8. It's not "attacking" anyone,
You're splitting hairs. It's not an attack against any
one... it's an attack against Democratic party leaders (and by extension, the Democratic party itself). I think you've forgotten that I'm much smarter than you give me credit for, Ken. I'm not easily confused by word-games or hair-splitting.
and I'm as much a Democrat as you are.
Irrelevant faux-defense. A diversion. Nobody said anything about that at all. Nobody has accused you of not being a Democrat.
It's about pointing out the task the activists and the base have.
No it's not. What you're doing is smearing party leaders with a backhanded insinuation and smear that they're naturally inclined to be pro-war.
The OP is simply calling on us to learn from history.
LOL ... at the risk of repeating myself, I must remind you that I'm much smarter than you give me credit for.
You would agree that we'll have to mobilize against any military intervention Trump would lead, right?
Irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the original post. It's not a defense of anything previously said. This is just an attempt to change the subject by making an obvious statement in which everyone can agree.
I have nothing in common with Sarandon and her choices.
Irrelevant faux-defense. A diversion. Nobody said you did. What I am saying, however, is that this type of attack/smear against Democrats (in the OP and your first follow-up) is the same type of smear that's very similar to the ones used by Sarandon to insinuate that Democrats are "pro-war".
Please stop. Just... stop.
= new reply since forum marked as read