I don't approve of people voting third-party in 2016 any more than anyone else here.

[Ken Burch]

My only question is...how does endlessly slagging them and blaming them for everything ever possibly lead to any of them ceasing to back third-parties and ceasing to unfairly attack OUR ticket?

Isn't it time to move past the fully justified post-election ragestorm and actually work on trying to turn 2016 nonvoters into voters and persuading third-party voters to vote for OUR ticket?

It's been almost ten months, folks. We have to move from lashing out and grieving about the past towards winning the future.

It's the time for ideas(along with the hard work so many are doing), and creativity, and new strategies. It's the time to work FOR, not just AGAINST.

We need to move on...or we will never move forward.

[leftstreet]

1. The beatings will continue until morale improves

DURec

[elleng]

2. Which will occur in

1 4 6 minutes.

[BzaDem]

35. That's actually typically how it works.

See Nader's drop in support from 2000 to 2004 by 90%, despite running an arguably less progressive candidate.

The "beatings" are the wounds such voters inflicted on themselves by their actions, not the occasional verbal reminders of such wounds. Reality has a way of making itself heard, and producing behavioral changes in response.

[karynnj]

46. Less progressive?

Nader himself had good things to say about Kerry who he met with and liked. You are comparing Al Gore of today, not Gore of 1988, when he was the first DLC approved Presidential candidate, who ran a pretty negative race. Incidentially, Kerry was supposedly ruled out as VP in 1992 because he was too liberal.

The fact is that Kerry's voting record was among the most liberal - and not far from Kennedy's. Gore was one of the most centrist Democrats in his years in the House and Senate. Remember that one of the things he was most remembered as VP was that he debated Perot on trade deals.

[stevenleser]

71. What we arent doing is believing crap from Nader or Stein or their campaigns or those who supported

them.

Nader's campaign said Gore was the same as Bush. Anyone who believed that was a moron. Anyone who didn't learn their lesson from what followed with Bush and Iraq and everything else to commit the same mistake in 2016 by voting Stein or staying home deserves whatever flogging this website can dish out on them.

[karynnj]

75. Completely agree -- my point was that it is revisionism to state as a fact that Gore was more

progressive than Kerry. Kerry's Senate record placed him in the liberal wing -- Gore's didn't. Gore, to his credit, changed his political views drastically after 2000. However, there was and is a huge gap between ANY Republican and ANY Democrat and that has been the case since at least 2000.

The Republican party has moved progressively to the right, removing anyone they thing not right enough. When they primaried some of the most well regarded members of their own party - Like the very conservative, but very decent Richard Lugar - it is impossible to think of the two nominees ever being the same.

[BeyondGeography]

113. People only learn the hard way; Nader knew there was no audience for him in 2004

Many of his voters either realized their error of judgment in 2000 or were so desperate to defeat W. in 2004 they would have voted for anyone with a D next to their name. Any kind words Nader had for Kerry were more about saving face than anything, even if he did respect him personally.

I think what we can safely conclude from 2000 and 2016 is that eight years of a Democrat in the White House wrestling with Republicans and steering the superpower foreign policy ship makes for disaffection on the left and fertile ground for 3rd Party alternatives. And, after four years of Trump, it wouldn't surprise me if 2020 plays out the same way for Stein as it did for Nader in 2004.

[Demsrule86]

173. I agree completely...and considering those children facing depotation (DACA) it will never

be more than they deserve.

[BzaDem]

161. I vaguely remember some war he supported. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

3. Susan Sarandon might star in the next "Avatar" movie!

We must stay vigilant.

[Demsrule86]

174. Generally, I leave politics out of media...but in her case I will make an exception...I hate that

woman with a vengeance...and will never watch anything she is a part of...and I used to like her quite a bit. But when I saw her smug self on news shows...showing a complete lack of empathy to the people she helped hurt...she was dead to me. She is the definition of rich white privilege.

[RockCreek]

4. And remember that in our current system

In many states one knows what the outcome of the vote will be in a presidential election due to the electoral college. In, for example, Alabama, it will make no difference who one votes for for president. So does it really make a difference if someone votes their conscious there?

[panader0]

5. I voted for Hillary happily and hopefully after supporting Bernie in the primaries.

But this constant rehashing of the election 10 months ago won't solve a
thing. Yes, Jill Stein is an idiot, etc, etc. Let's move on, we have to. That's
the literal definition of a progressive. There are many battles ahead. Let's
not try to re-fight one we already had.

Should HRC be sitting in the White House now? Absolutely.
Was the election a sham? Absolutely.
But those things won't change the road ahead. Progress!

[Ken Burch]

7. Agreed on every point of that.

It's time for Democrats to "Be Like Keith", as somebody keeps saying.

[sheshe2]

13. Yet Tom is the elected chair.

[R B Garr]

16. Thanks, she! This is a perfect example of the false realities being pushed

that I commented on downthread. Back to reality: Tom Perez is Chair.

[Ken Burch]

20. No one is denying that.

I was simply pointing out that "be like Keith" is a positive thing. It was no slight against Tom.

[R B Garr]

24. Are you sure? It looks like a way to promote Keith at the expense of Tom.

Tom is the chair, but you want to be like Keith. It's more of the Establishment smearing game. You might think what you do is subtle, but it is not subtle.

[Ken Burch]

29. You're reading something into my words that I didn't mean at all.

Tom and Keith are not in competition.

[R B Garr]

32. Exactly, so need to start in with the worn out Establishment mumbo jumbo

about Tom Perez vs Keith. That whole line of attacks completely failed, so it's time to move on from that. It was voted down at every turn. It only aides con men utilize the attacks on good Democrats.

[Ken Burch]

38. And you know that I wasn't doing any such thing or making any attacks on anyone.

I had to use that phrase to make my point. Besides which, I couldn't undermine Tom even if I wanted to.

[sheshe2]

63. Well.

Ken Burch
38. And you know that I wasn't doing any such thing or making any attacks on anyone.

I had to use that phrase to make my point. Besides which, I couldn't undermine Tom even if I wanted to.

Why do I find the underlined not assuring. There was no need to add that to your sentence.

[Ken Burch]

89. All I meant by that was that you have no reason to see me as a person who was capable

of undermining anybody. I'm just one guy on a message board. And I truly don't want to undermine anyone. OK? Can we move on on THIS, at least?

Look, I did have issues with the way the chairmanship race was conducted-if people supported Tom, fine, but Keith never deserved to be subject to a "Stop Keith" campaign; He wasn't evil and he never a menace to the party-but I accepted the result and started a thread in the Sanders group immediately after the result was announced asking Sanders people to give Tom a chance. And I fully support Tom now. I was simply using a phrase to make a point about unity.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

41. .

[R B Garr]

47. Thanks for this hilarious input. This is actually a perfect example of

false realities on so many levels.

[Ken Burch]

72. There was no false reality.

I didn't need to mention Tom to make the point I was trying to make there. Tom's in the chairmanship. I didn't have to announce that right there just to keep him in the chairmanship.

You've got me wrong here.

BTW, all that the primaries showed was that Bernie wasn't nominated. His economic ideas were and are popular, and we can't win in '18 or '20 by sneering at them or at those who support them.

[R B Garr]

74. Yes, definite false reality, one of them was a sneering

childish message that you just responded to which was a picture of Keith, I guess meant to be a gotcha. Where is your outrage about me being sneered at?? One of the implied falsities by sticking his picture at me was that I don't like him, when the reality is that's not true. That was just childishness not based in reality.

[Ken Burch]

84. I meant to be responding to you.

I have nothing to say about the picture and I've proved I wasn't trying to undermining Tom.

[R B Garr]

100. I didn't say you didn't mean to respond to me. I said that the post that prompted

my response was nothing but a big picture of Keith Ellison obviously meant as sneering childishness, but the reality is that I don't dislike Keith, so it only served to confirm my comment about people forcing a false reality on the majority of voters.

You seem very selective with your concern over who gets smeared or sneered at. Personally, I'm tired of seeing good Democrats sneered at. I don't have any intention of bothering with 3rd party people who sneer at me or my party. Too childish.

You should start some threads pointing out how Democrats are sneered at and how it has to stop. Maybe you can organize an apology tour of sorts from those folks instead of always badgering good Democrats for not bending over backwards to accommodate false realities.

[Ken Burch]

109. Please stop using the phrase false realities.

I proved to you that I wasn't denying that Tom Perez was the chair-that I wasn't making any comment about Tom at ALL.

OK?

What I'm concerned about is making sure we win in '18 and '20. To do that, we need to make the best use of our time. And the best use of our time is creating a positive program for change, not bashing people over 2016.

[R B Garr]

119. False realities is exactly what it was and what it should be called.

It's also called "over promising" and other titles such as that, but that is only one aspect of it. When you condemn good Democrats for being realistic about policies, then you are creating a false reality. That is what it is and what it should be called.

I wasn't talking exclusively about your Tom Perez slight, but you explained that via PM. I also said I don't see it or agree with it.

So why do you keep bashing good Democrats over 2016? It's about time we see some turnabout here and some explanations from people on what they've learned.

[Ken Burch]

121. I proved I wasn't slighting Tom. And I wasn't attacking any Democrats

I'm not saying anything about 2016 here.

All I'm saying is, for the future, we can't stay cautious and win.

You are now getting malicious towards me and I've done nothing to deserve it.

[R B Garr]

124. I was referencing the content of your OP in most of my post, and

thought I made that clear when talking about "over promising'.

It still stands, though, that you are selective about caring who gets sneered at.

[Ken Burch]

132. I don't understand why you accused me of "overpromising"

I didn't actually make ANY promises in the OP.

What do you see as "overpromising"?

And why are you so suspicious of me here?

I'm AGAINST third-party voting...it's just that I don't believe badgering people over it makes them stop.

[R B Garr]

134. lol, I didn't say that you overpromised. I was talking about creating

false realities for voters.

[Ken Burch]

135. Which is not what I'm doing at all

I campaigned for HRC and voted for her.

If you disagree with me on things, fine, but don't accuse me of lying or distorting. I don't do that.

If you weren't saying I overpromised, what were you saying there?

[sheshe2]

53. ;)

[Ken Burch]

18. I know, and Keith knows that.

My point is, Keith as vice chair has taken a strictly positive, unifying approach based on increasing our support. And he has done all he could to support Tom.

[R B Garr]

21. But your own comments here excluded Tom, the elected Chair. So you should probably

take your own advice about promoting unity...?? Even your comments now are all about promoting Keith. So you should work on your own need to separate Democrats. You say you want to unify, but then say something else entirely contrary to that.

[Ken Burch]

27. I had a specific reason for using the phrase "Be Like Keith"

I'll pm you with it. No disrespect to Tom was intended at all. It was just that I didn't need to reference Tom to make my point.

[sheshe2]

25. Are you saying Tom has not?

Ken Burch
18. I know, and Keith knows that.

My point is, Keith as vice chair has taken a strictly positive, unifying approach based on increasing our support. And he has done all he could to support Tom.

He has done all that he could???

[Ken Burch]

31. To the best of my knowledge, yes.

There's no rivalry between them.

[sheshe2]

44. Yet you seem to create the rivalry by excluding Our Chair.

Please correct me if I am reading this wrong.

Ken Burch
18. I know, and Keith knows that.

My point is, Keith as vice chair has taken a strictly positive, unifying approach based on increasing our support. And he has done all he could to support Tom.

[Ken Burch]

45. I'll pm you with an explanation as to why I used that phrase.

Of course Tom is chair. He did win.

I don't need to mention him every time I mention Keith to prove that I accept that he won. AFAIK, nobody's trying to dump Tom. His position is secure and he'll probably have the job for years.

[sheshe2]

48. No need to PM me Ken.

Anything that can be said in a PM can be said in your post. No secrets needed, just an open and honest discussion.

[Ken Burch]

50. The explanation requires me to mention another poster, which is against site rules to do in a thread

I was repurposing something someone else uses as a taunt-turning it into a positive call for good vibes.

[sheshe2]

52. Ah.

[delisen]

11. If Clinton should be in the White House I say get her there

Gore belonged in the White House, maybe Kerry did also.

It is our complacency, acceptance of injustice, and eagerness to move through
candidates, looking for some pretty face, fresh face, or the next "Kennedy" that is a good part of the reason the Democratic Party lacks respect outside the party.


In an age where Americans are desperate for something to believe in, we are projecting fickleness and unwillingness to demand justice, and stand on the principles
we claim to have. We are trivializing the office.

If you truly believe the election was a sham, why be bothering people to vote in the next one? It too will be a sham.

[Ken Burch]

112. It's too late to reverse the 2016 results.

And she's already said she won't run again in 2020, so how would we "get her there" at all?

I wish HRC HAD been sworn in on January 20th. But it's not possible to undo November.

[delisen]

156. I did not suggest reversing the 2016 results.

I think you can better figure out the possibilities if you consider what the Republicans would do if the shoe were on the other foot and if you examine the course of action taken by the Department of Justice in the early 1970s.

If you belief there was a major injustice in 2016, the passive acceptance of injustice leads to more injustice in the future. -- as it did in 2000.

We built up the party from 2000 forward but after winning in 2008 and achieving passage of health care, starting in 2010 we let Republicans take over 1000 Democratic seats, severely weakening state parties.

Examine how Mitch McConnell adroitly managed to keep Merrick Garland from being considered for appointment to the Supreme Court by inventing a rule that presidents in their last year of a term had no right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice and the Senate had no duty to advise and consent.

Faced with what seemed to be a clear passage in the Constitution, McConnell found a way to do the opposite, and he won.

He did not "wish", he did not say there was nothing he could do. Rather he counted on Democrats to not be passionate in defense of Justice.

McConnell was passionate in the Republican pursuit of injustice. When Democrats become passionate in the pursuit of Justice we will prevail.

[Ken Burch]

159. I'm all about the passionate pursuit of justice

What would you specifically call on us to center in that pursuit? There's a lot of things that could mean and I think we're all, at the rank-and-file level, strongly pro-Justice. What issues would you call on us to lead with?

[RandomAccess]

19. I know I for one am thoroughly sick of all of it

I think it's time for people to grow the F up, recognize what's done is done and we have other things we need to focus on.

Like saving 800,000 good American kids from deportation. For just one. There are so many it's hard to keep up. But this one's high on my list at the moment.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

150. Right on! Time to look ahead, not back.

[democratisphere]

6. Keelhaul them all, mate.

No insubordination can be allowed.

[Ken Burch]

8. ...even if all the hauling wears thorugh the keel?...

[democratisphere]

9. We are already rudderless. Now we will also be keel-less slip slidin' away.

[R B Garr]

10. It's certainly not "slagging" when people object to alternate versions

of reality being forced on the majority. Reality is reality.

[saidsimplesimon]

14. Actually R B

there is a PBS documentary "You Are The Universe", it originally aired in my area in March 2017, the posits that each individual creates their own reality.

[R B Garr]

15. That seems idealistic and abstract for the political world, although for

individuals it certainly has merit. That's why each campaign has a slogan and runs ads, they are trying to influence others.

[saidsimplesimon]

26. Philosophy is my hobby.

Idealistic and abstract, just like the theory of the Multiverse, parallel universes? I am waiting for the verdict from scientists and math.

[Ken Burch]

22. No one here is forcing alternate versions of reality on anyone.

It's just that it's time to move past attacking people for whatever they did or didn't do in November and work solely on unifying and building positively for what comes next. What matters is what people do in the future.

[R B Garr]

28. Yes, it's definitely time to quit pushing alternate realities such as Keith being

Last edited Mon Sep 4, 2017, 09:38 PM - Edit history (1)

the DNC chair. Tom Perez is a fine man, no need to pretend that he's irrelevant.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. I think you're confusing "The Earth is round" with "the DNC didnt have messaging problems in 2016"

One is a factual statement about objective reality, the other is a matter of subjective opinion.

[R B Garr]

34. I'm sure I didn't confuse the Tom vs. Keith threads.

They were here, and they were a reality.

BTW, thanks for again showing what I meant by forcing an alternate reality, lol.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. ...

[Ken Burch]

39. I wasn't claiming Keith was DNC chair.

I just sent you a pm explaining why I used that phrase.

[R B Garr]

49. I didn't say you said he was chair, because he's not.

I said your initial use of Kevin's name was an example of promoting division by suggesting that Kevin was somehow slighted by the Establishment as I've seen here many times.

I guess your PM explains it, but I haven't seen what you described and don't agree, but thanks for the explanation.

[Ken Burch]

64. Uh... "Keith", not "Kevin"...

Unless there's somebody named Kevin Ellison who comes into all of this somehow.

[R B Garr]

73. Sorry, there was a Kevin Ellison

football player and I'm stuck on that name. Nothing was meant as a slight to Keith. Plus phone typing now, not pretty.

[Ken Burch]

96. I see. How about "Be Like Anybody Named Ellison!"

Last edited Mon Sep 4, 2017, 11:55 PM - Edit history (2)

That way, we can bring Harlan into it as well:






(All I was doing here was a joke about innocent confusion between people named Ellison. It was just a NAME thing. NOthing else).

[R B Garr]

97. Is this about another poster??

[Ken Burch]

116. No. It was just a joke about the Keith/Kevin confusion.

It was comic relief. No meanness involved.

I've proved I wasn't being anti-Tom...can this subthread please stop already?

[sheshe2]

99. There is no need for you to be mean to another poster.

You intimate that she believes all black people look alike. That is unfair and if you knew that poster you would know it is untrue. You make an OP about stopping division here, yet here you are dividing.

[R B Garr]

104. Wow, I didn't even realize that, but it must be. But how does he know Kevin Ellison

is black to even say that.

That was really nasty, but it does prove that these so-called unity threads are anything but...Thanks for the heads up, she.

edit: more confirmation of the false realities crammed on people. Very divisive and totally fabricated stuff.

[Ken Burch]

117. I said nothing about race.

Simply posted a picture or RALPH Ellison.

It was a joke about the name confusion.

Why are you accusing me of creating false realities when I proved I wasn't?

[sheshe2]

122. A joke.

[Ken Burch]

125. Yes. A joke on the name "Ellison" and the harmless blooper of mixing up Keith and Kevin.

I didn't know Kevin Ellison was black and to me Ellison is just a fairly common name. I'll prove it by changing the post to a photo of Harlan Ellison. OK?

[R B Garr]

130. C'mon now. My initial comment was about Democrats being forced to

accept false realities. Then that went into a post about a picture of Keith Ellison that was supposed to irritate me, but the reality is that I don't dislike him at all. Don't follow him much, but I certainly don't dislike him.

The part about Tom was over awhile ago, so why keep bringing it up?

[Ken Burch]

138. I haven't called on Democrats to accept false realities about ANYTHING.

Ever.

There was nothing in my OP that called on Democrats to accept false realities.

[Ken Burch]

118. No I didnt. I didn't KNOW Kevin Ellison was black

and all I was doing was wordplay on the last name "Ellison".

I proved I wasn't undermining Tom. Move on already.

[sheshe2]

127. You edited your post.

Now it is sarcasm.

[Ken Burch]

140. Yes, I edited my post.

Initially, all I was doing was a joke on people with the last name of Ellison. I posted the picture of Ralph simply because it was another person with the name(I've always admired Ralph Ellison as an author). I should have realized it could have been interpreted in a way I didn't mean, it simply didn't occur to me and I'm sorry.

I change the picture to Harlan Ellison to remove the unintended meaning. It was all in a sincere effort to respect what you said in response.

[sheshe2]

62. Thank you RB.

I agree whole heartedly.

[saidsimplesimon]

12. Thanks Ken

Move On, Resist

[Ken Burch]

23. Move on, Resist, UNIFY, my friend.

Forward Together. Fight FOR, not just AGAINST.

[saidsimplesimon]

30. I logged in today

in order to provide support. Thank you for all that you do.

[Ken Burch]

43. Thanks to you as well.

I'm just one person using my words.

[pangaia]

78. And thank you from me as well. Your patience us limitless.

[Susan Calvin]

185. Thank you. nt

[MerryBlooms]

17. Every time I log in I check to see if you are FFR or banned...

I'm always relieved and happy to see you still here.

We definitely need to come together and very soon- mid terms coming and we have to gain some ground.

[emulatorloo]

57. Why would Ken be FFR'ed?

Ken's a great contributor and he can handle what ever's thrown at him by his fellow DU contributors.

Honestly I am tired of the "Evil DU will ban me! We are all Victims" false narratives lately.

Ken is a good tough guy, he for sure doesn't see himself as victim.

to Ken. Have a great night to you!

[Ken Burch]

60. You as well.

That's the nicest post I've received all day.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

152. I disagree with him on virtually everything

but I don't see any reason the administrators would ban him.

[TNNurse]

36. I found in my professional and personal life that it is important

to look at a bad situation and remember. You cannot make it not have happened. It is in the past. Sometimes you just need to take a deep breath and move forward. It takes a lot of energy to dwell on the past. Learn from it and move on.

Unless one of you has perfected time travel and can go back and let us start 2016 all over again.

[Ken Burch]

42. Well put.

Learn from the past, live in the moment, work for the future.

[sarah FAILIN]

37. Have you looked at the Bernie sites lately?

I'm not trying to re-hash the primary, I'm discussing current attitudes of voters. I still follow one of those sites even though I keep saying I'm going to delete it. There is a never ending blame Clinton for everything game still going on with them, with the primaries long past. Maybe I'm dead wrong, but I feel like there is a large part of that group that will never come back. They not only refused to consider voting for Clinton, they refuse to vote for any dem now unless they pass the purity test from the way it sounds. All they do is go on about how Bernie would have won if this ..if that... I'd like a place to not have to deal with that. I don't think anyone could make them happy.

[Ken Burch]

56. The people on those sites likely represent the most rigid Bernista outlook(haven't looked at 'em).

And as some here are bitter towards Bernie, there are likely people there who start from equally valid reasons for bitterness that they have nursed far longer than they should.

There is a much larger group that could be reached, though-especially young people introduced to politics by that campaign and who are well aware we are in crisis now.

I'd suggest we present this party to them as a place where their ideas are welcome(even a lot of HRC voters were and are with Bernie on economic issues and at least the ultimate need to make this party a corporation-free zone) and setting up dialog groups between Bernie supporters and people from the demographics Bernie didn't do well with in order to at least create better communication between those combined groups of voters-groups that were always much closer to each other on the issues than their respective candidates seemed to be.

And I'd also say we could do a better job, as a party, of not being dismissive of Sanders supporters and what they support. The ideas are generally popular and are basically all workable, and we can only gain by taking the ideas AND the people who care about them seriously.

We need their votes in '18 and '20, and we can only get them by engaging these people. It's not like there's any other part of the spectrum that will ever swing our way.

Thanks for your post.

[George II]

51. Do you mean you didn't?

[Ken Burch]

59. I voted for the ticket. I campaigned for the ticket all fall.

I also spent a lot of time on social media arguing that people to our left should vote for our ticket on antifascist grounds and on the fact that there was a lot of Sanders stuff in the platform.

[erinlough]

54. Plainly said they generally make me angry, but

We are missing the problem by focusing on them instead of looking toward the 90 million eligible voters who did not vote at alll, And not looking at how Russia was able to influence and possibly hack our voting.

After research it is kind of funny how many people are saying they voted third party when only just over 5 million voted for Stein and Johnson combined. Many more people voted for Trump than are admitting it now.

[Honeycombe8]

55. I understand what you're saying. But it needs to be kept front & center, so history doesn't repeat.

It already repeated. Remember Bush v. Gore (v. Nader)?

[lunasun]

128. + one zillion

There is a danger warning sign put up by a public utility near my home.
I hope the sign always remains up to warn people new to the area of the danger and in case anyone from the existing community forgets about the danger in that area the sign will remind them again.

I work with a couple of bobs they are not coming around for unity and trash dems as much as trump.
If anything those types I have encountered are always trying to convince others to thier way of thinking so good luck to those who ask
"Isn't it time to work on persuading third-party voters to vote for OUR ticket? "

[regnaD kciN]

149. I can assure you that constant trashing of Sanders supporters...

...is not going to make them more likely to reflexively vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination in 2020. In fact, just the opposite.

If people here really want to win back the government, rather than just have a satisfying sense of outrage at a particular target after another loss, they'll come to realize it. I just hope people on each side come to realize it before it's too late.

[Honeycombe8]

165. They're not trashing Sanders supporters. They're criticizing Stein voters. You misunderstand.

I think you may be oversensitive about Sanders. Sanders did not run as a third party. And he wasn't on the general election ballot. He also supported Hillary, once she won the primary.

This thread is about the third party voters in the general election.

[UTUSN]

58. If whoever voted 3rd party/'16, why are they here?!1 Plus, CONVERSION never works.

3rd party types will only "convert" when their life experience is blasted by their wrong choice.

[Ken Burch]

61. You don't change people's minds by attacking them and calling them stupid.

It simply doesn't work.

[UTUSN]

66. *I* haven't called them anything, & have no illusions about them. But what I think of them

is that if their minds work that way, there's no hope for them. They're on their own. And WE're on our own. As I said, they have to learn for themselves from their own hard knocks.

Plus, in those isolated times when they are in our coalition, they're in it only for their own self-interest. All we can do is make our own case and if they join in, fine. Here's a ditty from the Sleazy '70s (addressing the 3rd partiers, not directly to you) :

********QUOTE*****

The Gestalt Prayer

I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine. (ON EDIT: Yes, YOU are!1)
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.


(Fritz Perls, "Gestalt Therapy Verbatim", 1969)

*********QUOTE********

[stevenleser]

69. Depends what you mean by attacking. If I have a friend that spends themselves into bankruptcy

I very well may try to help them by calling out their spending. The friend might feel attacked, but I am addressing the problem in the only way that can help them.

This is the second time in the last 16 years we had the same faction of the party enable the election of a Republican. They need to be reminded of it regularly until they acknowledge their mistake.

This can end as soon as we all feel they understand their mistake. Until then, it needs to continue.

[Ken Burch]

106. It doesn't need to continue. It's toxic and it divides us. It strips people of their dignity.

1)The only part of the political spectrum that will ever again think of switching its support to us is that part that's to our left.
2)The only way to bring them in is to engage them and treat them with respect. We already know that we can't win any of them over by demanding repentance.

This is electoral politics-we can't approach it as though the people we need to win over are substance abusers in need of an intervention.

[stevenleser]

107. You have it backwards. It's toxic to allow the behavior to continue unchecked.

Its poisonous to the entire country and world not to aggressively confront these folks with their behavior until they get it.

[sheshe2]

137. Thank you Steven. nt

[Jim Lane]

142. But endlessly bashing Stein *on DU* isn't confronting anyone.

You want "to aggressively confront these folks with their behavior until they get it." Double fail here. First, i agree with Ken that blasting them over and over again is more likely to make them defensive and cause them to harden their positions, not change. There are, as a practical matter, better ways to make the case to them. Second, at least all the Stein-bashing here won't actually have that ill effect, because virtually no one who voted for Stein is reading DU. These self-righteous threads are just preaching to the choir.

And, if anyone asks, I voted for Bernie in the primaries and for Clinton in the general. When the House Un-Democratic Activities Committee subpoenas me to testify, I'll state under oath that I am not now nor have I ever been a Green Party member.

[stevenleser]

190. I disagree. And you will not convince me otherwise. nt

[sheshe2]

103. I could say a lot here.

Yet I won't.

Ken Burch
61. You don't change people's minds by attacking them and calling them stupid.

It simply doesn't work.

Yup. I have seen all this nonstop. Hmmmm.

[Podkayne K]

65. The Past is Prologue

I've heard these words before. "Move on, get over it, change them for next time." When was that, can't recall... but wait it's coming back to me... the year 2000.

These unctuous reprobates are the same type of shitheads who helped elect W and now dump. Bottom line they might as well be doing the Heil salute, denying the Holocaust, and hating and trying to kill everyone not sufficiently WASP. They are just as deplorable--if not more so--than those who are out front. While they hide behind excuses that candidate so and so (Gore, Clinton, and whoever is next) isn't walking on water, they help elect the sick, sadistic, sociopaths who are leading this country to ruin.

I'm sick of these lowlifes who are destroying people's lives, this countries hope, and this planet's future. You say it's time to bring them back. I argue they were never here in the first place. Like their buddies Nadar and Stein, they are part of the right's move to destroy any hint of d (small d) emocratic ideas. And I don't know the answer to how we go from here. But I do know that those forgetting the past, pardoning these pernicious psychopaths, and simply moving on is--as has been demonstrated way too many times--a way to totally fuck the future.

[stevenleser]

68. Exactly. And that is why these threads have to continue at least for now. nt

[lunamagica]

105. +1 Beautifully stated

[Podkayne K]

131. Thank You

[JHan]

136. Well said.

[sheshe2]

139. Welcome to DU 1000 times. Podkayne.

Thank you for your response.

[zipplewrath]

176. Not the same people

It's very unlikely that there is much of an intersection between the people that voted 3rd party in 2000 and those who did in 2016. That's virtually a generation apart and people's behavior changes alot over that time.

As the OP suggests, all of the "score settling" going on isn't helping anyone.

[Podkayne K]

186. Thanks for your comments...

but I wish to make a few points.

First, Sleazy Sue and a lot of her ilk were around in 2000 pulling off the same screw America crap she and they pulled off last year.
Second: I did say the same type in order to cover the neuvo aholes who basically did the same thing last year as their compa-traitors pulled off in 2K.
Third: Holding people accountable and reminding everyone how we got here is quite useful. Otherwise, Nuremberg was a pointless exercise and the Hague should be expunged.
And Last: According to everything I've read and heard from psychologists, most people actually don't change that much over time. And before you say well so and so was this and now he's that, there are always exceptions to almost every rule of human behavior. But for the most part the kind of change you're referencing generally only happens in fiction--because fiction requires character change in order to succeed. Real life, however, not so much!}*&*(0_)(

[zipplewrath]

188. Politically, they do

I think you'll find that many folks do "change" over time, at least in the political sense. They become "more" of something. And of course there are folks that have life altering experiences as well. But we've seen blue collar, union voting people become "Reagan Democrats" and now Trump voting fools. African Americans switched from the GOP to the democratic party in the '60s. And there is the notorious "got money got republican" tendency. Sometimes referred to as the "I got mine" tendency.

One of my favorite jokes is:
"How do you turn a democrat into a republican? Rob 'em"
"How do you turn a Republican into a Democrat? Fire 'em"

We've seen a wholesale shift in peoples attitudes about gay rights. This is predominately because people were exposed more and more to gay people and the real oppression they faced at it changed attitudes. The cultural revolution was all about a post WWII generation and their changing attitudes towards foreign wars.

[Podkayne K]

194. Really?

This is getting too deep into psychology and motivations, but I am going to reply one more time and let it go.

I'm not so sure the changes you have pointed out are really "changes." The so called "Reagan Democrats" were like many Southerners who were conservative when the Dems were more conservative and switched the pukes became the party of right wing nuttery. Most Black people did the opposite for the reverse reason. The I got mine folks were always like that and figured the Dems would help them get theirs--and who during the Depression had anything anyway, except the pukes--and when they did get theirs they easily glided into where they wanted to be all along.

As to switch in gay rights attitudes, I welcome it, but I don't think it was change so much as popularity. When Gay rights weren't the thing, weren't in, when friends and family castigated you for siding with gay people, then you just didn't. Okay, along comes The Jeffersons, Queer Eye, Will and Grace, the Gay Revolution, and as more thought well how is this really hurting me--or something similar--then it became more okay for many--unfortunately not all--to at least give lip service to live and let live. As to foreign wars. Most are against war until they aren't. No one was for WWI, until ass wipe Wilson got us in for some still inexplicable reason. In the thirties and early forties, lots of folks--especially conservatives--were pro Nazi (still are), until December 7th 1941, Vietnam was popular until time and 51,000 deaths and protests finally worked--and even today we hear about if we'd just had tried a little harder, and Iraq had big support from Media, money, and majorities for years. (Don't forget war sells the news, helps the arms industry, and increases jobs for those who aren't on the front lines.)

So I really don't see any of this as huge change. But listen you have your view and it's valid, and I have mine, which I believe is also.

To end, I hope that next year, we all will be working for one common goal, get rid of the Pukes, move America to a better place, and get to the truth of what really happened in 2016.

Be well,

Podkayne K

[stevenleser]

67. These threads will continue until we see mea culpas from those on the left who did not vote

Hillary.

Remember Nader in 2000? Many who voted Nader never issued mea culpas and never took responsibility for voting Nader and believing Gore was the same as Bush. That's why you still see Nader and his voters trashed around here.

If we never get the sense that people acknowledge their mistake, it will never go away.

[leftstreet]

80. You're blaming people who voted SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO?

[stevenleser]

83. Thanks for illustrating how some reading comprehension fails are worse than others.

Not even a nice try.

[leftstreet]

88. You said...

Remember Nader in 2000? Many who voted Nader never issued mea culpas and never took responsibility for voting Nader and believing Gore was the same as Bush. That's why you still see Nader and his voters trashed around here.

You suggested people still get trashed around here not necessarily because they VOTED for Nader, but because they didn't APOLOGIZE!

[stevenleser]

90. I know what I said. The question is, did you try to fail to understand or was it an accident? nt

[leftstreet]

91. ROFL n/t

[stevenleser]

92. Exactly. nt

[Ken Burch]

82. The point should be to get their votes in the future.

It's petty to demand that people admit error on this. And by demanding they admit they were wrong, all you're going to achieve is to make them dig in and refuse to listen.

And it's a 50-50 split on responsibility for why we didn't win the votes we needed.

Yes, it would have been slightly more prudent for these people to vote for our ticket at least in battleground states(and I spent a lot of time on social media begging them to do that), but we never had the right to simply expect all progressives to vote for our presidential ticket no matter what.

At least some of the lesson we should take from November is that we need to change as a party-not to leave anyone in the base out in the cold(nothing anyone has suggested would do that) but to be a party that stands with the voices from below that speaks to the needs of those the GOP and Wall Street treat as nonpersons, that turns nonvoters into voters by running on a proudly positive program for change.

Our fall campaign could have been that, no matter who we nominated. Our next campaigns need to be.

We already know that demanding votes is a failed approach. Why not try winning those votes by engaging the nonvoters on what
THEY care about. The only votes we can switch to our party will be those who want a complete rejection of what Trump's about and its replacement by something positive and transformative.

[stevenleser]

85. And the way to do that is to get them to see their mistake. Anything else is a waste of time. nt

[Ken Burch]

93. It's impossible to change people by demanding they recant.

When we demand that people admit they were wrong, it just makes them dig in and refuse to listen.

It never wins anyone over.

[stevenleser]

95. In this case, it's the only way. nt

[Ken Burch]

98. Why do you believe that?

When does it ever work?

And can we at least admit it's time to stop talking about 2000?

2000 happened because Third Way politics just didn't work.

Gore was not the same as Bush, obviously. Nader was an idiot.

But we're past that now. And shaming people for past choices is a waste of time.

What matters is building a positive strategy for the future.

We need to campaign "for" at least as much as we need to campaign against.

Why not focus on that, first?

[stevenleser]

102. Because the people in question are invested in not seeing their mistake. Pounding them with the

consequences is the only chance of getting them to wake up.

[Ken Burch]

114. No, it doesn't work.

And I don't think people are invested in not seeing their mistake. Everyone gets it that Trump is a nightmare. What we need to do is to find a way of bringing everyone in. People can't be shamed into voting for us.

What is it about the idea of making some changes in OUR party, of engaging some of the reasons that made people vote third-party or NOT vote that is so intolerable to you?

[stevenleser]

115. So you keep saying. I disagree and will continue. So will many others. nt

[zipplewrath]

189. Do you have evidence?

I'm curious if you have evidence/examples of this shaming/forced recantation schtick is effective in changing peoples minds or getting them to see what you believe is the error of their ways.

[stevenleser]

191. Evidence of what? You have your opinion and I have mine. nt

[zipplewrath]

195. So that would be no

The vast majority of democratic leaders tend to suggest the opposite. It is variations of "you get more bees with honey" kind of attitude. We were lectured frequently by Obama that we had to engage and understand "the other side of the aisle", not belittle them. It is generally accepted that calling people "deplorables" was probably not the best strategy to influence people. MLK asserted the "love 'em to change 'em" approach. I'm not sure what example you are envisioning in terms of influencing people. I'm not sure you are either.

[stevenleser]

196. No, that would be there is no evidence either way, we each have our opinion. nt

[zipplewrath]

197. Not sure I'd say "no evidence"

I'll admit that there is probably no conclusive evidence ever when we are discussing something like influencing people. All I was suggesting is that there is a wide body of work that discusses just the opposite. I can't think of anyone in national politics that advocates the kind of political strategy you are discussing for influencing voters. So my question really was, where do you draw your opinions from? Have you had success with this strategy in other political contexts?

[R B Garr]

108. Exactly! You read my mind. I was just thinking an apology tour would

be great for starters. Let's see some straight talk about the reality of politics and what all that claptrap actually got them.

Enough of browbeating good Democrats.

[stevenleser]

110. Someone downthread said "Past is prologue" and they are 100% correct.

The consequences for not supporting Hillary in the G.E. have to be put in the faces of those who did that until they have no choice but to acknowledge their mistake.

The mistake we made was not doing that more vigorously with Nader voters in 2000. Skinner is right to say that Stein voters who have not recanted are not welcome on DU.

[Ken Burch]

123. To make people "recant" is to make them give up their dignity.

What matters is winning votes for the future.

People can't be shamed and humiliated into change. It never works, Steven.

We need to listen and to make at least SOME changes here as a party.

And I say that as a person who thinks third-party presidential voting is a stupid idea-but that it's usually caused, at least in part, but stupid choices on the part of major parties.

[stevenleser]

129. And that is as it should be. Being so thoughtless with the rights of millions

Of people deserves no less than public humiliation.

[Ken Burch]

144. I seriously doubt your approach has ever changed anyone's vote.

Why, might I ask, do you totally reject the idea that our party's choices in various have played a role in people deciding to vote third-party?

Why are you so certain that our approach never needs to change?

Why insist on methods that simply don't work with human beings as they actually function in this world?

I share the anger you feel about November, Steven-I hate it that some voted third party and others didn't vote-but it's not as simple as saying it's all on them and the best the way to use that anger is as energy to create a program and a strategy for the future.

Next time, let's run a fall campaign that actually tries to create enthusiasm among voter, that actually tries to win the argument rather than just trying to win by default. Would you object to a campaign like that?

And why shame people for voting Stein or not voting(both of which were horrible choices) when, rather than shaming the Dems who voted for Nixon, Reagan, or either Bush, you supported appeasing them while leaving the rest of the party largely out in the cold? If you're gonna shame one way, you ought to shame the other way as well.

[stevenleser]

192. What you doubt is not of concern to me. nt

[R B Garr]

133. Absolutely. I'm ready to see more self-awareness and accountability from

people who made such a huge mistake. Enough of the incessant blaming of Democrats for not being good enough. You nailed it.

[Ken Burch]

145. There is nothing in "the reality of politics" that requires us to obsess on winning "the center"

Nobody won "the center" this year. "The center" doesn't exist anymore.

The "socially liberal, fiscally conservative, anti-union and pro-corporate" voter doesn't exist.

[R B Garr]

154. Who cares about the center. I'd settle on not watching

someone trash my party.

[alarimer]

166. 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush in Florida in 2000.

24,000 registered Democrats voted for Nader.

The margin was 537.

People keep (wrongly) blaming Nader voters for the loss, when 10X as many DEMOCRATS voted for Bush, to say nothing of the independents who also did.

People are wrong in trashing Nader voters, just as they are wrong in trashing Stein voters. In the end, Gore was a loser who couldn't even win his own state. He was not good at campaigned and he picked JOE LIEBERMAN as VP, a losing move if there ever was one. Then he ran from Bill Clinton, who was popular.

[PDittie]

168. +1

I would only add that the logical fallacy occurs at the presumption that all Green votes must somehow belong to Democrats; ergo, if Nader/Stein/whomever simply had not (exercised their democratic right to) run for president, then all of those people who voted Green would have voted Blue. Exit polling conducted in 2000 invalidated this premise.

Your example demonstrates that sometimes Democrats nominate a candidate that compels tens of thousands of usually Democratic voters to vote instead for the Republican. I've seen some evidence that this also occurred in 2016 (though, like the 2000 exit polling evidence cited above, I'm not going to look for it or post it, because it would likely get this reply alerted, juried, and removed).

[msongs]

70. part of moving on is to quit posting about it nt

[R B Garr]

111. Amen. And it's always one-sided. Never a thought about how they were mislead

Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 02:20 AM - Edit history (1)

and what they will do to correct that in the future. One way would be to quit attacking good Democrats.

[Ken Burch]

120. I wasn't attackng ANYONE.

I didn't even MENTION anyone.

And I'M a good Democrat too.

Why are you trying to derail my thread when it's a positive thread?

[Gore1FL]

76. Some here wouldn't know what to post if they couldn't make posts dividing the left.

It's the same crowd.

The same people who push away our allies are the same ones complaining that our allies aren't eager to stand with us.

Some here believe the greens are Schrödinger's Part: Simultaneously supposed to always vote Democrat, but derided because they will never vote Democrat.

Pity Parties are the main reason so many people seem to post here anymore.

I miss DU.

[Ken Burch]

94. Good points all.

n/t.

[R B Garr]

153. How ironic. You keep starting these threads. nt

[Ken Burch]

157. What do you mean "these threads"?

There are many different purposes to the threads I've started since November.

Some were simply calls for the party to learn from the result.

Others pointed out that we need former Clinton AND former Sanders people in the party, and that those two groups agree more than disagree, with greater dialog needed.

This thread was mainly about calling on us not to waste time on negative acts and focus instead on rebuilding for the future.

All have been positive, constructive, and respectful.

None deserved any of the "Oh no you DON'T!" responses.

[UTUSN]

101. "push away our allies" - they ain't our allies if they "aren't eager to stand with us."

As for, "I miss DU," there's no DU to "miss" - it's right here where it's always been. There are no good-old-days with a select Few from the Past, no special DUers from the fantasized Past, no Elite.

[Gore1FL]

141. I miss DU I miss when DU wasn't a giant pity party every day.

If they aren't our allies, quit complaining that they didn't vote with us. Either they are and they deserve outreach or they aren't and they don't deserve the complaints. Pick one; they are mutually exclusive points of view.

[PDittie]

171. +100

[PDittie]

170. +1

[applegrove]

77. We need to hash out all the reasons why we lost. Clean the wounds. So

we heal and are ready for 2018. And don't make the same mistakes again.

[Orrex]

79. If they claim to back 3rd parties because we slag them, then they're lying

Simple as that. Either they will back 3rd parties or they won't, and until they recognize that they fucked up and elected Trump, I don't feel any guilt at calling them out for it.

[democrank]

81. The choice is ours....unite or accept a mostly red map.

[Adrahil]

86. If those folks wanna renounce their foolishness and work for victory...

I don't see a need to bring up the past. The problem is too many of these morons wanna justify their behavior.

Fuck that.

I am done with intellectual self-indulgence. I am done with false equivalencies and self-righteous hand-wringing.

Understand the political environment and ACT on it.

Anything else is unacceptable.

[NurseJackie]

87. As long as Stein voters keep justifying it ...

... they need to be "slagged" for it. And so should their defenders and protectors and apologists. I have no problems with that.

[meadowlander]

155. What was the last post on DU from a Stein voter defending their vote?

I've never seen one and suspect it would be against the TOS.

So what's the point of coming on DU (where Stein voters are not allowed to post) and berating them as if they are reading what you have to say when they can't respond without being banned?

I didn't vote for Stein and don't think people should have voted for her, but I respect that it is their vote to do what they want with and recognise that I am never going to get them to vote for a Democrat by blaming them for every single negative thing that happens for the next four years no matter how ridiculous and hysterical the connection is.

At least they voted for someone, and not for Donald Trump.

Happy to acknowledge that Stein voters are 0.5% of the problem. Think we should be spending a proportional amount of our time and energy on the 99.5% of the problem (non-voters, election hacking, voter suppression and 2008 Obama voters who voted for Trump) instead of soft targets like 2012 Green voters where we're never going to make any headway anyway.

[NurseJackie]

164. "At least they voted for someone, and not for Donald Trump." --- Oh brother!

At least they voted for someone, and not for Donald Trump.

Oh brother!

Happy to acknowledge that Stein voters are 0.5% of the problem.

Where did this statistic come from? That's a very specific percentage. How do you know? Can you cite a source, please?

[meadowlander]

178. 218,595,000 people are eligible to vote in the US

62,984,825 voted for Trump
65,853,516 voted for Clinton
1,200,000 voted for Stein (0.005%)
1,200,000 voted for Johnson (funny that they're never blamed on DU for ruining America, the climate, international relations and letting Nazism back into our national discourse)
88,436,659 people didn't vote

So subtracting Clinton voters from total eligible voters you get the number of "problem" voters = 152,741,484
Stein voters are .7% of those voters.
Non-voters are 58% of those voters.
Trump voters are 41% of those voters.

So apologies. Stein voters are 0.7% of the problem. Why don't we focus on the 99.3% of the problem where there are some seriously low hanging fruit like people who voted for Obama in 2012 but not Clinton in 2016 and people who went to the polls to vote for Clinton but were turned away because the voter registration software wasn't working?

And can we please not "reach out" to those people by calling them dumbasses and blaming them for Nazism and North Korea?

[Ken Burch]

158. Nobody does that here. As to other sites, there's nothing we can do about those posts.

And I don't know of anyone who's a defender or protector or apologist for Stein voters here.

What I'm saying is that we should be focusing mainly on ways to fix our party and to turn nonvoters and third-party voters INTO Democratic voters. We should be about '18 and '20, not '16. '16 is the past now and we can't undo it by trying to get people to publicly recant or whatever it is you want.

The way to win is to grow the electorate and motivate it into showing up to vote for US. Neither of those things is hard to do.

[NurseJackie]

163. Yes they do. Of course they do. Right here under our very noses. All the time.

And I don't know of anyone who's a defender or protector or apologist for Stein voters here.

Yes they do. Of course they do. Right here under our very noses. All the time. Then someone isn't paying very close attention. (Weird, huh?)

What I'm saying is that we should be focusing mainly on ways to fix our party

Frankly, I don't think our party is broken. I reject your premise.

and we can't undo it by trying to get people to publicly recant or whatever it is you want

It's not about me, is it? I really don't understand why anyone would want to make it about me. I also don't understand why anyone feels the need to come to the aid of the Stein voters and try to dissuade those who ridicule and criticize them.

I mean seriously now, what's up with that?

Do Stein voters need really to be rescued from the "mean old DU members"?

Neither of those things is hard to do.

LOL! It's already been done. There were other factors at play that some people prefer to ignore.



#BeHonest
#BeRealistic
#BeTruthful
#VoteDemocratic
#RejectStein
#FuckSteinVoters
#FuckSarandon

[meadowlander]

179. Still waiting on a single example with a link.

[NurseJackie]

180. All I can say is that one need only to open one's eyes and observe.

Examples of that appear frequently (fortunately they don't always last very long, however.) Nice try with the "challenge," but I'm smarter than many people give me credit for.

[meadowlander]

181. So that's a no then.

[NurseJackie]

182. That's correct. I prefer not to break the rules...

... regardless of the motivation, or taunts, or dares.

[meadowlander]

183. ...

[NurseJackie]

184. Better luck next time.

[CentralMass]

126. Thanks Ken. I agree, lets move forward. The negitivity is not productive.

[Jim Lane]

143. I for one am still seething over the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

I think DU needs more threads endlessly slagging the law that opened the door to slavery in Kansas.

OK, I know that no one who voted for that bill is reading DU, but no one or virtually no one who voted for Stein is reading DU, either. That doesn't matter. If a belief is right, goddammit, we have to just keep repeating it over and over.

[Ken Burch]

146. And I am still furious that John Quincy Adams provided federal funds

for an expedition to the center of the Earth:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/john-quincy-adams-said-yes-expedition-center-earth-180955203/

I will not rest until Henry Clay and the rest of the Quincy Adams cabinet officially apologize.

[Jim Lane]

148. Thanks. I learned more from that link than from all the Stein-bashing.

It does seem, however, that editorial standards at Smithsonian.com are slipping. According to the article, Adams "was ultimately successful with the Navel-Observatory in Washington, D.C." It makes me wonder what other body parts he was checking out....

[Sunlei]

147. don't think people will ever get over this election.Those who voted for spoilers did have an effect.

They'll have to live with that decision and hopefully learn from it.

Because next election Republican party will use the same SCAMS for votes. Republican scams include helping spoilers grab a couple thousand votes here and there

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

151. Good question!

[Skittles]

160. no it is NOT TIME to move past it

people need to be constantly reminded that who they vote for or DON'T VOTE FOR "FUCKING MATTERS*

AS LONG AS TRUMP IS INSTALLED INTO THE WHITE HOUSE THEY NEED TO BE REMINDED

[Trumpocalypse]

162. Because you need to identify the problem

in order to solve it. And to solve the problem those responsible need to take responsibility for their actions instead of the still offering excuses.

[alarimer]

167. I agree

We need to let it go. The Democratic Party needs to step up. They have so far been pretty feckless, with this "better deal" milquetoast nonsense.

[nocalflea]

169. Yours is a far better soul than mine, Ken.

Emotions are still raw and for good reason.
It's damn hard watching the country we love and everything we value being destroyed.

As angry and upset as we were about '00, and all the anger we felt toward Bush & co. , it, in no way compares with what we're experiencing now.

We are hanging on to our democracy with the skin of our teeth.

Our country was the conscience of the world, now look at us.

We have been devalued.

We have been humiliated.

We are fearful.
We are angry.

We feel vulnerable in a way we never have before.

Many of us have had our lives directly impacted by the hateful, vengeful policies of this administration and those who haven't are wary. Who or what will be targeted next ?

To many, the never-Hillary types are just another agent of our destruction. Useful, selfish idiots.

This is why some are in no mood for forgiveness and will give no quarter.
This is why others are demanding, at the very least, contrition. A heartfelt mea culpa. ("Give us a sign of a shared suffering. Show us you have some emotional skin in the game,damn it! Put up or shut up !&quot

Yes, it's about trust .

Is reconciliation even possible in this climate ?

[Demsrule86]

172. Hey Ken...hubs has multiple interviews tomorrow. So fingers crossed.

My issue is that the same voters are doing it again...we see primaries for sitting Democrats and threads trashing one Democrat or another (example Kamala Harris). To this day, people (including me) despise Ralph Nader...don't see t his ending anytime soon.

[Ken Burch]

193. Good luck to your husband.

Just so you know, in spite of any accusations you've read about me, I didn't take any part in the anti-Kamala groups. I made one comment about her a long-time ago, in a heated moment in the primary, and that is the last thing I'd said about her.

It's a problem and it somehow goes to questions of trust on both sides.

I have no use for Ralph either. The best way to make him irrelevant, I think, is to address the things that drove people to support him.

[Blue_Tires]

175. While I fully understand your point

I still maintain it will be impossible to move forward until that sizeable part of political left influencers whose Clinton/Trump criticism ratio was like 20:1, or those *openly* said a Trump victory was at least equal or better than to a Clinton victory:

1. Admit their culpability -- They need to fess up and show some fucking contrition for enabling this mess if they were just useful idiots, and if they were active ratfuckers for the sake of ideological purity or whatever then they need to be cast out of our political dialogue because mark my words, they WILL ratfuck more Dems in the future...

2. *STOP* doubling down on the Clinton derangement... Hillary and Chelsea are somehow getting it worse now than they were during the election... This whole "Hillary owned slaves" -talking point (ironically started by a Muslim leftbro) is one of the most outrageous and intellectually bankrupt smears I've ever seen, and it still gets re-tweeted daily...

3. Legit criticism is fine, but for the love of Christ, STOP pretending that Bill Clinton/Obama never did shit for anybody and that their administrations were worse than Pinochet... Extra credit if the leftbro was still in diapers when Bill was president...

4. Realize that the rest of America isn't like Brooklyn/Boston/Chicago/L.A. or some cloistered college town with like-minded friends, and trying to force-feed DSA-style socialism to red states is a guaranteed loser of an issue...

5. And while I agree 95% with what Bernie is trying to do, when he gives people who only want to see the party burn seats at influential tables like Nina Turner, Nomiki Knost and Cornel West, some harsh and serious questions have to be asked...

[Willie Pep]

177. I think we have to acccept that some people will vote third party every election.

There are left-wing diehards who will likely vote Green or Democratic Socialist or whatever because they hate the Democrats and we will never be left-wing enough for them.

I am more concerned by the fact that we lost people who voted for Obama twice but voted for Trump in 2016. That was a much bigger problem than the people who always vote Green or DSA or sit out the election because nobody is pure left enough for them.

[Expecting Rain]

187. We should never forget.

To move forward DEMOCRATS will need to build winning coalitions that don't include people who have stabbed us in the backs.

These are not allies. They have shown their true colors.