Personally, whoever our candidate is will not have to PROVE JACK SHIT

[Eliot Rosewater]

TO ME to get my vote.

[applegrove]

1. But we have so many excellent candidates.

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. We sure do and NOT a one of them will have to prove ANYTHING to me to get my vote

[applegrove]

5. Except for Gabbard. Her i don't trust. But she won't win. I hope she does do what other russian

supported candidates did and run third party.

[Eliot Rosewater]

7. It is almost as if by design so as to make it harder for all dems to say vote blue no matter who

hmmm

[at140]

28. If Tulsi runs 3rd party, it could hurt

democratic nominee more than Trump. Because there are not many Trump voters who would jump to Tulsi.

[Princetonian]

42. Gabbard bears no responsiblity for that social-media operation. Neither did Bernie in 2016.

Tulsi Gabbard was Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013-2016 after she was elected as the youngest woman in history to Congress. She served honorably in the Iraq War and has been in the National Guard since 2003. She is now in service on military manuvers in Indonesia. Mueller cleared Bernie of any culpability in his indictment. There is zero evidence Gabbard is involved as well..

"Notably, Robert Mueller’s investigation found that Russian social-media bots amplified Sanders’s message during the primary and circulated attacks on Clinton, many of them false. Sanders himself bore no responsibility for that social-media operation..."

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/bernie-sanders-2016-rigged-wont-pledge-support-winner.html

Russians are equal opportunity shit-stirrers. They do not care about party labels which means it is wrong to assume that the candidates they "support" are bad or believe that the ones that they attack (see Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in 2016, also confirmed by Mueller's indictment) are good. Blaming Tulsi or Bernie is missing this point completely.

There's been a smear campaign going on since the second debate:

Harris national press chair Ian Sams tweeted, “Yo, you love Assad!”, a reference to Gabbard’s controversial visit with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in 2017. He then tweeted a link to an insidious February 2 NBC News story, which asserted that Gabbard’s campaign was the beneficiary of Russian bots.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/podcast-tulsi-gabbard-kamala-harris-syria-iraq-870003/

To set the record straight:

".... Gabbard agreed to meet with Trump to make her case for a noninterventionist foreign policy. A few months later, she flew to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad, who is presiding over a brutal civil war; she and he seemed to agree that the United States should not intervene to stop it."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

[JI7]

3. agree

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. Thank YOU

[betsuni]

6. I don't know what the hell people mean by "deserving" votes.

Sounds like a threat.

[Eliot Rosewater]

8. Oh it is, for sure. And it takes a while sometime to hear it out loud but when we do

it is our DUTY as human beings trying to SAVE THE WORLD to call it out LOUDLY

[betsuni]

12. Political Puritans are the worst.

And they get mad if anyone points out their absurd purity tests, the tests their own heroes don't come close to passing.

[Eliot Rosewater]

13. Exactly...Maybe their test should be anyone with prior experience actually being

successful at same.

[blm]

9. ✔️

[mcar]

10. +1000!

[Funtatlaguy]

11. Our nominee becomes the worlds most popular person.

[TwilightZone]

15. No doubt.

There are a lot of people around the world who will be rooting hard for the Dem nominee.

[brer cat]

14. Nor to me.

K&R

[JoeOtterbein]

16. So they don't have to prove they can win?

Then why vote in the primary?

Sorry but we need passion. As my Mom would say, "faint heart will not win fair lady."

So, now you've proved you have passion, but it's misplaced right now against other Dems. Save it for the Repubs. They deserve it more.

[JI7]

18. if they are the nominee it means they won the primary

[JoeOtterbein]

19. But how do they win, if they don't oppose each other?

Just, don't prove "s...". Sounds like a good setup to lose the general.

[JI7]

22. the OP is talking about the general election

when it's the democratic nominee against trump.

[JoeOtterbein]

23. That would make absolute sense if...

...it was posted in GD.

[JI7]

25. it makes complete sense here also

[JoeOtterbein]

29. But the poster is backing Kamala (who I love too), so the post implies...

...that she does not need to earn the nomination. And that implies no Dem candidate needs to "prove" their ability to defeat Trump. I think that is naive at best. Not to mention, a bit early since the first primary is not until Jan.

[JI7]

35. the poster will support whoever will be the nominee even if it's not Harris

[JoeOtterbein]

36. Sounds to me like they are saying we do not need a primary.

So why spend the time having one? Just support whoever wins in the end.

That's no way to take on the Trump/GOP.

[TwilightZone]

39. "whoever our candidate is"

We won't have a candidate until after the primaries are over. The OP is talking about the general election.

[LanternWaste]

43. I'd bet a paycheck you fail to see the irony in your having said that.

"but it's misplaced right now against other Dems..."

[highplainsdem]

17. What did I miss? Who's supposed to prove what at the moment?

Or is this about the continuing teapot-tempests over every slip of the tongue by Joe Biden?

[JI7]

20. it's about things like concern trolls once we get into the GE

asking what the difference is between the republican(in this case, Trump) and the democratic nominee and how it makes no difference and the usual shit .

the goal is to hurt Democrats

[JoeOtterbein]

21. Ha! No. Bernie.

Thanks for the laugh sis/bro!

[highplainsdem]

33. Okay. Joe, I hadn't seen your post that Autumn links to below, in the thread about

another DUer being happy Sanders is being attacked here, because IMO Biden's probably been subjected to more attacks here than any other candidate.

As for who's doing well -- polls are the most reliable data we have on that.

As for whether any candidate who becomes the nominee "has to earn" a Democrat's vote:

Vote Blue No Matter Who.

Vote for our nominee because that nominee won the support of enough Democrats to prove that he or she should be the standard bearer.

If any Democrat doesn't vote blue, no matter who our eventual nominee is, that Democrat is helping Trump and the GOP destroy our country and threaten the world.

[JoeOtterbein]

37. I would think that applies to everyone who takes the time to support any of our Dem candidates.

Why does the poster think anyone in the primary group would not vote for our Dem candidate?

Seems a bit over-reactive to something which is not clearly defined in the post.

[Autumn]

24. Not Biden. Bernie.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287239841#post7

[elleng]

26. Ditto

[guillaumeb]

27. Who is this Jack Shit?

And why is he mentioned so often?

[JoeOtterbein]

30. Growing up in a family with nine kids...

...I was ready to answer; "me"!

[guillaumeb]

31. My family was much smaller.

I am 1 of 7.

But my father was 1 of 15.

[JoeOtterbein]

32. I'd say that's...

...enough!

[Tipperary]

38. He is related to Tad Harsh.

[wildflower]

34. 👍

[NYMinute]

40. I'll vote for any Democratic nominee

Even the ones I dislike.

They are all wayyyyyy better than Trump.

[Gothmog]

41. I will vote for the nominee no matter what