

204. Yes, you can save money if you can get a hostile foreign power to hack the election for you

2016 gives no clear lessons about the impact of money upon elections, because too many other variables are at play.

[emulatorloo]

227. You say "still no evidence of Russian influence"? FFS. Go peddle Trump's lie somewhere else.

And then you have the audacity to say "facts still matter" when you've just dropped RW garbage lies.

[Cary]

257. The Mercers, Bannon, and Cambridge Anylitica

Along with Russians.

[BainsBane]

237. Let go of the GE

but keep fighting the primary, right?

[Caliman73]

96. Nomiki had a brief stint on Sirius XM Progress.

It was always hard to figure her out. She would have on these right wingers or libertarians relatively frequently and would espouse some odd views. I found myself asking, "Wait, where does she come down on this?" It seemed that anything having to do with sex, she was a libertarian (get the government out) type person. I could never really grasp the purpose of her show "The Filter", which I guess is why it only lasted a couple of months.

[sheshe2]

131. +++

[Weekend Warrior]

7. Appears to have a serious issue with Harris.

Twitter seems to be her main form of communication.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NomikiKonst?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

https://mobile.twitter.com/NomikiKonst/status/892136667817103366

[R B Garr]

19. That person sounds like such an omg simpleton, yikes!

I feel bad for accomplished people who have to tolerate this nonsense. What empty, vapid ramblings.

[Ninsianna]

24. Now you know why they have such hatred for people, particularly women,

who have actually accomplished things.

[Eliot Rosewater]

31. Yep, for sure.

[R B Garr]

71. +1

[Ninsianna]

23. Oh dear, I seem to have been blocked by her.

[BainsBane]

249. Oh, she's one of those assholes

The billionaire GOP outfit. Now it makes total sense.

This is a major ratfuck from the right.

[Phoenix61]

8. Address income inequality

Exactly what does that even mean? Yes, CEO's make obscene salaries. Yes, money is being shifted from the workers to the investors. As much as I want to see that changed I don't believe there is a political answer to those issues. You can't legislate salaries.

[missingthebigdog]

14. It means economic justice.

There is a vocal contingent- here and elsewhere- that seems to believe that the solution to all of our problems lies in economic justice- $15 minimum wage, free tuition, something something Wall Street Big Banks Oligarchs. . . . Fix that and "poof," all of the other injustice disappears.

Economic justice is only one component of social justice. A purity test that focuses on economic equality gets us a candidate that is tone deaf to racial and gender inequality, and to the needs of the LGBTQ community, and that cannot win. The sooner that sinks in, the better positioned we will be to win moving forward.

[brush]

60. That sounds like what happened in 2016 to you know who.

[HarmonyRockets]

68. Why can't we find a candidate

that can focus on economic inequality and racial/gender/LGBTQ inequality? I don't understand why so many people act like it's an either/or. Also, what's a real life example of someone that only focuses on economic equality and is bad on other issues? Bernie Sanders was great on racial, gender and LGBTQ issues. He was even for gay marriage way before Hillary was.

I consider myself a progressive and I don't think I've ever heard anyone say economic justice is the solution to 100% of issues and that other social issues are of no importance. Seems like a straw man to me.

[missingthebigdog]

93. A real life example?

How about the person quoted in the OP? If Harris doesn't pass her economic equality purity test, it doesn't matter what the rest of her positions are.

If you don't know any Bernie Sanders supporters who are focused solely on economic equality, your experience has been much different than mine.

[HarmonyRockets]

195. I've never met one

I've never met a Bernie supporter who was focused solely on economic equality. It doesn't mean one doesn't exist. I'm just unaware. Care to point one out to me?

[Ninsianna]

197. I've met many, mostly online, but I've run into a few in real life who

spouted all the decades old RW talking points that Rove et al. crafted for them.

They're often not aware that economic equality requires that we address racial and gender equality too. That "sole focus" is what cripples them, especially if they haven't done the homework to understand how society, government and the U.S. works for those who are not white males.

Most people who like Bernie get this, there is a small minority who simply don't have the educational background to understand and get very hostile when people bring up these points. They're mostly online though, but I know one or two, who literally had no clue. Not sure why that part of basic government just bypassed them, but these were the ones online that were ecstatic about this "new channel called RT that told things like they were" or as they imagined them to be.

Poor things didn't understand that it was the Russian propaganda channel, they're learning things now.

They're all the folks who keep pretending misogyny doesn't exist and that racism is over. There are a lot of them out there. Usually found disparaging Democrats, the nominee, the DNC, MSNBC and anyone they don't think is sufficiently favorable to their favorite people.

[sheshe2]

133. No. Sorry. Disagree.

[alarimer]

118. It means rich people paying their fair share

The highest tax bracket in 1952 was 92% Now, it's about 35% I want rich assholes to pay more; I want capital gains treated like regular income. I want corporations not to get tax breaks, then turn around and send the jobs somewhere else. It means strong labor unions. It means lowering tuition to non-obscene levels.

It means a fairer tax system in which the well off do their fucking part.

There IS a political answer; Democrats are just too chickenshit to do it.

[Caliman73]

153. Well...

You can actually address some of it in the tax code. It is a heavy lift but there was a time when income over a certain limit was taxed at 90%. That did two things, prompted some to hide money and fight for loopholes, and incentivized others to invest the money back into their companies in terms of salary, bonuses, etc...

You cannot legislate salaries, but especially if an employer makes a chunk of money from government contracts, there may be a say in the percentage that goes to salaries, advertisement etc... not impossible, just difficult.

[snowy owl]

162. Actually you can legislate salaries by taxing the hell out of them.

Also, there are democracies that do hold CEO pay to multiples of rank and file workers.

[TexasBushwhacker]

10. I think the Mnuchin issue is disturbing

"In 2013, prosecutors in her office drafted a memo that claimed they had “uncovered evidence suggestive of widespread misconduct” at Mnuchin’s OneWest Bank. According to the Intercept’s David Dayen, who first reported the memo, those prosecutors recommended Harris file a civil enforcement action against the bank. Instead, Harris did nothing. Later, it was revealed that Harris was the only 2016 Democratic senate candidate to receive a donation from Mnuchin."

That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for her, but I would like to know more about any Wall Street ties.

[R B Garr]

17. Then there's this:

"The scam ensnared people across the country, although one co-conspirator said in an interview with investigators that Araya avoided California out of fear of then-Attorney General Kamala D. Harris."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/%e2%80%98honey-you%e2%80%99ve-been-scammed%e2%80%99-she-was-told-she-lost-her-home-of-30-years/ar-AAoULl5?li=BBnb4R7


I wouldn't trust anything written about her by those armed only with stale talking points that didn't win here in 2016.

[Eliot Rosewater]

35. Harris is a strong, BLACK FEMALE , so expect tremendous push back by that group.

[R B Garr]

70. That's what it's looking like. The shallowness of those

talking points just bores me to tears. Trying to trivialize Kamala Harris with them is nothing but senseless tripe.

[sheshe2]

134. No link?

You are posting quotes with no link to back up the words.

[TexasBushwhacker]

207. It's from the article linked in the OP n/t

[bettyellen]

338. Campaign donations are the new emails. One small donation three years later likely

Had no impact on her decisions as AG. Unless you really think Mnuchin promised her a couple of dollars "some day" to let him off easy? It's implausible.

[leon8822]

11. Better yet the democrats will not win unless they address voter suppression and this Russia scandle

with interfering in the elections

[FreepFryer]

13. Izzat what Russia wants 'em to think? How many Democratic hopefuls will they be convinced to reject?

IMHO, This 'Never [insert name here]' attitude on the part of a slice of pro-Bernie progressives is the cultivated effect of propaganda, plain and simple. The far Left is NOT this critical of the mainstream Left (or of Liberalism) without a heady, constant chemical brew of agitprop. Dig deeper, and the critiques are hollow - duckspeak - words said without owning their meaning.

[mcar]

15. Don't they know it's bash Pelosi week?

Lacks message discipline.

[JHan]

44. lmao

[lunamagica]

16. Why? She's a woman.

[Flying Squirrel]

123. It's pretty absurd alleging that Bernie supporters hate women

while also claiming that many of them voted for Jill Stein.

(Do we also hate Nina Turner, the president of "Our Revolution"?)

It's also against the TOS.


Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).

Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

Don't keep fighting the last Democratic presidential primary
Regardless of whether you supported a winning candidate or a losing candidate, do not prolong the agony of the last Democratic presidential primary by continuing to pick fights, place blame, tear down former primary candidates, bait former supporters, or do anything else to pour salt on old wounds.

Why we have this rule: Most of our members want this to be forward-looking, friendly community that is focused on creating a better future for our country. Continuing to rehash old fights that have already been resolved is divisive and counter-productive.

---

Broad-brush attack of Bernie supporters as misogynists is against the TOS.

[lunamagica]

127. lol, I didn't bash any Democratic public figure, and I didn't even mention the primary

projecting much?

[Flying Squirrel]

132. You implied that all Bernie supporters are misogynists.

This attack was one of the defining battles of the primary, and to continue it is to continue fighting the primaries.

The TOS specifically mentions Bernie Sanders, and you are pretending it does not by using the word "Democrat". Claiming misogyny among his supporters is an attack on him as well.

Here's one more for you:

No divisive group attacks
Do not smear, insult, vilify, bait, maliciously caricature, or give disrespectful nicknames to any groups of people that are part of the Democratic coalition, or that hold viewpoints commonly held by Democrats, or that support particular Democratic public figures. Do not imply that they are fake Democrats, fake progressives, conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, or the like.

Why we have this rule: Substantive disagreement on important issues is always welcome on this website, but our members should not be made to feel unwelcome simply because they hold a different point of view. Democratic Underground welcomes all people who are members of the Democratic coalition, including the full range of center-to-left viewpoints and supporters of all Democratic public figures.

---

I am a Bernie supporter. I am also a part of the Democratic coalition. Saying I (or others like me) don't like Kamala Harris because she is a woman is a divisive group attack, an insult, and a malicious caricature.

Civility. Try it.

[lunamagica]

138. I implied that all Bernie supporters are misoginists? Where? And I used the word Democrat because

you posted the rule about not bashing Democrats. What word was I supposed to use?

[Flying Squirrel]

141. "Why? She's a woman."

That is an implication that Bernie supporters are misogynist. Tell me how it could be construed any other way.

Re attacking Bernie -

This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

An attack on his supporters is an attack on him.

[lunamagica]

160. Nope. Again, you are projecting

If you are so offended go on and alert

[snowy owl]

163. I agree with the squirrel. Why keep the bitterness alive?

It only serves the republicans.

[Beartracks]

309. The Owl is wise.

==========

[heaven05]

333. the is, in this thread

only one that let their bitterness cause them to TURN AWAY from OUR PARTY because of a loss by their primary candidate. Period. IF these people would have voted for HRC WE WOULD NOT have pres.bannon and his evil cabal ruining our country for the next generation or two.....no it is obvious to know who served the rethugs....in the last election. Only those who stated, "I will never vote for HRC"..

[Maven]

18. Ignore them.

They are making themselves more and more irrelevant each day.

[JI7]

20. Nomiki konst is a rotten piece of shit

She works for tyt which is funded by the right.

She also appeared on fox and tried to get a show by lying about andrea tantaros who at the time was going after fox for sexual harrassment. She lied and said tantaros beat her up. This was to try to hurt her with her allegations agsinst fox and get more work on fox.

She is a disgusting self promoting sleazebag.

[Bleacher Creature]

29. This

I had a feeling she was going to be quoted in this "story" before I even read a word of it. Kamala Harris is a solid progressive and we'd be very fortunate to have her as the nominee.

[JI7]

32. I notice all these stories do often have her

The articles about the left's disappointment and the bs articles after the election about how they tried to warn the Clinton campaign but didn't listen.

It's all part of her self promotion.

[Bleacher Creature]

69. Yep, and TYTs (i.e., Cenk)

I'm just surprised Glen Greenwald wasn't quoted as well.

[Gothmog]

30. I stop paying attention the TYT a long time ago

Cenk and that group of idiots do not care about the Democratic Party and in fact want to hurt the Democratic Party. If the TYT are against Senator Harris, then this is a positive in my book I ignore threads posting videos from the TYT idiots.

[JHan]

45. She's one of a million reasons I've stopped watching TYT.

[Maven]

91. This. nt

[Chevy]

102. This [phone] n/t

[Iliyah]

21. I've been noticing a lot of negatives coming out about the Dem party and liberals.

I would say majority of it is propaganda. The opposition is starting very early in keeping us divided. Don't fall for it.

Also as a liberal/progressive I am with the Dem Party and so are many many others.

[Ninsianna]

26. Note where the attacks are coming from, and remember how they worked to

undermine, and divide Dems to put their favored candidate in power.

They think Dems are dumb enough to fall for this, they are sadly mistaken.

[Ninsianna]

22. The people attacking her are not solid progressives, they're not even Dems.

They do share a lot with the RWers and their divisive attacks need to be called out for what they are. Voters are smart enough to see Nomiki and these vicious attacks for what they are, pathetic and disgusting attempts to divide Democrats. We're not going to let the Chapo fratboys and their RW funded buddies screw us over again.

Democrats won't win if we let these outside forces attack our candidates, our leaders and our voters.

[Gothmog]

28. I saw some threads attacking Senator Harris on the JPR website

Many of the idiots who post on that website are not Democrats and have other agendas.

[Eliot Rosewater]

36. Not just on that website, as we both know.

[Gothmog]

64. You can get all of the good anti-democratic hate talking points on JPR

JPR is bad enough and after reading the anti-democratic hate threads on JPR there is no need to go to FR.

BTW, the JPR board is now showing videos on Infowars. Evidently both Infowars and JPR are pushing love to the idiots who brought the DNC fraud lawsuit. It is so very sad that a board that claims to be progressive is pushing videos from inforwars. I remember when I saw six or so threads on the Pizzagate stupidity that was pushed by Infowars on JPR long after this conspiracy theory was debunked. I was amused when the idiots running that board finally fanned pizzagate threads.

[Eliot Rosewater]

67. JPR, yeah that one too, but anti democratic party talking points are on one other I am thinking

of.

[Chevy]

106. Indeed think I know what one to you speak of n/t

[Docreed2003]

46. Amen....and this attack on Harris is just too convenient

Stokes the fires of the primary divisions, check. Tears down an early frontrunner on ridiculous grounds, check.

I'm just saying, they're playing the left right now and we HAVE to keep our wits about us. We can't allow them to divide us this early...(not suggesting you are doing this Gothmog, just riffing off your post)

[Gothmog]

63. How dare a woman consider running for POTUS

That site is so full of Russian lovers and women haters that it is not even funny

[Docreed2003]

90. Well they did put aside their women hate to support Stein! ;-)

If only as a cover for their Clinton hate/Russia love!!!

[Ninsianna]

114. But they never bothered to actually get to know anything about her.

Can you imagine what they would have done to her if she had a prayer of winning anything? Remember how they turned on Warren?

[Docreed2003]

117. Honestly, they didn't care....

Hell, most of these nutters turned on Bernie too, who most said they supported whole heartedly during the primary!!! Either because he didn't run third party or he put his support behind Hillary....or both!

I remember Stein was lambasted by mainstream media during the summer for her lack of knowledge of foreign policy....see [link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/06/the-one-issue-that-shows-exactly-why-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-havent-caught-on/|]

Her supporters STILL didn't care...why??? Because it was opposite of what America was doing at the time...

I'm convinced these nutters wanted a complete disruption of American political structure, and now they've gotten it! Which oddly aligns with a certain Russian that Jill had dinner with...interesting!

[Ninsianna]

119. Ain't it though?

There was always a difference between the supporters of these people and those who were just anti- something or someone else.

The former were reasonable, even if you disagreed with them, the latter were poorly disguised trolls.

[Docreed2003]

121. That's the damn truth!!!

[Ninsianna]

48. They're not adept at hiding what they are.

I ventured there once , just to see what everyone was talking about, was grossed out. That's the type of stuff I expect from rabid right wingers. They were really posters here?

[Gothmog]

62. I try to check this website out a couple of times a week to see that the non-democrats are doing

There are no true democrats on that board. Most of the posters on that board are mainly concerned about how to hurt the Democratic Party

[Gothmog]

27. Senator Harris is a good democrat and the concept that anyone has issues with her is offensive

The fact that some are having issues with Senator Harris is offensive to me. Why is she being treated this way by any Democrat?

[Eliot Rosewater]

37. They have issues with her for one of the same reasons with Hillary. The obvious one.

Wait, Nominki is a woman, so it HAS to be something else, partly at least.

GEE, I wonder what it could be, and no I dont mean black.

I mean Kamala is a LIBERAL

[Ninsianna]

49. Misogyny isn't negated by one's gender.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. I said partly, because you are correct.

[mcar]

104. And why they have issues with Pelosi

[aikoaiko]

73. I guess if she's perfect we'll be set no matter what some people think.

An easy win in 2020.

[snowy owl]

166. Thanks. I couldn't think of an appropriate response. You nailed it.

Dems are doomed whether progressives or centrists if our loyalty is earned so easily.

[heaven05]

272. easier win

than with others, past, in certain cases, and yet to be revealed, others......NEW FACES, fresh ideas that energize and transform our Party into an all inclusive, non-judgemental Party that faces ALL the truth(s) about our society.

Not some cherry picking and then nit picking ourselves into defeat because candidate did not get past the primary stage of our election process.

Then that nitpicking causing many, many so-called liberal and progressives to waste their vote or NOT VOTE AT ALL!!!!!. Indefensible. Period.

[Ninsianna]

322. Yes, some people trying to "think" and failing to do so becuase someone fed them

what they found to be sweet lies really worked out well the last time around. I guess some people will be voting for Trump again, or whomever the propaganda bots tell them to again. "Some people" are doing what they did the last time around, but with a Democrat who's not even running for anything, because it seems they truly do enjoy Trump and the GOP doing what they're doing.

An "easy" win in 2020, just like they achieved in 2016. Perfection!

[ismnotwasm]

33. I'm really liking Harris and will get behind her run 100%

People don't like are the ones who don't like women who are highly competent, don't take any shit and especially those who have extra melanin

[NastyRiffraff]

34. Oh for Chrissakes, them again?

Some of the bros probably think she'll be focused to much on "identity politics." After all, she's a black woman so she won't care about white men like Bernie.

She'd be a fantastic candidate! Young, a woman and black. And smart. Can't beat that combination!

[HarmonyRockets]

72. Funny you use the term "bros"

when the two people in the article that really criticize Harris as pro-Wall Street are a woman named Nomiki Konst and a woman named Winnie Wong. The second of which is not even white. The one person in the article that kind of comes to her defense and points out that she did actually stand up for homeowners in California was... David Dayen.

A white male. But hey, don't let facts get in the way.

[ismnotwasm]

76. The bros are who they are

Statistical anomalies don't change a thing

[HarmonyRockets]

77. How is this a statistical anomaly?

You think all progressive are white males? You know this is not backed up by numbers, right?

[NastyRiffraff]

92. I'm using their term

They called themselves the bros, or they used to before we mocked them and that term.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way!

[Ninsianna]

109. The term is not a gender specific thing, it refers to the behavior that both Wong

and Konst engage in, just like their fratboy co-workers on the TYT and the Chapo Frat House thing.

Facts are hard, it's why Nomiki and her buddies like to avoid them at all costs.

[HarmonyRockets]

193. And what kind of behavior is that?

[Ninsianna]

196. Fratboy level of misogyny and aggression, using Right Wing talking points.

They weren't even bothering to hide what they were doing. They duped people not smart enough to understand where the sourced their screeds. Now they're using their Right Wing financial backers to keep dividing the Democrats. From the outside.

[snowy owl]

168. Intelligent thinking. Thanks.

[Ninsianna]

299. Quite the opposite.

[Gothmog]

128. Great post

[Iggo]

39. Because Democrats on the internet will believe anything. It's divide and conquer. Don't fall for it.

Keep your eye on the ball, and the ball is 2018.

[BannonsLiver]

41. Wait the alt left bros don't like Harris?

You know I've always like her, but now I think I might be in love.

[Iggo]

47. There is no alt-left. These alt-left bros are alt-right bros, and not to be taken seriously.

[nini]

51. Because they want Democrats to fail

to prove some kind of purist BS point.

[NurseJackie]

55. Nailed it. (Are you as tired of this shit as I am?)

[nini]

100. absolutely

I swear twitter is full of these types. I swear they're Russian trolls playing the 'purists' like a fiddle.

[riversedge]

54. National Nurses United RoseAnn DeMoro--Shes not on our radar.

This unity thingy does not seem to be working -yet!



......Konst’s skepticism about Harris’s alleged ties to Wall Street and insufficient commitment to populist economic issues reflect a broader trend among the residents of Bernieland. In a recent New York Times profile of Harris, another high profile Sanders supporter, executive director of National Nurses United RoseAnn DeMoro dismissed Harris’s prospects as a progressive 2020 contender, saying, “She’s not on our radar.”

“She’s one of the people the Democratic party is putting up,” DeMoro told the Times. “In terms of where the progressives live, I don’t think there’s any ‘there’ there.”

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. The alt left will despise Kamala Harris for what she has in common with Barack Obama, and I'll leave

it at that. But you know exactly what I mean.

[HarmonyRockets]

74. Yeah

Anyone that is critical of Kamala Harris is just racist. Because who actually cares about the issues?

[Tarheel_Dem]

82. The people who are trying to take down Kamala and Nancy Pelosi don't give a shit about "the issues".

They have only one.

[HarmonyRockets]

85. So you think there is some sort of conspiracy

or something? I'd ask you to clarify, but I'm suspecting I wouldn't get anything coherent out of you.

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. The alt left and the alt right have one thing in common.

[lunamagica]

124. Also what she has in common with Hillary Clinton

[Tarheel_Dem]

169. You're right. I stand corrected. There are two (2) things.

[mfcorey1]

330. I will second that!

[aikoaiko]

58. I need to learn more about Harris.

I hear a lot of people say they like her and thinks she is a viable candidate.

The only negative I've heard is that she supports civil confiscation of assets even when no arrest or conviction has occurred.

That and that she doesn't smoke weed.

[bettyellen]

130. She supported freezing assets on some cases, not confiscation.

[JustAnotherGen]

243. Howard in the early 80's weed was frowned on

She was at Howard with 4 of my cousins. Those women born during the height of the CR movement at the HBCUs had a lot of "respectability weight" on their shoulders.

[rockfordfile]

59. They're still tying to do the Russian and GOP work of splitting Democrats

[geek tragedy]

61. who would benefit from these attacks on the most prominent Democrats

and the ones likely to be the next generation of leadership for the party?

I have a guess ....

[R B Garr]

65. Divisiveness is just divisiveness. Sour grapes are

just sour grapes. The divisiveness gave us Trump.

[Gothmog]

66. Go check out the JPR site and you do not have to guess

The TYT are funded by right wingers and it is clear that this group and the idiots on JPR have an agenda

[HarmonyRockets]

75. What does the TYT have anything to do with this?

How and why do you think they are "funded by right wingers?" I know this is probably a waste of time, but when I see mind-numbingly dumb comments I have to say something...

[Chevy]

110. You best watch the dumb comments

accusations. TYT have 4.5 Million GOP sugar daddy

[emulatorloo]

228. "The Young Turks Network Raises $4 Million From Former Republican Presidential Candidate"

The Young Turks Network Raises $4 Million From Former Republican Presidential Candidate
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-young-turks-network-raises-4-million-from-former-republican-presidential-candidate/

Young Turks Network raises $4 million from former Louisiana governor
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-the-young-turks-raises-4-million-from-former-louisiana-governor-20140416-story.html

So a couple of things:

1. Stop accusing your fellow DU'ers of lying.

2. Here's a couple of yr beloved Young Turks for ya. Cenk hires the best people! Conspiracy Theorist and Liar:

Link to tweet

------

Link to tweet

[Ninsianna]

289. Well, there is the fact that right wingers are giving them money, making them

"funded by right wingers'.

Mind numbingly dumb comments are fun to point and laugh at but why join in?

[Bladewire]

78. Kamala is strong

She's the epitomy of the resistance, and I'm not easily impressed

[broadcaster90210]

79. Harris is fantastic. Period.

nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

80. Russian disinformation to plant and grow instability everywhere in US politics?

[C_U_L8R]

83. Mic.com ??

What the hell is that?

[Shrike47]

84. I am not interested in any criticism of any solid potential candidate.

This sounds to me like Trump's 'people are saying'.

[iluvtennis]

86. Same shit they did to Hillary.

[grantcart]

89. Really, who has ever even heard of Konst?

[boston bean]

94. Ummmm

Nomiki Konst, a Bernie Sanders supporter who serves on the Democratic National Committee’s Unity Commission

[grantcart]

103. And before today who has ever heard of this person? Just suggesting that we don't have to

respond to every wannabe Nina Turner and give them a profile

she is a second hand reporter working for TYT and she couldn't be happier that we are spending time on DU talking about her

Do you know how down the ladder she is? She was a "Congressional Candidate" in my district lol, and I have never heard of her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomiki_Konst

She set up a non profit (which allowed her to rake in money) that would teach people in the entertainment industry how to "think critically".

http://tucson.com/news/blogs/pueblo-politics/former-ua-student-to-stay-in-cd-race-challenge-barber/article_57c0bb20-8026-11e1-a0a2-001a4bcf887a.html

[MrsCoffee]

116. Why not? Sunshine is the best disinfectant and all.

Can't imagine why talking about it here would bother anyone.

[grantcart]

210. because the person has no standing, doesn't represent anyone and is

this is simply a way to prolong attack ks within the party.

This individual hasn't even held the position of a precinct captain.

At least Nina Turner was a state senator.

[MrsCoffee]

212. The party is attacked daily from those who are supposedly unifiers.

We should be aware of their efforts on all levels. We should pressure them to stop, not ignore them.

[grantcart]

217. Actually these are low life self promoters and all you are doing is fulfilling their wishes

This person, for example, set up an foundation to "raise" civility in campaigns and then attacks the party.

There are hundreds of folks like these who are trying to deal themselves into the conversation. We dilute DU and divert attention from real issues by following these pedestrians, who again, have no constituency, no following, no history of leadership in the party. Why not just go up and down the street and get random comments.

[Chevy]

107. Well if the

only site your on is DU then you wouldn't of but if you your on Twitter you would know who exactly who that troll is.

[rogue emissary]

95. "Nomiki Konst, . . . who serves on the Democratic National Committees Unity Commission"

She's totally not suited for this commission. Especially since she decided to attack a Democrat that's liked by other Democrats.

[MrsCoffee]

113. There is no Unity Commission and there is no Unity Tour.

Those appear to be made up terms to cover the clear effort to divide and undermine the Democratic Party.

[rogue emissary]

115. there are a lot of people trying their best to keep us from unifying.

[snowy owl]

172. So true. What right does she have to analyze the candidate and form an opinion.

Scurrilous behavior.

[rogue emissary]

230. Did you really mean to reply to my post like this?

[Warren DeMontague]

101. I've been a fan of Kamala Harris since her days in SF.

I think she would be an exceptional candidate.

And -authoritarians, take note- you bet your fucking bippy she'll stand up for things like the 1st and 4th Amendment, criminal justice reform, and long-overdue sanity on federal cannabis laws.. because that's how we do things on the West Coast.

[stevenleser]

202. So why do you think the "Our Revolution" cabal have it out for her then?

If she is all those things, the "Our Revolution" and TYT crowd is going to have a hard time using her to put a wedge in the Democratic party like they did in the 2016 election.

Why would they try?

[Warren DeMontague]

206. I think talk of a "cabal" is perhaps much ado about little, if not nothing.

I think we who spend our time ankle-deep in political drama like to imagine that we are part of a "Crowd", or that there are these monolithic forces at work represented by a few select loud voices.

(Although I admit I myself studiously ignore most talking heads--- unless their names are Byrne, Weymouth, Harrison, etc.)

People see and hear what they want to see and hear, and filter the data to fit their narratives. Good God, this place alone is evidence enough of that.

Oh, I'm sure there are a few people who fit that description you gave in your post, who are spoiling for a fight like you describe--- just as I'm sure there are a few other people also spoiling for a fight who have their hyper-tuned antennae up looking out for those few people who fit that description.

It's a feedback loop, albeit a silly one. Made even more silly by the fact that it's August of 2017.

For 2020 I want a big, broad bench, a wide field of candidates, a vigorous issue-oriented debate. We don't need a single front runner yet any more than we need to start disqualifying people. A split party with two sides? Fuck that, if we're going to have the conversations this party and country needs, there should be twenty sides, with ever-shifting boundaries and a fluid, active, intelligent back and forth discussion going on behind the lines.

I'm optimistic, because our party has some great people. People like Senator Harris. In the meantime, I think she'll be fine, because what she's good at she's already in DC, doing.

[pnwmom]

105. She is a solid progressive who is also minority and female. Those are the groups

Last edited Tue Aug 1, 2017, 01:23 AM - Edit history (1)

who strongly supported Hillary.

And they are the party's base -- not the Bernie people.

In politics, the term base refers to a group of voters who almost always support a single party's candidates for elected office. Base voters are very unlikely to vote for the candidate of an opposing party, regardless of the specific views each candidate holds.

Base (politics) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_(politics)

[Flying Squirrel]

125. I am the party's base

And so are the 72% of other Washingtonians who voted for Bernie in the caucuses.

To disavow us all is both absurd and hurtful.

It also violates the TOS.


Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).

Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

Don't keep fighting the last Democratic presidential primary
Regardless of whether you supported a winning candidate or a losing candidate, do not prolong the agony of the last Democratic presidential primary by continuing to pick fights, place blame, tear down former primary candidates, bait former supporters, or do anything else to pour salt on old wounds.

Why we have this rule: Most of our members want this to be forward-looking, friendly community that is focused on creating a better future for our country. Continuing to rehash old fights that have already been resolved is divisive and counter-productive.

[pnwmom]

129. The base comprises steady, reliable Democratic voters. If that describes you,

then you are a part of the base.

But people who don't identify as Democrats and people who parachute in once in a while aren't part of the base.

In politics, the term base refers to a group of voters who almost always support a single party's candidates for elected office. Base voters are very unlikely to vote for the candidate of an opposing party, regardless of the specific views each candidate holds.

Base (politics) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_(politics)

[Flying Squirrel]

136. Claiming that Bernie supporters are not the party's base is a divisive group attack

in violation of the TOS.

No divisive group attacks
Do not smear, insult, vilify, bait, maliciously caricature, or give disrespectful nicknames to any groups of people that are part of the Democratic coalition, or that hold viewpoints commonly held by Democrats, or that support particular Democratic public figures. Do not imply that they are fake Democrats, fake progressives, conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, or the like.

Why we have this rule: Substantive disagreement on important issues is always welcome on this website, but our members should not be made to feel unwelcome simply because they hold a different point of view. Democratic Underground welcomes all people who are members of the Democratic coalition, including the full range of center-to-left viewpoints and supporters of all Democratic public figures.

---

Is it that hard to understand that lumping all Bernie supporters together and saying they are not the party's base is insulting, disrespectful, and a divisive group attack?

[JHan]

137. Nice try but she did not violate ToS.

[Flying Squirrel]

139. Yes she did, and feel free to explain your position

instead of just making an assertion.

Not that you could, it's pretty clear she is making a divisive group attack, implying Bernie supporters are "fake Democrats".

[pnwmom]

142. I didn't say they were fake Democrats. And I said that you yourself might be part of the base,

if you are a reliable Democratic voter.

But people who are not reliable Democratic voters, including new voters drawn in by Bernie, are not part of the base. If they continue to reliably vote Democratic over a period of time, then they eventually could also become part of the base.

But not if they go back to being disengaged or Independent between elections.

In politics, the term base refers to a group of voters who almost always support a single party's candidates for elected office. Base voters are very unlikely to vote for the candidate of an opposing party, regardless of the specific views each candidate holds.

Base (politics) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_(politics)

[Flying Squirrel]

145. You didn't need to use the words to imply it.

and see my other response about caucuses, which are heavily attended by party regulars - aka "the base".

[Cary]

256. It would be interesting to see a comparison of.tneir rhetoric to Clinton Cash

If members of "the base" proliferate Steve Hanson's alt right hate are they members of our base?

[JHan]

143. She typed clear english,

She explained what a democratic voter is, you insinuated something completely different from her simple explanation. I have to wonder why...

[Flying Squirrel]

147. She very clearly said "They are the party's base -- not the Bernie people."

That statement hurt me as a lifetime Democrat, is divisive, and is a lie.

[JHan]

149. So you define yourself as a Bernie person first and a democrat second?

or a democrat who happened to support Sanders in the primary?

There's a distinction to be made: If you always voted blue, and threw your support behind Sanders in the primary and generally support the Democratic party, you're a Democrat.

If you never voted Blue and supported Sanders OR were an Independent who infrequently voted Dem. you're not a *RELIABLE" part of the base.

Nothing Personal.

[pnwmom]

150. I said that if you are a reliable Democrat, then you are part of the base.

Women and minorities are, in general, part of the base. But Independents, other non-Democratic-party members, new voters, and sometime-Democratic voters are not -- even though they are free to participate in the caucuses and to vote for Democrats.

In politics, the term base refers to a group of voters who almost always support a single party's candidates for elected office. Base voters are very unlikely to vote for the candidate of an opposing party, regardless of the specific views each candidate holds.

Base (politics) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_(politics)

[Flying Squirrel]

152. You don't get to broad-brush Bernie supporters and then make an exception for me.

That's not how this works. Claiming we are not "the base" is implying we are not real Democrats.

[pnwmom]

154. Bernie himself doesn't identify as a Democrat, much less a part of the base.

That's why he's returned to being an Independent. An Independent by definition isn't part of the Democratic party base.

Tom Perez, for example, is part of the party's base, but Independent Bernie isn't.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329418-sanders-i-do-not-consider-myself-a-democrat

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Tuesday night that he still does not consider himself a Democrat despite taking part in a Democratic National Committee (DNC) unity tour with the party's new chairman, Tom Perez.

"No, I'm an Independent," Sanders said when asked by MSNBC's Chris Hayes whether he now identifies as a Democrat.

SNIP

Some establishment Democrats have criticized Sanders for not joining the party, while he has tried to assert his influence on it. But progressives have argued that the Democratic Party needs independents to expand and should open its arms to those new voters who may not fully identify with the party.

[Flying Squirrel]

156. Bernie can be an independent without all his followers being independent

or even a majority.

[pnwmom]

140. I gave you the definition of "base." We know that Bernie's aim was to expand voting in the party.

There is nothing wrong with that aim -- but it is incorrect to say that the new voters are part of the party's base.

[Flying Squirrel]

144. Nice try, but no.

Bernie did bring in new blood, but he also excited many, many long-time Democrats. Those Democrats made up a significant part of his voting bloc. Are you really suggesting he won 72% of the caucus vote in my state through mostly new voters? Caucuses are mostly attended by party regulars, not newcomers.

[pnwmom]

148. I attended a caucus, and I know that many of the attendees were first-timers,

and many were college students. The problem with caucuses is that they exclude large numbers of working people who don't have several hours free on a Saturday to vote. Instead of being able to mail in a ballot sometime over the course of a few weeks, caucus attenders have to be free for several hours on a particular day. And they can't have conflicts with work or childcare.

The caucus attenders in my state are not representative of Democrats as a whole, which is why the outcome of the primaries was different.

[Flying Squirrel]

155. The caucus was on a Saturday. Most do not work Saturdays.

They are scheduled well in advance. I'm not interested in arguing about the "beauty contest" primary that everyone knew would not count. The reason for caucuses is to have the candidate chosen by party regulars and committed Democrats. If you don't like the system, fine. But don't try to claim that it is biased in favor of non-Democrats. That's absurd -- why would the Democratic Party have them then?

[pnwmom]

158. Caucuses attract many people who are passionate about their choice -- but that isn't

necessarily the party's base. The members of the base would vote for the Democrat in the general no matter who wins the primary. Many don't even vote in the caucuses because they know they'll vote for the Democrat, no matter who that is.

The voters of our state strongly voted to end our non-representative caucuses. But after the voters passed the referendum setting up the primaries, the party leaders went to court to assert their right to continue to pick candidates in caucuses -- the modern version of the old smoke-filled room. They argued in court that they had the right to retain control of the process.

So when they pass around the envelopes and ask for donations to defray the costs, I stand up and tell them why I won't help. There wouldn't be any caucus costs if we just used the state's primaries to assign delegates, like the Republicans do. It's what the voters wanted, and it's fairer. That's why most of the country switched to primaries long ago.

[Flying Squirrel]

165. I'm not going to let my original point be diverted into an argument about caucuses.

And I haven't even finished with your entire statement.

" (Minorities and females) are the groups who strongly supported Hillary. And they are the party's base -- not the Bernie people."

So if I'm not female or a minority, I'm not part of the party's base. And if I'm a Bernie person, I am by definition not female or a minority. (I'll tell that to my AA fiance.)

Enough is enough. I and several hundred of my friends were driven from this website by you and people like you. We stayed away, many of us for over a year, and let you have your way with the site. Now I'm back and I will fight your misrepresentation of Bernie and his supporters tooth and nail, because I believe he will run again for the Democratic nomination and I will not let DU continue to be a place where his supporters are maligned and not welcome. That would leave Bernie at a disadvantage. I'm looking forward, not backward, and as a long-time member of DU in good standing I and others like me deserve to be protected by the TOS, just like any other member.

[betsuni]

170. "I and several hundred of my friends were driven from this website by you and people like you."

Democrats?

[Flying Squirrel]

178. Hilarious

Yes, Democrats. Long-time democrats and long-time members of this website. Most of us did not ever get banned and we have retained our posting privileges. Which we deserve.

[betsuni]

186. "Privileges. Which we deserve."

[Flying Squirrel]

189. If the :rofl: emoticon is all you have

then I see no need to continue talking with you.

[betsuni]

194. Yes, that emoticon is all I have.

That and LOLs. I'm being driven from this conversation because I don't have enough words. Not everyone has lots of words. I'm offended and my self-esteem is threatened. I deserve respect even though I don't have word equality. My sleeves are wet with tears and I am sad.

[NurseJackie]

247. "... word equality"

[FSogol]

293. LOL n/t

[pnwmom]

173. If party affiliation isn't important to a voter, if a voter only chooses based on policies,

if a voter would vote for Bernie whether he ran as a Democrat or as an Independent, then that voter isn't part of the Democratic party base. By definition.

I don't know if that's the case for you. But many others at JPR, where you say you post, would vote for Bernie regardless of whether he ran as a Democrat or not. But those people by definition are not part of the Democratic party base.

Neither is anyone who might consider a vote for Jill Stein.

In politics, the term base refers to a group of voters who almost always support a single party's candidates for elected office. Base voters are very unlikely to vote for the candidate of an opposing party, regardless of the specific views each candidate holds.

Base (politics) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_(politics)

[Flying Squirrel]

182. Party affiliation is based on policies

So saying "only based on policies" and using that as a complete contrast to party affiliation doesn't make much sense.

I have never claimed that there are not any supporters of Bernie who are independents and who are not part of the Democratic Party's base. You, on the other hand, have implied that most or all of his supporters are not part of the Democratic Party's base. That violates the TOS.

[melman]

190. You can keep on posting this wiki link from now until eternity

But the intent of you original post is clear as day.

[Tarheel_Dem]

188. "I believe he will run again for the Democratic nomination".

Please tell me you're not serious.

[Flying Squirrel]

191. Dead serious. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

192. And that worked out so well for us in '16, you think "Democrats" will be begging for another heaping

helping of that particular sandwich? It's the primaries that win nominations, and nothing Sanders has done since he went back to being an Independent leads me to believe that the outcome will be any different. In fact, I think feelings are even more hardened than they were last year. Remember Ralph Nader?

[Flying Squirrel]

218. Sure, I remember Ralph Nader.

He ran as an independent, as I remember, not as a Democrat. But keep on beating that dead horse if you want.

[BainsBane]

232. the 2016 primary is another dead horse

but you remain obsessed with it.

[Flying Squirrel]

259. I'm more interested in the 2020 primary

But I wouldn't mind seeing an autopsy of that horse. lol

[BainsBane]

234. No one drove you from the site

You chose to leave because of your opposition to our nominee and the democratic system that allowed 15 million citizens to vote for her. The only way pnwmom drove you from the site is in failing to relinquish her vote to you.

Democrats are comprised of people who vote Democrat. The base is comprised of blocks of voters who vote for Democrats in the largest percentages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Voter_base.

Having a better sense of who represents the party’s base is important for strategist and for the party once it is in office. In 2008, for example, the only groups who voted for Obama by a margin of 2-1 or better, a good measure of a true demographic base, were African Americans (95%), Latinos (67%), voters under 29 years old (66%), Jews (78%), gays and lesbians (70%). Interestingly, union members only voted 60% for Obama, meaning that among white union members it was probably closer to 50%.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/what-is-the-democratic-pa_b_741708.html

I don't appear on that list ( though I do appear on some that account for education and marital status). I can't imagine why I should care. I still vote Democrat. I still volunteer for Democrats. I still participate in local party organizations. But then, I'm not someone who believes that I must sit at the center of all things. It has never occurred to me to be aggrieved because I am not held above the rest of the electorate.

Just because someone is not part of a demographic that most heavily votes Democratic does not mean their vote is worth less than anyone else's. But if that person does not vote for Democrats, they cannot be considered a Democrat. Stein is not a Democrat. Donald Trump is not a Democrat. Writing in someone for president, whether they are a Democrat or an independent, is not voting Democrat. That means voting for the nominee in any given race, even if that nominee is not one's personal choice--which for most of is a majority of the time. We deal with it and vote for our second, third, forth, sixth, or twelfth choice because we care about issues, policies, and core values the party represents. We operate from a sense of what is best for our community, our fellow citizens. It's not about reflexively voting D because we don't think. It's about understanding that policy and issues, and most importantly the citizenry-- matter more than any one politician or anger than the majority of the primary electorate didn't vote as we wanted.


Now, this is your goodbye message, the original one before you edited it well over a year after you posted it.

I was going to wait till the 15th, but it is clear that the wolves are howling at the door and the DU I knew will be pretty much toast after tomorrow, regardless of the results in CA. Better to just start settling into a new home now (that would be JPR of course).

Official "Goodbye DU" Post

1. We won't let the door hit us on the way out -- thanks for your concern.

2. We won't be returning while Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is the presumptive or actual Democratic nominee -- and perhaps not even after her inevitable fall. That should comfort many of you, which I guess just goes to show you were never really our friends.

3. We won't be voting for Trump, but have fun with that talking point.

4. We may not be voting for Hillary -- deal with it. If that means we were "never Democrats anyway", so be it (just ignore all our previous votes for Obama, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, et al.)

4. Oh, and Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader are in fact two completely different people.

5. We're not magically going to disappear, nor are the many others who showed up to Sanders' rallies, phone banked for him, put up bumper stickers and/or lawn signs, or just honked at people standing on the corner with a Bernie sign. We will grow more numerous and more powerful, and we will eventually win. (And we will do so without throwing chairs.) You are on the wrong side of history.

6. Many, many of us are African American, women, Latino, elderly, LGBT, you name it. And some of us are young white males, not that there's anything wrong with it. Oh, and some of us are young independent millennial women with our own minds who don't choose a candidate based on who young men our age are supporting. Lol.

7. We leave sadly, not gleefully or spitefully. We sincerely wish more of you had not become so blind, deluded, jaded, fearful, peer-pressured, militant, or whatever it was that could cause you to support such a flawed individual or candidate for the Democratic Party nominee for President. For you, not for us.

8. Mostly, we leave because there's no use even talking to you anymore. We know you feel the same way about us. Call it irreconcilable differences.

(If I missed anything, please add it below.)

Well...

Bye!
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=1280208311&info=1#edits

In the June 6, 2016 post, you said you would relish Hillary's defeat to Trump. You got your wish. Yet here you are, furious because pnwmom made a comment that failed to place you at the center of the party, a year after you declared you would relish its defeat to fascism.

You are of course within your rights to remain focused on Bernie and only Bernie. The rest of us will focus on what Republicans, fascists, and their allies did in delivering the country to fascism. We will focus on the lives ripped apart by immigration raids, on the roll back of environmental regulation, withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change Agreement. We will focus on Trump and his allies' efforts to strip as many as 32 million people of basic healthcare and the tens of thousands of deaths that result. We will focus on the rise of hate crimes by white nationalists angry that people of color live and vote in this country, that they hold jobs and contribute to society. We will focus on continuing and ever increasing voter disenfranchisement directed at people of color, the elderly and the unproperited, both through the Kobash commission and those who seek to keep the poor and people of color from participating in the Democratic selection of a nominee by replacing primaries with caucuses, the system with the lowest voter turn out of all. We will focus on the attacks on freedom of speech, on science and knowledge, on the press. You remain focused on Bernie. We all have our priorities.

Oh, and a word of advice: Next time you send around private messages at JPR urging a never Hillary mass return to DU, try to leave out the caver moles. I suppose they can be hard to distinguish, given that JPR posts mirror nearly perfectly the alt right.

[NurseJackie]

238. Excellent advice. (And, GREAT FIND with the unedited post.)

Thanks very much for drawing attention to things that frequently go unnoticed, or that are sometimes forgotten.

[BainsBane]

240. Stay tuned.

Google is really a marvelous tool.

[Flying Squirrel]

260. Great find? It's only in my journal for all to see. nt

[NurseJackie]

267. For those who bother to check. But how likely is that?

Speaking for myself, I can assure you that the likelihood would be zero.

[Gothmog]

250. WOW

That is a great post

[ismnotwasm]

253. Spectacular!

You used up every ball park in existence hitting that out of 'em

[still_one]

254. Thanks Bains. Amazing reply

[JHan]

255. You sure brought your receipts.. well done.

v

And that goodbye thread you linked, my word.

[sheshe2]

283. I love your cat gif!!!!!

[Flying Squirrel]

258. You're trying to imply that I edited out a part

in which I said I would relish Hillary's defeat to Trump?

That's truly incredible. Anyone can look at each of the edits and see that the only thing changed was the website for Jackpine Radicals.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would stoop to such a level of falsity and innuendo. Perhaps you are just baiting me so that I'll say something you can use to either get me kicked out of this thread or off this site.

I'm finding this fascinating, in a very morbid kind of way.

[BainsBane]

263. "Hillary will never get my vote"

https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/hillary-will-never-get-my-vote/

I need not imply a thing. Your words and your recs say it all.

I'm sure if I had the stomach to wade through the fascist sewer to which you proudly announce your donor status, I could find more, but this one makes your point clearly enough.

Oh, and your other response invoking a revealingly gendered trope to pretend that you were oppressed because the admins refused to sever the site from its stated purpose of support for Democrats to center your ego above the votes and lives of 67 million Americans who did vote for our party's nominee, You're the most persecuted man in history, just like your President Trump--whom you worked tirelessly to put in office by spreading ever bit of Kremlin and GOP propaganda, from the Pizza pedophile stories to the the supposed murder of Seth Rich, still prominently featured on Third Reich Underground, even after the revelation that the story was concocted by Trump and GOP billionaire campaign donors.

The excuse that you did any of that for Bernie is repugnant. Bernie urged his supporters to vote for Hillary. He opposes Trump. I may have my disagreements with him, but he doesn't deserve to be defiled by your pointing to him as a pretext for willfully plunging the country into fascism.

[Jamaal510]

264. +1

[betsuni]

265. +1

[mcar]

268. That's gonna leave a mark!

[NurseJackie]

273. Wow. Exposed.

[George II]

274. Bingo.

[Eliot Rosewater]

275. Thank you for exposing these people. We really are looking at 40 years

of idiot rightwing assholes like mike pence deciding who our judges are and so on.

America is done, for sure. I consider anyone who acted to put trump in power as an enemy of the nation.

Very real enemy.

[sheshe2]

284. +1

[Gothmog]

285. Thaks for posting this

[ismnotwasm]

287. ++ infinity

[Flying Squirrel]

288. You just linked to a post written by someone else, not me.

Perhaps you looked, and couldn't find one with my name attached, so you just picked someone else on the same site and then linked me to it based on the fact that I also post on that site?

Pretty weak. Try harder. Otherwise, by your logic, n2doc - who posts the daily toons here and ALSO on jackpineradicals.com, and Judi Lynn, who posts tons of LBN and other articles of interest both here AND on jackpineradicals.com, are both equally guilty by association and should also be driven from DU on that basis.

Also even if that statement HAD come from me, it would not equate to having "Crowed about Trump's win over Hillary." Which I never did. That's projection. I predicted it, but I did not act the way you would have done if I had been wrong instead of you.

[JHan]

291. cool story bro.

[BainsBane]

292. You signed the pledge: "I will never vote for Hillary"

Your screen name is highlighted in yellow. Whether you created or posted the meme is irrelevant. You supported it with your recommendation.

Nowhere in your transparent efforts to distract from the only issue that matters--voting for the Democratic nominee--do you say you thought better of your pledge to not vote for her. You don't say you changed your mind decided that you would vote for Hillary rather than help deliver the country to fascism. If you did vote for Clinton, why not say so? Why not say that in response to my first post with your good-bye message? Why not say that now rather than deflecting?

I predicted it, but I did not act the way you would have done if I had been wrong instead of you.

Don't project onto me. As I said very clearly in my first post to you, I have supported countless candidates who were not my first or even seventh choice for nominee. If the Democratic electorate had chosen Bernie, I would have voted for him. My personal view of him is irrelevant. There is no way in hell that I would put my ego before the lives of the most vulnerable citizens.

That others pledged not to vote for the Democratic nominee does not mitigate your responsibility. Obviously many other people voted for Trump, either directly or through a ratfuck vote for Stein, the libertarian, or write ins. If they didn't, we would not now be subject to fascist rule by a narcissist who mirrors perfectly the self-absorption of an electorate that put him in office. A vote against Clinton in the general election was a vote for fascism, a vote for white male supremacy, and a willful decision to deprive millions of healthcare and equal rights. It was a vote for mass deportations, a segregationist as head of the Justice Department that would promote white male supremacy over equal rights, the very thing those voting against Clinton fully intended to undermine. It was a vote to roll back environmental regulation, to undermine science and academic knowledge. It was a vote for tax cuts for the wealthy and financial deregulation. It was a vote to deliver the country to billionaires, because better billionaires than a "corporate whore"--a woman whose intelligence and command of issues exceeds that of all the weak and perpetually aggrieved who voted against her. Mostly, it was a vote to punish the Democratic electorate, including the poorest and most marginalized Americans who voted for Clinton in both the primary and general election.

You claim you predicted Clinton's downfall. You predicted that she would win three million votes more than the man who became president? You predicted that James Comey would interfere in the election by releasing another specious claim of malfeasance in her use of email just 10 days before the election? You predicted that the Kremlin would launch a multi-year operation to not just undermine her but get Trump elected, as they and their allies at Wikileaks have done for White Nationalist leaders and parties throughout the West? Or did you contribute to it, not only through your vote but donations to a website site that pushed every piece of GOP and Kremlin propaganda it could get its hands on, and continues to do so to this day? Even now, the only people in the world who deny the Russian interference in the election are Trump, Putin, and JPRers and and their ilk.

[Flying Squirrel]

294. It's a post, not a pledge.

I liked the analogy so I recced the post. I signed no pledge, and I live in Washington State so my vote was irrelevant.

[BainsBane]

296. Three opportunities to correct the record

And simply say you voted for Clinton. Instead you say your vote was irrelevant.

You're very fond of running around this site posting the TOS, only you don't appear to have read it. Or you think yourself above it.

[Flying Squirrel]

297. Please link to where I violated DU's TOS.

Did I post somewhere on this site, during the last Primary or General Election campaign, that I would not vote for Hillary, period, end of story?

Find the post, you're the super sleuth.

(And if I had done so, I'm sure you would have pointed it out to the Admin at the time.)

[BainsBane]

310. You have admitted you did not vote for Clinton.

Admitted by omission. The agreement you signed was not just about the time between your temper-tantrum-filled exit and the GE but extended to voting for Hillary Clinton, specifically named, regardless of state of residency. We aren't talking about a local city council race but one that changed the course of history. Your effort to bait me into breaking a rule by posting TOS will not be successful. Besides, why not ask Skinner yourself?

Ask Skinner directly if Trump, Stein, and Nazi voters of America are eligible to participate on DEMOCRATIC (not Republican, Fascist, or Green Ratfuck) Underground. Tell him you have put out a call to Trump/Stein voters to invade DU, that you were so clumsy in your eagerness to foment an anti-Democratic takeover of this site that you sent your manifesto not just to 2016 Trump and Stein voters but to lifelong Republicans, who then posted it here:
https://conservativecave.com/cave/index.php/topic,115645.0.html
Ask him if that is what he had in mind when he wrote new user agreements after the primaries and the hack.

And all this began because you were outraged because you were not declared the Democratic base, only to then reveal you do not even vote for the Democrat. Truly astounding.

There is a reason why certain segments of the population--the base--always vote Democratic. Their rights, survival, even their lives depend upon it. They know that a GOP government will implement policies that will undermine their civil rights, voting rights and reproductive rights, reducing them to second-class citizenship. They know the GOP--especially Trump--will threaten their ability to feed themselves and their children, will rip their families apart, imprison husbands and grandmothers for crossing the border at ages as young as 5. They don't have the privilege of operating from ego. They have to survive. Narcissists, on the other hand, care so little about their fellow citizens they think nothing of voting in ways that unleash such oppression and suffering, either because the lives of others never enter their self-absorbed minds or because they willfully intend to punish the poorest and most vulnerable for daring to vote in their own interests. The self-entitled remain content knowing their privilege protects them from the hardship they impose on the vulnerable. They know that a white supremacist regime will put them first and punish their enemies, which is precisely why the chose Trump over Clinton. Fascism is as fascism does.

[Flying Squirrel]

311. lol

Last edited Tue Aug 8, 2017, 03:52 AM - Edit history (1)

You're completely full of it. I have admitted no such thing. But even if I had, it would not make me a non-democrat. Millions of registered Democrats sat out the last election or left the top of the ticket blank. You want to call them non-democrats, that's you business. To me, being a Democrat is a matter of voter registration and values. I am a Democrat and for you to keep suggesting otherwise is against the TOS. Done talking about it.

[betsuni]

312. These Operation Counteroffensive posts accusing everyone of TOS violations are funny.

It's like a visitor from another country unfamiliar with the language and customs. They'll pick up a piece of French toast with their hands because it's toast and that's the way to eat toast, but use a knife and fork on a hamburger, think that when people ask how they are today they actually want to know. Everything's a little off.

[Ninsianna]

315. I find all the "put up or shut up" posts hilarious, given how much has been put up

You'd think after fellow trolls have outed them, that they'd give up already, but nope. Chaos sowing and recruitment of other chaos agents persists.

[betsuni]

316. I'd slink back to JPR where I'd be free to "speak as I see fit about corporate Dems and Third Way"

and never come back. Especially after calling DU "repugnant." That's not very nice.

[Ninsianna]

318. It's the Trumpkin mentality, they keep seeing losing badly and getting their

rears handed to them as "winning" and do more of it.

No wonder they worked so hard to put him into office, they share a great deal with the Trumpkins. They're even sending PMs to fellow Trumpkins in the cave!

[brer cat]

308. Outstanding!

*This* most certainly:

Mostly, it was a vote to punish the Democratic electorate, including the poorest and most marginalized Americans who voted for Clinton in both the primary and general election.

Not policy, not issues, just revenge for not getting their way.

[The Polack MSgt]

325. I'm speechless. Wow. Great post

But every never Clinton bobble head disagrees. Of Course.

Allow me to summarize their position:

"Nuh-uh that's not true because we are the clean ones! It is Clinton's fault just like how she was at fault for all the other bullshit that the GOP told us for 30 years. That we believe unquestioningly"

[Flying Squirrel]

261. I suppose if a woman were harassed at work, you'd say she chose to leave?

Harassment and is a real thing, and it is being used in a real way at DU to drive "undesirables" away, regardless of the TOS which supposedly means to prevent this very occurrence which continues to this day. You want me to conform to your opinion or leave, or be kicked off the site. Option 1 or 2 won't happen, and if option 3 does, it won't be for a TOS violation. I have returned for a reason, and I'm a bit like Tom Petty.


https://m.

[Ninsianna]

290. Yes, we have seen the PM that explained your reason for returning,

to harass people who won't conform to your views.

[Flying Squirrel]

295. Put up or shut up.

I have returned to defend Bernie Sanders on this website, not to harass anyone. Whom have I harassed? Every post of mine has been in defense of DU's TOS being followed with regard to Sanders, after the TOS was disregarded by someone else.

[Ninsianna]

298. Premptive strikes are not defensive, they are offensive.

Put up what? And nope, I don't shut up when people attempt to harass me into silence.

I guess a great many posts are being ignored to construct this dishonest view. TOS also mentions not posting flames or flamebait and that "secret PM" to trolls makes it clear what the intent was, and that was not about honoring the TOS.

The aim is division and it seems that is the mission, and dishonesty in service of the mission seems to be acceptable to those whose goal is a flame war.

[Flying Squirrel]

304. Guess you're not gonna put up. nt

[Ninsianna]

314. What exactly are you demanding I put up?

The intent to troll complete with harassment plan and links to posts that clearly violate the TOS here, posted on other sites where trolls meet up?

They've already been put up, and the cat's out of the bag and the harassment campaign has been exposed.

Guess the game is still being played, no matter how maladroitly it's been fumbled. Trumptastic attempt! Going just as swimmingly.

[heaven05]

332. you put up

and that meant another vote for the vicious, evil cabal running our country. You said you would never vote for HRC...explain that please....never mind...no explanation needed, you words and nonvote explained everything I need to know. You really have NO RESPECT for the intelligence of people on this forum who have seen through you and found a vacuum. We lost the election precisely because of non votes(apathy and) non voters(wasters of votes).

[heaven05]

269. BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To truth and real liberals and progressives.

[Eliot Rosewater]

276. Anti democratic party no good fucking ASSHOLES want to invade DU again and help

the GOP again?

FUCKERS

I wish to FUCK we could have no more juries here and have LIBERALS moderator this place


FUCK

[NurseJackie]

281. Amen!

(and thank you.)

[SharonClark]

286. Thank you!

[bettyellen]

339. OH SNAP!!

[JustAnotherGen]

246. You know what I believe?

Regarding this:

Enough is enough. I and several hundred of my friends were driven from this website by you and people like you. We stayed away, many of us for over a year, and let you have your way with the site. Now I'm back and I will fight your misrepresentation of Bernie and his supporters tooth and nail, because I believe he will run again for the Democratic nomination and I will not let DU continue to be a place where his supporters are maligned and not welcome. That would leave Bernie at a disadvantage.

I believe there are angels
Who observe us
Posting information somewhere on the net

[Gothmog]

252. Agreed

[betsuni]

266. +1

[heaven05]

270. hmmmmmph

such.....pure divisive tactics.....THIS is one of the reasons WE lost the WH. I hope we can get new fresh blood and faces running for important positions as Democrats, period. Like Sen. Harris, Cory Brooks are two names of people that come to mind that really have shown integrity and fortitude in voting for rights for all, especially the dwindling rights of minorities in this fascist state called ameriKKKa.

As far as misrepresentations....BLM controversy settled my opinion of that particular candidate and many, many supporters of that candidate. Period. Thank God for what BLM revealed about so-called liberals and progressives.

[BainsBane]

242. Lots of the working poor

Work on Saturday. Who do you think is stocking the stores when you do you shopping? Who s cleaning the bedpans in hospitals and nursing homes? Caucuses are the most restrictive voting system in the country and they have the lowest participation by people of color and the poor. They are overly represented by white property owners, the most affluent demographic in the nation. The elderly have a hard time getting to them, as do the disabled and women with childcare needs.

Caucuses enable the parties to build, to get more people in loved in local party units. They are great for those who can attend. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of voters cannot. All you need do is look at voter turnout percentages in caucuses vs. primaries. The data is clear.

My state has caucuses but following 2016 they decoupled the presidential preference ballot from the caucuses. In the future, far more people can vote.

2016 is over. What matters is what's happens from here out, and the problem is some are seeking to replace primaries with caucuses, a proposal championing at the People's Summit and roundly denounced by voting rights activists. The effect of such a change would be to limit the franchise among the exact same groups targeted by voter ID laws and other GOP disenfranchisement efforts. It is a disenfranchised effort. It seeks to make the electorate whiter and more affluent, precisely as the GOP measures do.

[Omaha Steve]

200. The Nebraska caucus accepted mail in ballots

Hillary sent out mailers to targeted Dems. Bernie didn't.

Hillary had way more mail in ballots. Bernie had more show up and won.

OS

[snowy owl]

183. What a sad conversation. Sophomoric and semantics-driven.

Label over content and cause. If you deviate even once, you're not pure enough for the base? Talk about a purity test!

Good effort, squirrel. Nuance is difficult. And emotions hard to overcome. When labels oppress ideas, we are done.

[BainsBane]

233. Voting Democratic

is a basic criteria for being a Democrat. I wouldn't worry so much about the base part as the Democrat part.

[Ninsianna]

319. Agreed, that's what these returning disruptive forces have been saying, after they

didn't get what they wanted, let's remember who started the purity tests, whose labels and slogans meant more than content, cause and policy.

Nurance is difficult and the flying rodent isn't doing well with it. Slogans over ideas and actual policies are what gave us trump, so let's not fall for this horseshit again, especially when it's not even trying to conceal what they are and what they're trying to do.

We can't afford to let these emotional attacks to take over again.

[JHan]

146. You were very clear. ++++

[LanternWaste]

211. You were certainly not disavowed... but I do see the allure in hanging from a cross

You were certainly not disavowed... but I do see the allure in hanging from a cross pretending the oppression is real. Makes for both wonderful melodrama and trendy little bumper-stickers.

[emulatorloo]

229. Well said n/t

[Ninsianna]

321. I am the party's base, as are the 16 million plus Americans who

voted for his opponent and rejected Bernie by millions are getting tired of being abused, extorted, harassed and bashed by those who keep joining hands with conservatives to try to divide Democrats.

It's hurtful and absurd and abusive. It's deliberately divisive and violates the TOS of this site. Copying and pasting the very rules that are violated to harass members of this board will not work again, the game is exposed and the trolling blatant.

[alarimer]

120. It's a bit early to have a anointed one already.

Sure, shove someone else on us like all the others before. Why not have a cmpetitive primary? Instead of some middle of the road nobody who will likely lose.

I fucking hate the gatekeepers of the party. They don't know shit.

[BannonsLiver]

122. Who said she was anointed?

[BainsBane]

167. Who anointed her?

I wouldn't even known she was a potential candidate if not for their smear campaign. They've done more to elevate her than any donors possible could.

All that anger because someone might run who doesn't meet your approval. It's pretty obvious who the gatekeepers are, or rather who believes they are entitled to be. To pretend anyone is being forced on you is transparent bullshit. You aren't oppressed because you dont get to control access to the Democratic primary.


It's pretty clear that a competitive primary is precisely what Kamala's critics don't want, but because they can't set aside their id long enough to think through political strategy, they catapult her to national prominence. If anyone has anointed Harris, it's them. And if she is considering running, I'm sure she is grateful for all the free publicity you all have given her.

I'm partial to Schiff myself. Maybe you all can start targeting him? He can use the free publicity.

[mcar]

214. Well said!

[BeyondGeography]

180. +1

[yardwork]

201. That might be the stupidest post I've ever read.

[stevenleser]

203. That's because it's recycled 2016 campaign rhetoric that doesn't apply here.

There seems to be a lot of folks who are stuck in 2016

[Ninsianna]

317. Agreed, but people really think that he'll be allowed to run as a Dem

again, and have some sort of plan to troll the site to prepare it for the coming of the anointed one. We're not sure why they want to shove someone at us again that we rejected and who couldn't win a competitive primary, but that's what they seem to think needs to be done again, despite the outcome that strategy enabled.

I really hate the people who keep trying to extort the party, the "gatekeepers" did a poor job keeping these people out, if they learned their shit they won't fall prey to that sort of con job again.

[Hamlette]

126. If you ever visited Wall Street you are dead to BernieBots.

And I have never heard an explanation was to what the hell any of them would do about it! Drives me crazy.

[radical noodle]

135. They have their heart set on Tulsi...

[BainsBane]

159. ...

[riversedge]

205. It is too early to have your heart set on anyone.

[radical noodle]

216. Agree totally

We need to keep our eyes on 2018.

[BainsBane]

157. Income inequality?

Last edited Tue Aug 1, 2017, 04:08 AM - Edit history (1)

She won't win support until she prioritized income inequality, says one person interviewed.

Excuse me, but I haven't seen anything about income inequality from that wing. I've seen demands fir a $15 non-indexed min wage, but nothing about inequality itself. I've seen demands for "free" college, with absolutely no attention to the rampant inequality that cements generations of poverty. I've seen demands to abandon civil rights and women's rights for "economic justice" for a minority at the expense of increased poverty for the majority of the population.

I'm all for the party's addressing income inequality, but if the progressives truly believe that is a goal, shouldn't they propose something that addresses it?

Note that most of the comments center not on issues or specific actions in her background but her being the candidate of the wrong sort of people. It increasingly seems that issues matter far less than demands to wield power they can't achieve through the consent of voters.

I have no idea if Harris will run in 2020 or who will arise to compete for the nomination. I do find it fascinating that they claim she's been "anointed" when they are the ones who have made her the focus. I wouldn't have even known she was thought of as a potential candidate if not for their targeting her.

And we're suppose to pretend that targeting Harris, Pelosi, Booker, and now even Jim Clyburn is all about issues, when the alternatives supported are to their right.

I'm not buying any if it.

[betsuni]

161. This "anointed" business really gets my goat, which is of course why they do it.

Every time a female Democrat is mentioned as a possibility for 2020 and the immediate OMG-ANOINTED-shoved-down-our-throats song and dance starts, I scream SERENITY NOW to calm myself, which is going to be annoying to my neighbors in the next few years.

[BainsBane]

171. It's incredible

It's like they have to control everything to not feel oppressed. Meanwhile, they've succeeded in giving her an enormous amount of free publicity and catapulting her to national attention.

[Warren DeMontague]

174. I think she got the national attention organically, on her own.

She's impressive. I've followed her career from San Francisco, wasn't surprised one bit to see her hit the ground running and immediately making a name for herself.

You should give credit where credit is due. This all is a fart in the proverbial wind.

[BainsBane]

176. I can only say how I heard of her as a potential candidate.

I have no doubt she's impressive and highly competent. They wouldn't hate her if she weren't.

[Warren DeMontague]

181. Her questioning of Sessions was truly a thing of beauty.

[BainsBane]

185. Yes, I watched it at the time

Burr told her to shut up. The critics sited in the article share that goal, but I'm supposed to pretend I don't notice that.

[boston bean]

208. a yup.

[AlexSFCA]

179. she has already earned my support

years ago when she became our AG, I said she was going to be our future president. She is extremely sharp with nearly unmatched charisma. She'll do well in any debate. No, thanks god, she is not an ideologue like Bernie. She is pragmatic like Obama but much more bold in her approach.

[snowy owl]

187. Pragmatic. You think that is the quality Americans are looking for?

I wonder. I think I'll take time And consider the choices. Maybe pragmatic will work. Maybe not.

[pnwmom]

198. After the disaster of DT, Americans will probably be very happy to have

another calm, pragmatic President like Obama.

[lpbk2713]

199. Well said.

I know I will be. The past six months have been surreal.

[snowy owl]

222. People voted against pragmatism 2016. Outsiders turned on electorate.

[pnwmom]

224. And look how well that turned out. But, no, they actually did not. The election was stolen.

2.9 million more people voted for Hillary, but because of the Comey letter bombs, and the suppression of millions of votes, and the Russian election hacking, 70,000 votes in 3 states flipped the Electoral college.

[snowy owl]

223. People voted against pragmatism 2016. Outsiders turned on electorate.

Have we changed our message to get those voters back? My opinion is thinking like that was already tried in 2016 when DNC thought all they had to do was message anti-trump. How did that work out?

Candidates and messages matter. Don't make same mistake twice. Loyalty over reason is dangerous.

[pnwmom]

225. There is already a major backlash to that vote. 2.9 million more chose Hillary, and the number

for the Democrat will be higher in 2020.

Our message isn't the problem -- it's voter suppression, propaganda, and election hacking.

[David__77]

209. This is stupid. Plenty of Sanders supporters supported Harris.

There are obnoxious Sanders supporters and obnoxious Clinton supporters.

These factionalist posts are unhelpful to anything other than propagating factionalism.

[snowy owl]

219. I don't understand this rhetoric either. Politics used to be about issues.

Aren't we on the:same page re issues and values? Maybe not.

[JustAnotherGen]

244. No - we aren't

[SaschaHM]

215. The root of the problem is that she can't physically become Bernie Sanders.

And while I hate seeing these folks back out of the woodwork, the fact that they've come out to destroy Bernie's 2020 candidacy by turning off registered Dems that support Sen. Harris and black voters over the edge of 30 before it has even been launched is heartening.

I'm not going to refight the 2016 primary, but I will look back to the 2008 one. At a certain point, high profile surrogates that are divisive have to go the way of Geraldine Ferraro. Sure, they may stoke your fires by telling you every negative thing about your opponent in the primary, but they do nothing to attract folks that aren't already on the train.

[snowy owl]

220. ??????? It's me but I dont understand your post.

[kcdoug1]

226. So looking at a prospective candidate

Is a bad thing? ...

Jesus!

[JustAnotherGen]

245. She isn't a Candidate

She is a Democratic Senator who won 61% of the vote in CA in November and she is pissing off the GOP by doing her job.

I'm supporting her voice, action, votes - and challenging of the white, male Republicants in Congress.

They deserve to be pissed on, she's everything those maggots hate and I'm damn proud to have her in the Democratic Party.

[delisen]

231. Wonder how many progressives are in bed with Wall St

in their personal lives? I know many progressives with substantial investment, some with investment trust funds-mostly they don't seem to make the connection between their personal engagement with Wall Street and their public stances and demands of others.

Should I boycott Wal-mart, where I don't shop anyway or should I dump my overpriced Apple products, which the poor people I know can't afford?

We voted for Biden for vp despite his representing the banks and credit card industry for decades. Of course if he hadn't done so much for the major industry in his state, he may not have lasted beyond his first term as senator.

Vermont is a big gun rights state; Sanders voted in the past to shield gun manufacturers--then changed his stance for presidential politics.

I haven't been surprised re his gun rights stances

Some very progressive Democratic senators routinely sided with Big Agriculture in passing incredibly wasteful farm bills that have cost Americans billions. Another Big Ag scam farm bill coming up in 2019. I expect to see many progressive Democrats vote for it. and many Sanders backers ignore it.

One way to address income inequality is to stop subsidizing Agriculture. Should government be buying milk we don't need to prop up dairy farms in Vermont.

[BainsBane]

235. Or spending hundreds of billions

on the f-35? And what's with the votes for the sugar industry? Does VT produce beet sugar?

[ucrdem]

236. She's so right! Also: they need to change their underwear every hour, and wear it on the outside

so she can check.

[Vinca]

239. All I know is when we fight amongst ourselves and split the vote we get Trump.

[Ninsianna]

323. That seems to be the goal for these disruptive forces.

The interference wasn't just on the right, they were ratf*ing the left too. Just take a good look over at that other site people are flooding in from and see what's going on. This isn't a fight "amongst ourselves" it's fighting external forces who try and fail miserably to pretend to be one of us.

[JustAnotherGen]

241. She's not running for anything

And has a 61% mandate from the voters in California to be a Democratic Party Senator.

So in answer to your question? I think perhaps the folks mentioned in the article are using Senator Sanders as a "cover" to be against the Democratic members of Congress?

[BainsBane]

248. and thereby strengthen the GOP congress

Could be.

[Turbineguy]

251. It's important for the Right Wing

to crank up their hate machine and cast their net far and wide. Expect smear campaigns like we've never seen before.

[Dawson Leery]

279. The far left and far right want to destroy the civic order.

[NurseJackie]

282. ... and the Democratic Party.

[JCanete]

300. because we are frustrated with the trend of big money influencing policy even on the left. Because

there's concern about Harris not prosecuting a specific bank that donated to her campaign even though it was recommended that she do so. I hope we see great things from Harris. I'm not going to cover my eyes and not scrutinize the candidates that we elect to represent us, particularly at the highest office.

[ananda]

305. I'm a big Sanders fan ..

.. and I have no problem whatsoever with Harris.

[pablo_marmol]

306. Not a fan.

All hat and no cattle. The following paper is extremely well cited:

http://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Special-Feature-K-Harris.pdf

[SunSeeker]

313. It pisses me off too, boston bean. But I'm sure it makes the GOP happy.

[GoneOffShore]

320. O F F S - we've got to stop shooting ourselves in the feet.

I was a Bernie supporter. I voted for HRC when she became the nominee.

And Kamala Harris? "In bed with Wall Street" O F F S

[wryter2000]

327. FFS

Speechless.

[Blue_Tires]

328. Why are you surprised?

I've been telling y'all for months that Konst is batshit insane and she wants Dems to lose

[boston bean]

329. It wasn't surprise it was exasperation.