The Week (opinion): If Bernie Sanders wins, centrist liberals are morally obligated to support him

[LiberalElite]

http://theweek.com/articles/577927/bernie-sanders-wins-centrist-liberals-are-morally-obligated-support

-snip-
In modern electoral politics, moderate and centrist Democrats are well-known for browbeating leftists with the lesser-evil argument. Democrats might not be particularly concerned about, say, child poverty, but they're still better than Republicans on just about any issue you care to name. Obama might drone strike American citizens, but at least he doesn't start full-blown wars of aggression that kill hundreds of thousands of people.
-snip-

[merrily]

1. Call me crazy: I'd like to get through the primary before dwelling on the general.

We support a candidate who is a bigger underdog with more decks of more kinds stacked against him than anything I can recall seeing or reading about before in my life.

I am focused on that, not the general and not who his VP candidate is going to be after he wins the general.

[LiberalElite]

2. It's just fun

to imagine the shoe being on the other foot for the corporatists.

[merrily]

3. For you, and that's fine. For me, though, it's as I said in my reply.

[LiberalElite]

4. ok i get it - and I was only speaking for myself anyway nt

[merrily]

5. That's fine and certainly your right. I was speaking only for myself, too!

[Cosmic Kitten]

6. YES YES YES!

It is a moral obligation!

And we need to push this issue continually.
We need to push back against the 3rd Way
lesser of two evils claptrap.

The fight for Bernie's nomination needs
to open up on several fronts.

The Hillary supporters and the
fence sitters need to see the corner
they have painted themselves into.

Rock on

[still_one]

7. All Democrats would be morally obligated to support him if he wins the nomination

[merrily]

10. Deciding how you to use your own vote is immoral? Wow.

The OP is making a point about hypocrisy if Hillary supporters, who have been wearing out the loyalty oath crap for about a year now, fail to vote for the nominee.

I cannot agree that exercising your right to vote as you wish is immoral, no matter what. Murder is immoral, yes. Exercising your right to vote as you were intended to be able to exercise it has nothing to do with immorality.

Post like that are why I really wish people who don't support Bernie to win the primary would stay the hell out of this group.

[still_one]

11. I was simply responding to the OP. Do you really think I am a disrupter, because I am not

[merrily]

12. I know you were responding to the OP. We all are. And?

If you are not here to support Bernie's winning the primary, you are not here for the purposes of the group. Why is that hard to understand?

Moreover, you are likely to be here to post something the members do not agree with in order to support a candidate other than Bernie, directly or indirectly.

Why is that hard to understand?

[artislife]

14. I don't think you are disrupting. nt

[artislife]

13. hey...Still One deserves better treatment

S/he hasn't said anything offensive and was on topic. I love ya, merrily but this was too hard a press against Still One. It wasn't combative at all.

[merrily]

15. The standard for posting in ths group is not whether an indvidual post is combative or not.

This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group. For detailed information about this group and its purpose, click here.

People who want Hillary to win the primary do not share the interests and viewpoints that are common to those who support Bernie to win the primary.

Also:

The mission of the Bernie Sanders Group is to discuss information and news about the life, career, accomplishments, and current campaign for the Democratic Party's Nomination in 2016 of Bernie Sanders. The Bernie Sanders Group will provide a haven for those members of Democratic Underground who support the Senator Sanders and his policies; to discuss his policy positions, speeches, interviews, and other public appearances; to discuss Senator Sanders 2016 Democratic nomination campaign; and to discuss the causes which Senator Sanders has championed.

The Bernie Sanders Group is not a forum. This group serves as safe haven for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to this group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting, these decisions will be made by the current group hosts. Any and all posts about supporters of other groups will be immediately locked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12805067

What part of the purpose of the group was still one here to promote?

[artislife]

16. Well..okay

This is probably why I have posted less than 10 times in any other group.

I will bow out of this, I probably shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

[merrily]

17. No worries. Still One is one of the more considerate Hillary supporters when posting here.

But, again, being considerate is not the standard for posting in this group.

One of the values of keeping a group to like minded posters is so that one does not divert discussions to the kinds of things one debates in GD or GD: P. Still One's post was a startling (to me) variation of the loyalty oath, which has been a Hillary supporter talking point for about a year now because they assume she will be the eventual nominee. I don't want to debate in this group whether I am immoral if I don't vote for the nominee in the general.


It didn't help either that the day began with a group member getting a bogus and creepy hide because of people who are not group members.

I have less than zero personal problem with still one.

[artislife]

19. Reading this reply and the one to still one

I finally get it.

The purpose of the group is to support the candidate of the group, not to debate. This is so clear. It also makes it easy for me not to feel upset when I go to other groups about what they are posting. They are just supporting their candidate like they should. Fortunately, I had already honored the fact that it was sacred, but this layer adds real clarity to the behavior I saw in the other groups when I thought the poster wasn't being obnoxious.

I had thought the GDP was a place to duke it out, but this underlines it as the only true space for it.

Cool.

[merrily]

20. No, just the opposite. This Group is the ONLY place NOT to present views that do not support Bernie.

It's okay to do that on every other part of the board: Groups for Hillary and many other Democrats, GD, GD: P, LBN, African American Group and on and on.

(sorry about the triple negative in the subject line.)

[artislife]

21. I think that is what I understood

Bernie group= only posts that support Bernie--not to debate Bernie
H group= only posts that support H --not to debate H

They are groups where if your premise it to support the candidate is a given, you can debate how BEST to support the candidate but not how best to not support the candidate.

[merrily]

22. That is not what I said, but I am not sure what is going on or why, so I am tapping out.

Meanwhile, a long sub-thread like this is a good example of why only people who support Bernie for the nomination should be posting here. None of it has a thing to do with the OP.

[artislife]

23. Sorry will reread all your posts on this

I could be just dumb...or sleepy...or something.

[Scuba]

8. Yep.

[jeff47]

9. Yeah, not so sure they'll actually follow their own loyalty oaths.

So many seem to be thrilled at the idea of "Told ya so!!!".

[merrily]

18. No one in real life has ever asked me or anyone I know for a loyalty oath.

It's talking point/message board nonsense.

[jeff47]

24. "loyalty oath" is shorthand for

the posts that say something along the lines of: "Ok, but if Sanders loses, will you vote for Clinton in the general election?"

[merrily]

25. IMO, at least until recently, it's been shorthand for "I assume Hillary is going to be the eventual

nominee, so promise that, no matter what, you'll vote for the eventual nominee of the Party."

Indeed, at first, the question was expressly about Hillary

Poster A; (Insert here any criticism of Hillary.)

Poster B: "Yes, but will you vote for her anyway, if she is the nominee?"

Not infrequently, the quest for the "oath" persisted for quite a few exchanges between Poster A and Poster B.

[jeff47]

26. It was couched as "eventually nominee", but

"Person B" was almost always a Clinton supporter, and from wording that person always assumed she would be the nominee.

[merrily]

28. Yes, that is my recollection.

[virtualobserver]

27. What is a centrist liberal? that term is in the same category as being passionately apathetic....

or maybe a moderate extremist?

[merrily]

29. IOW, you are not fluent in argle bargle. Kudos to you on that "shortcoming."

[Maedhros]

30. Maybe they're like the Progressive Conservatives in Canada? [n/t]

[virtualobserver]

31. So that's why Canada is growing progressively more conservative.