JPR Nutjobs interpret CA moving up their primary as an attack on Sanders chances in 2020

[stevenleser]

https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/democrats-are-already-trying-to-rig-the-2020-primaries-against-bernie/

"Bernie Sanders may very well run for president again in 2020, and knowing that he now has the same level of name recognition Hillary Clinton had in 2016, Democrats are terrified at the prospect of him winning. As a result, they’re already trying to rewrite rules in an effort to give their preferred candidate—Kamala Harris—an advantage. Governor Jerry Brown of California recently signed a bill moving up the state’s primary by three months, which might give Harris the edge since she’s from that state—and more importantly—an early advantage in the overall race. If this is a sign of what’s to come from Democrats, then 2020 might turn out to be a repeat of 2016, and we all know what that means… four more years of Donald J.Trump."

Not only do they, in their paranoia, interpret everything that happens as somehow a conspiracy to hurt Sanders chances in 2020, they indicate that Sanders is the only chance to beat Trump in 2020 and they continue to infer that Sanders was cheated in 2016 despite Sanders losing that primary by 4 million votes and by a bigger delegate margin than Hillary lost in 2008. Not to mention that it is highly unlikely that Sanders will run. He (and Hillary unfortunately) will both be too old. They were both pushing it in 2016.

[LonePirate]

1. The people and posts at JPR deserve the same (lack of) respect as the people and posts at FR.

[stevenleser]

2. Agreed. The only reason they deserve mention at all is that they are part of DU history AND

there is some sympathy for them and their beliefs by a number of posters here. Some are members both places. One was recently PPRd. The person who posted what I linked in the OP was the administrator of the Bernie Sanders group here for years.

I'm glad most of the folks are gone.

[guillaumeb]

10. Discordant notes in the choir?

I understand. But, and speaking as a Sanders supporter, if Sanders is that popular generally it should not matter because there are 3 years to prepare.

[brush]

33. What's Sanders going to do, run as a 3rd party candidate? He has zero chance running as a Dem again.

[stevenleser]

35. I am not a Bernie fan at all, but I wouldn't say he has zero chance. But the JPR types dont

exactly see the world as it is. I posted downthread about how they are very nationalistic in their thought processes and by nationalistic I mean the way Orwell described it here: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-prize/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/

and one of the key characteristics of being nationalistic is deception. Self-deception and deception toward others.

[brush]

37. They can advance their self-deceptive interests all they want but the Democratic Party...

would be crazy to invite Sanders back into the party.

He used us before and then left when he didn't win.

No way that happens without losing a huge party of the Dem base.

A repeat of that divisiveness is the last thing we need.

[stevenleser]

39. I agree 100% nt

[Jim Lane]

46. A question I keep asking and that Bernie-bashers keep not answering...

You write that "the Democratic Party...would be crazy to invite Sanders back into the party."

There's this persistent insinuation that the party "invited" Bernie in, or "allowed" him in, or that they even can (let alone should) exclude him in the 2020 cycle.

Rules for ballot access in the primaries are set by the state legislatures. They have different rules. None of them are set by the DNC.

It is not the case, as some seem to assume, that sometime in 2015 the DNC held a vote and magnanimously decided to let Bernie run.

Do you predict or propose that the DNC adopt a new rule that no delegate pledged to Bernie Sanders will be seated at the 2020 convention? If a state puts Bernie (or any other candidate disfavored by the party establishment) on the ballot, and that candidate gets enough votes from Democrats of that state to win some delegates, is your plan for victory in 2020 to incite a huge intraparty fight by refusing to respect the results of the vote?

[brush]

51. The party should not be joined so that a little-known independent can use...

the national party apparatus for his convenience to gain name recognition.

Or in the case of Sanders now, who has now gained name recognition by using the party then subsequently deserting it, to re-joined to again use the national party apparatus, this time to gain delegates/super delegates, no way.

Anyone who thinks this would not result in divisiveness again, possibly even more than in 2016 as the base of the party would not take kindly to being used again, is not thinking clearly.

[Jim Lane]

53. You've got it wrong.

One of the Bernie-bashing myths seems to be that he cynically "joined" the Democratic Party to run for President, then "deserted" it. That is not true.

Vermont does not have partisan registration. It's true that Bernie isn't registered as a Democrat, but neither is Pat Leahy. Bernie has not changed his registration.

Before he ran for President, he was an independent who caucused with the Democrats. During his run for President, he was an independent who caucused with the Democrats. Now that the campaign has ended, he is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

And you still have not answered the question: Given that state governments determine ballot access, what action by the DNC do you propose or predict to exclude Bernie or any other candidate of whom the party appartchiks disapprove?

[NanceGreggs]

62. "After everything I've said about the party ...

... I would be a hypocrite if I ran as a Democrat." - Bernie Sanders

And then he ran as a Democrat.

[OnDoutside]

65. Is it possible that the DNC could bring in a rule that you

Cannot run as a Democrat in the Presidential primaries, unless you were a fully paid up and registered member of the Democratic Party for the previous 4 years or so ?

[Jim Lane]

110. I don't know if it's possible. It's clearly the wrong way to go.

Political parties perform a public function and therefore don't have unlimited discretion to set their own rules. For example, a private country club can exclude nonwhites, but a state Democratic Party's rule establishing a whites-only primary was held unconstitutional. My guess is that the rule you suggest, not obviously triggering any "strict scrutiny" category under constitutional law, would be permitted, so I'd say that, yes, it's possible.

For my reasons for thinking it a terrible idea, though, see #109.

[delisen]

71. Your post is misleading. Leahy is a Democratic

senator; Sanders is an Independent senator who has chosen to caucus with Democratic senators.

Both senators are registered Voters and as such do not declare a party affiliation.

[Jim Lane]

104. Not misleading at all. Stating facts.

We see these vague smears about Bernie, along the lines of saying that he "joined" the party only to exploit it and then "left" when his nefarious work was done.

To pin down a lie like this, you have to get specific. One fact that would support such a charge would be if he had changed his party registration and then changed it back. He didn't. I mention Leahy to point out the absurdity of the attack. When it comes to party affiliation in voter registration, Bernie Sanders and Pat Leahy are, and have been, exactly identical.

Your statement about Bernie in the Senate is exactly correct. My point about that is that what you write has been correct throughout his tenure in the Senate (and, before that, was true of his time in the House). Therefore, this charge about him "changing" parties, if interpreted with regard to his work in Congress, is also false.

[MyNameGoesHere]

106. Smears?

He all but called democrats degenerate evil pieces of shit. The independent senator from Vermont can get bent.

[Jim Lane]

114. Yes, smears. A lie about someone you dislike is still a lie.

I will concede, however, that your more flexible attitude toward the truth appears to have considerable support on DU. I may even be in the minority on this score.

[DanTex]

142. Bernie said "I am a Democrat" during his campaign.

Before his campaign he called himself an independent. After his campaign, he now calls himself an independent again.

According to you, he never actually changed from Independent to Democrat. Which means that, during the campaign, when he said (and I quote) "I am a Democrat", he was lying.

Which is even more dishonorable than if he had actually changed parties in order to run. I'm not sure how you spin his not having actually changed parties and instead just opting to lie about it as an exoneration.

[R B Garr]

60. Exactly. The Democrat-bashers refuse to acknowledge Bernie's own words

that he joined the Democratic party to get the media coverage he couldn't get on his own (easily Google-able).

And how can the DNC have rigged everything if the angle now is that no one can keep him out if he wants to run again.

[stevenleser]

55. DNC bylaws should be amended so that delegates can not vote for or be claimed by someone

Who has not been a Registered Democrat for at least a period of four years.

[Jim Lane]

109. That's a terrible idea.

First, it would mean that the Democratic Party could never nominate anyone from Vermont (paging Dr. Dean!) or from any of the other states that don't have partisan voter registration.

Second, it would mean excluding some of the very people we want to win over. An obvious example is Lincoln Chafee. He's an exemplar of the "Rockefeller Republican" type that used to be prominent, especially in the Northeast. He and his father before him both served in the Senate as Republicans. The younger Chafee, without changing his political views much (as a Republican, he voted against the Iraq War Resolution), found that the rightward lurch of the Republican Party had left him far removed from its mainstream. He became an independent and then a Democrat.

That's what we want. Along with registering new voters and fighting voter suppression and all the other things we should do, one fruitful avenue is to win over the longtime Republicans who are no longer welcome in today's GOP. But Chafee didn't register as a Democrat until May 30, 2013 (see https://web.archive.org/web/20130609054220/http://wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/mcgowan/warwick-ri-gov-lincoln-chafee-officially-becomes-democrat). By your proposed rule, the party would have told him, "We're glad to have your support but you're a second-class member who can't run for President this year." That's counterproductive.

Third, in the current political situation, the adoption of such a rule would obviously be (and, what really counts, would be widely perceived to be) an anti-Sanders maneuver. Is this your recipe for success in 2020 -- that the party do everything it can to piss off the 13 million people who voted for Bernie in the Democratic primaries? Most of us, following Bernie's lead, went on to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. I don't know whether Bernie will run in 2020, but if he does, and if the DNC were to adopt your idea, then he'd have no alternative but to run as an independent or third-party candidate. That's precisely what we don't want. It would virtually guarantee a Republican victory. Even if Bernie decided not to run, millions of his supporters would take note that the party machinery was pushing them away. That's not a great recruitment strategy.

Finally, your proposal is profoundly undemocratic. The voters are perfectly capable of noting a candidate's political history and deciding how much weight to give it. (In the first debate, IIRC, the moderator asked Chafee about this very point.) You personally believe that no one should be nominated who doesn't meet a particular set of criteria? Fine, vote that way, advocate that way, engage with the people who disagree with you, and let the voters decide. Don't try to force your views on the electorate by resorting to the DNC, whose members are not popularly elected but are chosen by people who are chosen by people who are chosen in obscure party contests that garner very little participation.

As an aside, I'm against the "natural born citizen" requirement in the Constitution. Jennifer Granholm ought to be eligible to run. If someone thinks she shouldn't be President because she was born in Canada and didn't live in the U.S. until she was two years old, that's another example of an argument that can be made to the voters. Of course, there's no immediate prospect of amending the Constitution in that regard, but the DNC shouldn't emulate the mistake of imposing its own views.

[stevenleser]

111. Nope, its a great idea. You want to be our partys standard bearer? Great.

Be part of our Party for at least a mere 4 years.

And no it would not exclude anyone from any state. That’s balderdash. For instance, here is the link to sign up for the Vermont Democratic Party. http://www.vtdemocrats.org Filling out that form makes you eligible 4 years hence.

[Jim Lane]

113. Online signup is not voter registration

I'll hazard a guess that only a tiny fraction of Vermont Democrats (defined as resident of Vermont who habitually vote for Democratic candidates) are Vermont Democrats (defined as people who've gone to the party website and signed up for whatever it is you sign up for). I'll further guess that some Republicans have signed up just so they can find out what the state party is sending out.

BTW, note on your own link that the Vermont Democratic Party touts an "Autumn Harvest 2017" event, featuring Keith Ellison, Pat Leahy, Bernie Sanders, and Congressman Peter Welch. Maybe they know something you don't know?

Thus, I stand by my first argument, along with the three that you didn't address.

[stevenleser]

115. I never said it was. Its another way to join the party. Nt

[OnDoutside]

112. It is not unreasonable for someone standing on behalf of the Democratic Party, to reflect the ideals

of the Democratic Party, and not to continually kick the Party in the nuts, every chance they get. I think that's one of the biggest problems with the current set up.

I do agree about Granholm. Trump is a "natural born citizen", and look how that turned out !!!

[Jim Lane]

116. I'm a Democrat and a small-d democrat, so I say leave it up to the people.

There will be differences of opinion about which candidates "reflect the ideals of the Democratic Party...." Of the five candidates in the last cycle, each of them had detractors who contended that he or she did not reflect those ideals.

Voters can look at each candidate's record in office (if any), other experience, stated positions, and, if they so choose, party registration history. In my state's primary, I voted for the candidate who I thought best reflected the ideals of the Democratic Party. Other people in my state, applying the same test, chose a different candidate. I'm comfortable with that process (even though, in this instance, my candidate lost). We do not need the DNC to tell us what to do.

[yuiyoshida]

105. I left there a long time ago... maybe it was the racist

Posting I saw. I figured if they can use that word for a black person, they can certainly use a similar word for Asian person.

I don't need that crap at all, so I left. I was only interested in playing my music there but I left because I figured I would be a target next. And yes, I was GLAD I DID.

[FSogol]

18. I have more respect for the scummy posters at FR. At least they aren't pretending to be Democrats.

[Gothmog]

44. Agreed

[bettyellen]

4. Anything good for Dems losses then off- so fuck em if they hate Dems.

[Eliot Rosewater]

5. Does this mean they support Nancy Pelosi now and dont think she is too old?

[JI7]

7. Pelosi is a woman

[Eliot Rosewater]

8. If only that was the only reason they hate her.

[Lil Missy]

141. No, it only applies to men.

[greatauntoftriplets]

6. Oy.

[longship]

9. My prediction: Bernie won't run in 2020.

BTW, I voted for Bernie in the primary, and gladly Hillary in the GE.

And fuck douche bag JPRs.

[JI7]

11. Sanders has no chance of winning the nomination unless

Only ones running against him are jim webb types.

Because of his record on gun control .

[Demsrule86]

136. He would still lose. He has angered many Democrats of late with some unwise comments .

They are the primary voters.

[MineralMan]

12. The difference between them and me is

That I would have voted for and worked for Bernie had he been the nominee. I am a Democrat. I vote for Democratic candidates.

[Demsrule86]

137. Me too...MM.

[shanny]

13. still obssessing i see

[stevenleser]

16. Yep, they are still obsessing. nt

[NanceGreggs]

21. You haven't been here very long ...

... so perhaps you are unaware that DUers often comment on political sites that are populated by RWers posing as "progressive Democrats".

It has nothing to do with "obsession". It is merely an observance of pointing-and-laughing at such sites, which is a time-honoured tradition here.

[G_j]

59. Are we talking about

the same DU? I don't remember that being much of thing that DUer's often commented on. In the old days it was Free Republic that drew any interest. What you are talking about is a far newer phenomenon. I wouldn't want a newbie to get the wrong impression. But of course it really doesn't matter, DU is what it is today, being the sum total of those who post here. But no, it's not some kind of tradition here.

[NanceGreggs]

61. DU has always commented on FR ...

... and other like sites - and laughed at them. They still do.

[ProfessorGAC]

67. Got Your Back On This

I never heard of FR until I started on DU in 2001. So DU has essentially always been this way!

[G_j]

74. That is what I was saying

Sorry if it was unclear. Yes, FR was the one site that was discussed here. That is a RW site. There were no 'right wingers pretending to be progressives'. The infighting, or questioning other's progressive creds was pretty much limited to the many Nader threads.

[NanceGreggs]

119. You've forgotten about ...

... sites like Progressive Independent and Old Elm Tree.

There was a rule at one time about "sites that shall not be named" on DU. But people here discussed those sites, and those who posted there, without actually "naming the name" - but nonetheless making it clear what and who they were talking about.

[G_j]

125. Actually,

You are right about that, I had forgotten about OET, I guess it was more of a short lived interest. It had escaped my memory, so I stand corrected. At any rate, the focus seems more sustained and prevalent these days. Just an observation, or just an over all impression

[Wellstone ruled]

108. Agree!

[m-lekktor]

14. no, the "jpr nutjobs" posted a video by somebody called "the humanist report" who interprets this.

The JPR folks themselves didn't make this interpretation they just posted the video.

[stevenleser]

15. 5 recs and two comments both agreeing. And I remember Segami who is the poster, he agrees.

This is completely in line with JPR thinking.

[Jim Lane]

47. And when he posted it before, some of us disagreed

I realize it fits your polemical purposes to say or imply that everyone on JPR agrees with everyone that's posted. That's certainly not true as to the California primary.

DU and JPR are both discussion boards. That means that differing opinions are posted on each. Obviously, each board has its tendencies, and each at times has tendencies so strong as to amount to an uninformative echo chamber, but neither is a complete monolith.

[stevenleser]

52. You were in a small minority then as now over there

I realize it fits within your polemical purposes to try to normalize JPR and thus your participation there but the site is a cesspool of whack job propaganda and anti DNC paranoid conspiracy theories.

I feel the same way about JPR that I do about Trump. Both are disgusting, fetid, off ramps of the American political scene that should never be normalized and should be mocked often.

And the comparison with Trump works well since a fair number of JPR folks either voted for him directly or enabled him by voting Stein, writing in Bernie or staying home.

They own Trump.

Everything he does and says they own.

[Jim Lane]

117. I love that insidious word "normalize". Brilliant misdirection-by-framing.

The word "normalize" often has a disparaging connotation that something bad is being made to seem normal, i.e., that the evil of it is being disguised or muted. For example, we say that Trump is normalizing racism.

In that context, you accuse me of having "polemical purposes to try to normalize JPR and thus your participation there...." Wrong. I choose to post my opinions in various places online. That's not behavior that I have to "normalize" in the sense of catering to your prejudices or anyone else's. Therefore, I have no such purpose as the one you ascribe to me.

If you don't like JPR, fine, don't post there, put me on Ignore on DU, whatever. I have strong reason to believe that I won't ever persuade you of anything anyway.

[Demsrule86]

135. JPR is full of Stein and stay home kind of voters who helped elect Donald Trump.

I lurked and saw one poster who I will not name who posts here as well who said they would vote for Trump if it looked like Hillary was ahead, so JPR is not 'another' site...they are a Trump supporting site full of Democratic Party haters, Republicans, Green morons and Russians no doubt. They are dead to me. Some may pretend to be die-hard Sen. Sanders fans who knows or even cares...because it they were true supporters they would have voted for Hillary Clinton as Sen. Sanders asked them to. People like them are why women will be subject to approval from a boss if they want birth control and poor women just won't be able to get it, Dreamers may be sent off to die in many cases, Gorsuch in on the court, Trump is president and our environment is being poisoned and thousands are dead in Puerto Rico no doubt. There were 33, 000 votes in three states...that stopped Hillary from winning;these moronic voters had an impact...so these folks can fuck off. They disgust me.

[pnwmom]

17. And a bunch of nut jobs agree with the poster, including some who vow not to vote for a Democrat.n/t

[MrsCoffee]

45. Lol.

[emulatorloo]

107. Sorry, we can all read the JPR thread, so you can't just make up stuff about it

and expect folks to give you a free pass.

[Demsrule86]

138. Right but it is what they think so...how is that different.

[WhiteTara]

19. bwahahahaha

I remember when California moved their date to the end of the season so they could be the decider. Now they want back in the game because by their turn in the current cycle, they are just the anointer.

[StevieM]

20. They referred to Kamala Harris as a DINO. That is what they did to HRC.

Last edited Sun Oct 8, 2017, 01:15 AM - Edit history (1)

She didn't struggle to win support from the left because people thought she would be more of Obama and Biden. She struggled because during the primaries she was turned into Joe Lieberman.

Now were are hearing that Kamala, who supports single-payer health care, is also just barely a Democrat. This is just ridiculous.

[stevenleser]

34. Their main issue with her is that she isnt Bernie. Anyone who looms as a challenge to

some fantasy (in their eyes) 2020 run by him is a DINO or whatever other evil thing you can think of.

I dont know if you remember the guy who was going to challenge Bernie for the Democratic nomination in Vermont for senator. JPR types immediately researched everything about the guy to try to discredit him.

It turns out the guy did have some serious flaws, but their kneejerk reaction to try to smear him was eye-opening.

[KitSileya]

54. It's a definite lolsob that that they now want to anoint Bernie Sanders for 2020

When they howled and gnashed their teeth at what they perceived as the anointing and "coronating" of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Hypocrisy much?

[betsuni]

63. Extreme LOL.

Feel like referring to certain anointed/coronated male politicians as "Him" and "Himself" as JPR idiots referred to HRC as "Her" and "Herself" or "She."

[irisblue]

22. Why do you care what another website is doing? And why did you bring it here?

Really, serious ? They created their own happy place, their freaking business, no longer DU business. Their problem, not DUs.

[stevenleser]

25. See NanceGreggs #21 above

This is a political discussion forum.

[NanceGreggs]

23. The posters at JPR ...

... demonstrated last summer that they will believe anything – from HRC dying of at least a dozen diseases, using a body-double at campaign events to hide her feeble physical state, “cheated” at debates with Bernie by using a computer hidden in her podium to feed her answers, etc. They glommed onto PizzaGate like a life-raft, and didn’t let go until they realized how they were being laughed at by people on other political sites.

They swallowed every, single piece of Russian propaganda – and came up with anti-Dem conspiracy theories that made posters on FR look downright sane by comparison.

My contention is that people like JPR posters don’t vote anyway. There is no one pure enough, no one good enough, no one who agrees with them 100% on everything – which is their litmus test.

We’ve all seen nutjobs like this; they find excuses not to vote – “I have to follow my conscience by not voting”, or “I’m sending a message by not voting” – and then they delude themselves into believing they are making a difference by sitting on their asses while watching someone like Trump get elected.

Had Bernie actually been the nominee, guaranteed they would have found reasons NOT to vote for him by the time the general election was held: “He won’t produce his tax returns”, “He lied about being invited to the Vatican by the pope” – Bernie would have eventually been found wanting – thus providing an excuse to not vote at all.

JPR is a classic example of how the easily-led can be oh, so EASILY led. They’re really no different than Republicans in that regard. They are intellectually incapable of applying common sense to the ludicrous conspiracy theories they hear, and are equally incapable of voting in their own best interest – traits they share with dumbass Republicans.

[stevenleser]

26. Very well said. I forgot about pizzagate.

The one defining characteristic of the JPR folks is their profound dishonesty once they have latched onto a cause either pro or anti. If they support you, they will overlook any problem with you or your candidacy no matter how significant.

If they are against you, they will inflate issues out of proportion, distort the truth or simply make things up or run with things other people make up, like pizzagate.

Anyone who believed pizzagate should never show their faces in public again.

These are the same folks who accused a number of Jewish posters here at DU, including myself, of antisemitism, this despite the fact that they aren’t Jewish and have never shown an interest in Jewish issues at all before Bernie.

[NanceGreggs]

38. Exactly.

JPR's instant embracing of anything anti-Dem/anti-HRC was nothing less than astonishingly revealing.

They not only promoted every ridiculous Russian-generated conspiracy theory, but actually created their own - which were even more ridiculous than anything the Russians could come up with.

[NanceGreggs]

42. "The one defining characteristic of the JPR folks ...

... is their profound dishonesty once they have latched onto a cause either pro or anti. If they support you, they will overlook any problem with you or your candidacy no matter how significant."

Sounds a lot like Republican voters who demonstrate the same traits.

[Willie Pep]

101. People there were posting stuff from Far Right websites.

Including, as you said, Pizzagate conspiracy theories. There was also a lot of "Bernie is a traitor for supporting Hillary in the general election" which I saw a lot of on other left-wing sites too.

2016 showed me that the left is as prone to crank thinking as the right. They really came out of the woodwork last year.

[Tavarious Jackson]

24. I remember them calling for California to be moved up?!!

They said California would save Bernie and it should have been first... Wowza.

[stevenleser]

27. They are all over the place because they are defined by nationalistic like or hate of people and

groups.

Orwell wrote about the concept in his "Notes on Nationalism". You can read about it here: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-prize/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/

Here are the first four paragraphs:

Somewhere or other Byron makes use of the French word longeur, and remarks in passing that though in England we happen not to have the word, we have the thing in considerable profusion. In the same way, there is a habit of mind which is now so widespread that it affects our thinking on nearly every subject, but which has not yet been given a name. As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation – that is, a single race or a geographical area. It can attach itself to a church or a class, or it may work in a merely negative sense, against something or other and without the need for any positive object of loyalty.

By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’.[1] But secondly ­– and this is much more important – I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

So long as it is applied merely to the more notorious and identifiable nationalist movements in Germany, Japan, and other countries, all this is obvious enough. Confronted with a phenomenon like Nazism, which we can observe from the outside, nearly all of us would say much the same things about it. But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one’s own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White Race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted.

It is also worth emphasizing once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist – that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating – but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the up-grade and some hated rival is on the down-grade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also – since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself – unshakeably certain of being in the right.
.
.
.

[mcar]

28. So much for "moving on"

Those types are stuck in the same old song.

[stevenleser]

30. Yup, one trick ponies. nt

[Jim Lane]

49. Yes, it's a good thing everyone on DU has moved on.

It's a good thing no one on DU ever criticizes Bernie Sanders or Nina Turner or Our Revolution etc.

[stevenleser]

58. Attacking people for present tense actions has nothing to do with whether we have moved on

The three folks you mention are committing bad acts in the present.

The complaints JPR folks have about Democrats might be present tense, but they are insane as you yourself have noted in this case.

[mcar]

77. Exactly!

[Jim Lane]

118. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

You write that "JPR folks ... are insane as you yourself have noted in this case."

I have noted nothing of the kind.

See, I have this weird idea that there are subjects on which reasonable people can disagree. Not everyone who disagrees with me is insane, or is pursuing a hidden agenda, or is being paid by George Soros/David Brock/the Koch brothers/the Russians or whoever the villain du jour is.

It may be that online boards tend to encourage this kind of absolutism -- the idea that "my position is so obviously right that no one could possibly disagree with me on the merits and therefore everyone who disagrees with me must be doing so for some deplorable reason." I personally do not subscribe to that generalization. In a specific instance, there may be reason to believe that someone is posting because of, for example, a personal financial interest, but that kind of accusation always requires evidence.

[stevenleser]

124. Im using your own word. Thats where I got it from in the first place. nt

[Jim Lane]

131. You appear to have your facts wrong once again.

In this thread, you were the first person to use the word "insane". I used it only to quote and refute your statement.

In the JPR thread you linked, and in the JPR thread I linked, I did not use the word "insane" (nor did anyone else).

I don't remember ever using it in the way we're discussing here. You unhelpfully fail to provide a link, so I can't check your assertion.

It's possible that, in a moment of weakness that I've now forgotten, I intemperately said that someone disagreeing with me about something must be insane. If so, I was wrong, and I apologize to whomever I maligned.

But I think it more likely that your assertion is simply false.

[stevenleser]

32. Let's take your two incorrect contentions one at a time...

You contend that neither of the following is said in my link

1. Sanders is the only chance to beat Trump in 2020
and
2. They continue to infer that Sanders was cheated in 2016.

Lets dispense with #2 right off the bat. The title of the post to which I linked is, drumroll please...

"Democrats Are ALREADY Trying to RIG the 2020 Primaries Against Bernie" - which is a clear implication that this was already done in 2016.

Regarding #1, lets take three sentences of the paragraph in question:

"Bernie Sanders may very well run for president again in 2020, and knowing that he now has the same level of name recognition Hillary Clinton had in 2016, Democrats are terrified at the prospect of him winning."

and

"As a result, they’re already trying to rewrite rules in an effort to give their preferred candidate—Kamala Harris—an advantage"

and
.
.
.

"If this is a sign of what’s to come from Democrats, then 2020 might turn out to be a repeat of 2016, and we all know what that means… four more years of Donald J.Trump."
---------------------------------------------------------
Game, set, match.

[NanceGreggs]

41. JPR posters are NOT Democrats ...

... nor are they really Bernie supporters.

They are simply lazy-assed non-voters looking for any excuse not to vote for anyone, ever, under any circumstances - while holding themselves out as people who make a difference by NOT participating in politics beyond posting on websites.

JPR posters are of no consequence - they're just too damned stupid to know it.

[Hoyt]

31. States have been jockeying for revelance in primaries for decades.

[stevenleser]

36. Sanders and hatred of the DNC is everything for these folks. Everything has to be about

one or both of those things.

[JI7]

40. the anti DNC thing was pushed by the Russians

you had those on the right and those who claimed to be the left repeating the same attacks .

[lovemydogs]

122. It's a year after the election so, why are some obsessing?

A. Sanders lost the primary. Clinton lost the General. 2016 is over.
So, why are some so obsessed with whatever sanders is doing and saying now?
He most likely is not going to run in 2020. If some people dream of it, let them. It's not a big deal and not gonna happen.

B. Hillary lost. Some people need to move past this and go forward. My dad died a year ago. I needed to accept this and move on with my life. So do Hillary's supporters.

C. Looking for scapegoats is a waste of time. There were many reasons she lost. A big one was that alot of people did not like or trust her. It does not matter about the trashing being unfair. It worked and she lost. It is more useful to make sure whoever is the nominee this time to not let the candidate be demonized.

D. The ongoing Pearl Clutching over Sanders running as democrat is not important.
Trump was not a republican until he ran as one in 2016. Both parties allow this. It is not smart to make a political party into an exclusive club. It is allowed. So what.

[GoCubsGo]

43. I doubt the Dems will make the same mistake again.

If he does run, they're not going to let him run as a Dem again--unless, of course, he actually becomes one between now and then. I doubt that will happen. If he runs, he's on his own, and the date of the California primary will be irrelevant.

[ucrdem]

48. Hope not.

Why the heck they went there in the first place I still can't fathom. But I hope we don't get fooled again.

[Jim Lane]

50. Please see my #46 above.

I keep seeing posts like yours. I keep asking for an explanation.

Still waiting.

[Jim Lane]

121. Is further stifling of debates your recipe for victory in 2020?

The three posts you cite are venting spleen against Bernie Sanders but don't come close to answering my question.

You do essay an answer here:

Do you actually believe they're going to let him participate in the 2020 primary debates again, complete with all media attention that comes to participants, should he once again temporarily anoint himself a "Democrat"?

As I've previously noted, he didn't "temporarily anoint himself a 'Democrat'" -- that's another falsehood by the Bernie-bashers. But let's let that pass and turn to the substance.

Suppose Bernie decides to run in the 2020 primary and the DNC goes full-out authoritarian in its exclusionary rule. Before 2016 there was no exclusionary rule at all. The innovation in the 2016 cycle was that the DNC-sanctioned debates would exclude any candidate who dared to participate in a debate that didn't meet with approval from On High. The result -- fewer debates, starting later in the cycle -- was criticized by many people. In particular, because Clinton started with a big advantage in support and name recognition, and because debates are generally recognized as being more likely to help the trailing candidate(s), the exclusionary rule, imposed by a former Clinton campaign chair, was criticized as showing favoritism to Clinton. (Yes, I know some people rejected that criticism and said that curbing debates was objectively good. What's undeniable is that not everyone shared that view and that the new rule played a role in alienating people who supported O'Malley or Sanders.)

Now let's consider a hypothetical Sanders 2020 candidacy with the DNC having adopted your suggestion and barred him from the debates entirely. What would be the effect on the primaries, on the party's image with independents, and on Bernie's supporters? Above all, what would be the effect on the prospects for the party's eventual nominee in the general election?

I think it self-evident that the effect would be disastrous.

Obama beat McCain by 10 million votes. Obama beat Romney by 6 million votes. Clinton beat Trump by 3 million votes. Should the Democratic Party enter the next election by telling Bernie's 13 million voters that their candidate won't even be allowed to participate in the nomination process? Sorry, but I don't see spotting the Republicans 13 million votes (or a big chunk thereof) as a winning strategy.

[Tiggeroshii]

56. If california had their primary in march, Jeb would've gotten the

Nomination.

[JI7]

64. it was over for Jeb long before March .

[ellie]

57. They shouldn't worry,

he'll have an opportunity to lose in 2020, too.

[Lil Missy]

66. He's not going to run as a Democrat again. Not after trashing Dem's constantly, can't fool us again.

[DFW]

68. The more I hear about near 80 somethings as candidates in 2020

The more I think Howard Dean is right in urging us to recruit candidates in their 30s and 40s to gear themselves up to run for leadership positions.

I don't mind elder statesmen (and women) being there to offer advice based on experience, but I want someone younger, more open, more dynamic to lead us. There will be missteps. There always are. But missteps are not limited to young presidents. ALL new presidents make mistakes. But some new presidents make ONLY mistakes, such as the one we have now, and we don't need any more of that. Justin Trudeau in Canada, Macron in France, they will mess up. But they rode in on a wave of hope and with a mandate. They can change and learn, and get their countries behind them. Trump rode in on a wave of fear and hate and no mandate at all. No one who says "I have the solutions" ever does. That's why Republicans always disappoint. It's why Sanders would have. It's why Biden probably would, although I consider him as close to an exception to the rule as there possibly could be.

As for moving the California primary being a deliberate attack on Bernie Sanders, that is divorced enough from reality as to qualify promoters of the notion for treatment for paranoia. Too bad for them if their obsession with Sanders is such that they see every move made on the political chessboard in a context of whether or not it will directly affect their own narrow cause.

[stevenleser]

86. Agreed, See #'s 69 and 83 below. nt

[delisen]

69. So bored with the "too old" otherizing

Is it possible for human societies to exist without creating out groups?

"Us good, them bad." "We have rights, they don't." Seems like such a primitive method of group binding.

I want to live in a democracy where people are seen as individuals, not just as members of a cohort, but as persons with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I know many people in their 80s whom I consider fit to run and carry out the duties of the presidency. I know many people in their 40s whom I consider unfit to run and to carry out the duties of the presidency.

It is a four year office, not a kingship or an empire position.

Should we go against our centuries old trend and start passing legislation narrowing the pool from which we draw candidates in a democracy? Talk about moving backwards.

Authoritarianism is on the rise worldwide, and it will influence what we do and how we think- but that authoritarianism, is for the most part to be resisted

Sanders and Clinton were not "pushing" anything in 2016 by being of their respective ages.

[stevenleser]

83. Sorry but that is baloney

At some point we would all agree that beyond that age is too old to run for President as a non-incumbent. I think past age 75 is a pretty good point to say that.

Just campaigning for President as a non-incumbent is 10-14 months straight of 80-90 hour work weeks, much of that involves frequent travel, sometimes multiple plane flights in a day. I think most people above 50 would find that prospect daunting. Heck above 40 and that would exact a serious toll on your body. You have to stay sharp and upbeat throughout. A testy response to a reporter at the end of a long day could have a negative impact on your chances. Appearing tired or confused also could hurt you. I’ve worked many 80-90 hour work weeks in my life, including back to back for several weeks I a row. Anyone raising an objection to the questioning of the idea of 75+ year olds running for President has clearly never done that.

[delisen]

88. No we do not all agree. Anecdotal stories

of people who over 40 who might find the prospect of very long work weeks daunting surely are not taking into account the many 40+ high achieving persons who do just that.

Your personal experience with working long hours does not mean everyone else's experience is the same.

The point however is that people are individuals. Individuals vary in their abilities. Individuals vary in their fitness. Individuals vary in their judgement and wisdom.


In our modern Democratic Party we do not need a new generation of self-appointed party bosses deciding who should be allowed to run for office.

If you have a personal prejudice against a candidate or a reason for not voting for that candidate based upon fact or policy, the solution is simple:do not vote for that person.

[stevenleser]

89. Now you are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing and I can prove it.

Should a 120 year old run for President? No. See, we all agree at some point.

Let's see you argue that.

None of what you wrote changes the basic facts. Above 75 is just too old to run for President as a non-incumbent.

[delisen]

95. You have no facts to back up your assertion

about individual 75 year olds not running for presidency.

You do however, have opinions. Each of us is entitled to have opinions, whether based upon facts or pre-judgements.

As for 120 year olds eligible to be president - I believe that set is empty for now......

[stevenleser]

97. By all means, cite empirical studies about the ability of the elderly to work 80 hour weeks

Then we can have a fact based discussion on the subject.

Absent that, I use common sense.

Empirical data is not required for this discussion.

[stevenleser]

103. Here, I will help you out, here are empirical studies that back me up

A study on the relationships between age, work experience, cognition, and work ability in older employees working in heavy industry
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4305550/

Research on the correlation between work ability and age has been consistently conducted, but mainly in Europe. The results of a study completed at an early stage of this research, which were confirmed in later studies, show that when people reach a certain age, their work ability significantly decreases. According to further research, as workers continue to age, their work ability continues to decrease

Combine the above with this middle aged study on working long hours
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727184/

In this study of middle-aged men and women, working more than 55 hours per week was associated with lower scores on 2 of the 5 tests of cognitive function. Long working hours at baseline were related to poorer performance on the vocabulary test at both baseline and follow-up. Furthermore, long working hours predicted decline in performance on the reasoning test over a 5-year follow-up period. These effects were robust to adjustments for 20 potential confounding factors, such as education, occupational position, physical diseases (cardiovascular dysfunction), psychosocial stress factors, sleep problems, and health risk behaviors.

We found an association between long working hours and decline in the scores for the AH 4-I reasoning test and associations with the Mill Hill vocabulary tests at baseline and at follow-up. The AH 4-I test is also recognized as a measure of fluid intelligence, that is, executive function or “meta” cognitive ability as it integrates other cognitive processes such as memory, attention, and speed of information processing. Fluid intelligence is seen to be intrinsically associated with information processing and involves short-term memory, abstract thinking, creativity, ability to solve novel problems, and reaction time. It is the aspect of intelligence most affected by aging, biologic factors, diseases, and injuries (52, 53). Fluid intelligence usually increases up to the mid-20s, after which it gradually declines until the 60s when a more rapid decline takes place.

-------------------------------------------------
Combining the two yields: "working more than 55 hours per week was associated with lower scores on 2 of the 5 tests of cognitive function. Long working hours at baseline were related to poorer performance on the vocabulary test at both baseline and follow-up. Furthermore, long working hours predicted decline in performance on the reasoning test over a 5-year follow-up period. when people reach a certain age, their work ability significantly decreases. According to further research, as workers continue to age, their work ability continues to decrease. Fluid intelligence usually increases up to the mid-20s, after which it gradually declines until the 60s when a more rapid decline takes place"

[phleshdef]

126. Average life expectancy and statistics of common health problems at certain ages are pretty solid.

[delisen]

132. Those stats apply to groups, not individuals

Pre-judging performance of an individual based upon group memberships is prejudice.

Shall we not have individual males run for the presidency because statistics show that as a group they commit the majority of violent crimes? -or should we treat members of this group as individuals.

Shall we not have individual disabled persons run of the presidency because as a group they have less stamina and a higher premature death rate? -or should we treat members of this group as individuals.

As for solid statistics:

Consider this: A 65 year-old woman has a 50/50 chance of living another 20 years to age 85, according to an online calculator maintained by the Society of Actuaries (SOA). Similarly, a 65 year-old man has a 50/50 chance of living another 17 years to age 82.

This information might cause you some confusion if you've read that the average life expectancy in the U.S. is currently 81 for women and 76 for men. But these are life expectancies from birth -- they don't apply to someone who's already reached age 65.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/two-common-mistakes-we-make-thinking-about-how-long-we-might-live/

Additionally people who have led active and stimulating lives and have had a lifetime of the best medical care available (which many politicians have had) are more likely to remain healthy in older age.

Konrad Adenauer, serving as Chancellor of West Germany after World War II, from age 73 into his eighties, certainly did more for Germany in the years in which he held that office, than the much younger Adolf Hitler, did in his years of power.

[phleshdef]

133. That doesn't even begin to become a refutation.

If Bernie wants to run, let him run. There is still a good chance he won't be able to keep up with that kind of campaign schedule in 4 years. I feel the same way about Biden and he is my guy.

[Jim Lane]

123. I agree with delisen about the case-by-case approach.

Consider the plausible possibility that the Republican nominee in 2020 will be Mike Pence, who will turn 61 during the campaign. If the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton (73 by Election Day), Bernie Sanders (79 by Election Day), or Joe Biden (turning 78 later that month), I will vote for the septuagenarian over the buoyantly youthful Pence.

I agree with you that age is one factor to be considered. As of right now, Biden, Clinton, and Sanders all have the mental acuity to be President, but it's possible for any of them to exhibit a notable decline over the next couple years. One can also legitimately try to project how well a particular candidate would stand up to four years in office, and age is also a factor there. So, while I wouldn't make age an absolute bar, there are reasons for the party to pass over those three in the next cycle.

[Demsrule86]

139. I don't...you have to consider electability. And I just don't think an 80 year old candidate is

electable. I would have serious reservations voting for someone that age because of Alzheimer's. It can come on quickly at that age.

[Renew Deal]

70. Thats a well known Russian propaganda site

[GaryCnf]

72. Whenever I see someone

Use words/phrases like "nutjobs," "paranoid," and "conspiracy [theorist]" I like to do a 10 second web search to see if the underlying "conspiracy theory" is held by people who can't be discounted with labels . . . you know, people whose integrity can't be impugned by anyone who has an ounce of integrity themselves.

In my 10 second search, I found this month-old story in Politico written by Gabriel Debenedetti from the Center for Public Integrity.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/10/california-could-jolt-2020-presidential-elections-242530?lo=ap_b1

The earlier primary could benefit at least two potential presidential contenders from California — U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti — while jeopardizing the prospects of other candidates who will struggle to raise enough early money to compete in expensive media markets in the nation’s most populous state.

“In all probability, the winner of the California primary would be the nominee,” said Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chairman from South Carolina.

While acknowledging that “a lot of this rationale this far in advance just is completely wrong,” Fowler said: “The implications for the flow of the winnowing process [of candidates] is very significant in moving California.”

Is it premature to assign "Nominate Kamala Harris" as the motive for moving the California primary? Undoubtedly true.

Is it undeniable even now that Kamala Harris would, if she runs, be given a head start that will cripple the primary efforts of other would-be nominees before the race has ever begun? Also undoubtedly true.

Is this OP nothing but more Bernie-bashing?

I leave that for the rest of you to decide.

[stevenleser]

79. Almost a nice try, but you left out key points

The question isn’t whether a state being moved up in the process might be good for someone from that state.

The question is, whether it is a DNC conspiracy to do so. That is where the nutjob conspiracy theory comes in.

Since the legislature of each state and not the DNC controls when their primary is held, the original point of my original post stands.

You wasted the time you spent researching because you researched the wrong thing.

[GaryCnf]

90. Just re-read the OP

And to make sure cut and pasted it into MS Word and searched for "DNC" and "Democratic National Committee" . . .

NOPE, not there.

You posted an excerpt that says nothing more than what EVERYONE not obsessed with bashing Sanders acknowledges, i.e., that the people behind moving the California primary know RIGHT NOW, as does everyone else, that the move will obviously benefit one candidate over all others and that it will not be well-received.

From that vast pool of people who have acknowledged that truth, you denigrated only those who are on your enemies list.

Transparent . . . old . . . sad

[stevenleser]

91. I dont need to reread it, I wrote it. And I know exactly what is implied by the JPR post

Those folks have a history. Thats what you should be researching so that you understand what the OP is about.

[GaryCnf]

93. You have a history as well

Should I be researching that?

Will that give me a better idea what the OP is about?

It might.

[stevenleser]

94. LOL, JPR Folks have accused me of just about everything, so go ahead.

My favorite was when the JPR types accused me of antisemitism, being that I am Jewish. I am not the only Jewish DUer to whom that accusation was made, either.

[GaryCnf]

100. Gee, that sounds a lot like

the folks who preach to me about "racism on the left" when I'm black.

Welcome to the club.

[GaryCnf]

73. By the way

It's just a little ironic to see so many people who threw Kamala Harris under the bus for joining hands with Bernie Sanders to introduce the Senate version of single payer, Medicare for All (you know, back when introducing Medicare for All was the raison du jour for attacking Bernie), acting like they were always behind her.

[OilemFirchen]

75. There are posters on this thread advocating for Kamala Harris?

Be back in ten.

[OilemFirchen]

76. I get bupkis.

And I even had time to dump a load. Just like you.

[stevenleser]

82. You also missed a critical point in this post as a responder pointed out

I don’t see anyone advocating for Kamala here.

[emulatorloo]

96. We can all read this thread, so you can't just make up stuff about it and get a free pass

As OilemFirchen pointed out, no fevered advocacy in this thread for Harris

[stevenleser]

98. Yep. And when that persons misdirection failed, they made a not so veiled threat against me

above. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9687271

[emulatorloo]

99. Oh yeah, I definitely noticed that part.

[GaryCnf]

102. How is that a threat?

You say I should research JPR posters history to learn where they are coming ftom and I ask whether I should do the same thing regarding your history to learn where you are coming from.

[stonecutter357]

78. K&R

[NurseJackie]

80. Ha!! :-D

[NurseJackie]

81. The JPR nutjobs can go fuck themselves!

[sheshe2]

84. Priceless!

[Cary]

85. Indeed

They are useless.

[NastyRiffraff]

87. The JPR nutcases are still under the illusion

that EVERYTHING is all about Bernie. It never has been, and still isn't. Sometimes moving a primary is just...moving a primary. Any state can do that and Bernie is irrelevant.

[BannonsLiver]

120. I predicted exactly that when it was announced

These people are so predictable, and irrational.

[Ysabel]

127. damn this thread sure was a hell of a way to find out that Jim has died...

fucking hellish...

[Blue_Tires]

128. They hate democracy, no big surprise here

[RandySF]

129. Did anyone complain when it was held February, 2008?

[mercuryblues]

130. Why would the Democratic primary

be of interest to Independents?

[Demsrule86]

134. The JPR people were doomed to disappointment...because if Sen. Sanders runs,

he won't win in 20. There is just not enough support among Democrats...a small vocal progressive minority, many not Democrats, is all. He is great in the Senate. I am thankful for that.

[Lil Missy]

140. First, Sanders has no chance of winning the 2020 election. Second, who gives a shit what JPR thinks?

[revmclaren]

143. K&R...

[Gothmog]

144. California needs to have a voice in the nomination process

I have no problem with California moving its primary up

Have the JPR people complained about California requiring candidates to file tax returns to get on the ballot?