Bernie Sanders is nothing but a heckler
He's the old guy on his porch yelling at the kids cutting his lawn that they; "missed a spot"
He's the guy in the stands that tells you; "if he was the coach, Brady would throw more to Gronk"
No matter the historical significance, he'll happily tell you how he'd have "done it better".
No matter the accomplishment, he'd let you know that; he'd have achieved it quicker and easier".
See, to the hecklers, everything is easy. If you'd just listen to them, you'd shit poop that smelled like rainbow sherbet.
I sat next to a "Bernie" when I watched the Cavs bring the first championship in a major sport in 58 years to Cleveland. He thought it was great that they won, but wouldn't shut up about how they should have run more pick and rolls.
If he had been the coach, the Cavs would have won in 5 instead of 7 games.
It's always so easy from the sidelines.
= new reply since forum marked as read
... including me.
He's simply being criticized for his behavior. How can anyone expect to improve if they're not willing to accept criticism?
according to the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/23/the-top-15-democratic-presidential-candidates-for-2020-ranked-2/
Can't get much better than that!!
Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
And he's the "most popular" Senator too. 
In a way, it reminds me of when someone posts a "Black Lives Matter" image on Facebook, and someone else responds with "ALL Lives Matter".
Also on Facebook, I remember when Cindy Lauper was heckled for her LGBT youth suicide/homelessness activism and fundraising ... but there was someone heckling her and asking why LGBT suicides were "so special" and why wasn't she focused on all homelessness.
It was absurd and ugly then... and it still is today.
even though the poster is correct..
so very helpful
Whataboutism - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › What...
Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
... now, go find the originals and "duly note" those too.
Your selective outage has been duly noted.
and can feel my blood pressure rising as Cadet Bonespurs threatens "action" against Syria, Russia and/or Iran. It sickens me that he's in the position to make these decisions. Syria has been leveled; people are suffering, dying. This transcends "war is a racket" to some level I just can't comprehend. 
If my house has a leaky faucet, I fix ONLY the leak. If there's a squeaky floorboard or an ill-fitting drafty window, I fix ONLY those issues. I don't get angry and start wildly swinging a sledgehammer to attack these problems. I also don't use my home's minor flaws as an excuse to burn down my entire house. It would be foolish of me to burn down my own house in spite, or in frustration, or out of malice.
All I'm saying is that if he genuinely has the "best interests" of the Democratic party in mind... he's doing it wrong.
condemned so he could take the title to it. All with you saying, Hey, wait a second, this is a good house, quit lying about my house for your own gain! 
Great analogy, NJ. 
... when trying to convince someone to give up their property at a rock-bottom price... they intentionally and deceptively undervalue it and nag about every perceived flaw... they exaggerate the problems... not to HELP the property-owner, not to be fair to the owner, but to maximize the benefit for themselves.
I guess the property-owner analogy works as well as the sports analogy. It certainly makes sense to me.
Oh, you! HA! That makes me laugh!
... I see what you're doing. Screw that!
offered to buy me a star. I thanked them and said I'd buy one, but meh. Why? I haven't been on since then and knew as soon as I logged on today, I'd see Bernie-bashing threads dominating GD. I wasn't wrong. 
Oh, well, I guess all good things must come to an end. But yes, it is sad.
using the ' ' to mock. Do you all get together to coordinate these things?
Adorable.
252. I guess chasing away Ken Burch wasn't enough
Well that's not a very nice thing to say about me. I don't attack you personally. Why attack me?
It's also an odd thing to accuse me of. He made a big public announcement MONTHS ago that he had added me to his "ignore" list. This means he cannot see any of my posts, replies, threads or subthreads. He wasn't "chased away" by me... I am invisible to him. So, if he has actually chosen to leave DU permanently, then it's because of some reason OTHER than me.
How does anyone know for sure what "others" will or won't be doing? It's "anonymous" ... remember?
Well done!
And... if I'm reading it correctly, we can logically presume that he clearly understood his peril and that he had ample warning, but chose to continue doing the same things that brought him to the brink anyway?
Thanks for the update and factual info. It's good to have the whole story rather than incomplete and cherry-picked info that can be used as a basis for an unfair personal attack on me.
Your intro paragraph adds some historical perspective and background context as well. It's really unclear why that user would come-at-me like that... totally unprovoked. Oh well, it's over now. Thanks for filling in the missing details and giving your perspective on things.
#BeLikeKeith
#VoteDemocratic
that happen in real life.
521 PAGES OMG OUTRAGE. WORLDWIDE TOUR. 
The brick post, cheered..reced and hundreds of enthusiastic responses. Then when she was called the C word cheered and reced. 
cause Admins wouldn't let them call HRC the "c" word. They cried censorship and claimed it was "constrictive criticism."
And on that sight I read that THAT admin said it was fine to call HILLARY the C word, yet never another poster on that site because it would be disrespectful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Go figure....or...never mind.
It serves no good purpose to make insinuations about unnamed and anonymous Democrats. If you're going to slam someone, have the courage to call them out by name for their unethical behavior. Which Democrats are going to betray the American people and their constituents?
It's part of the smears and attacks on the ENTIRE Democratic party (as an organization and as candidates and elected officials).
I'm sick of it, and I'll push-back "TEN TIMES HARDER" for every attack that's made against the Democratic party.
Push-back HARD.
... are receiving "corporate donations" direction into their campaigns. They talk about how "only one" candidate doesn't accept corporate donations. Yet, campaign finance laws already PROHIBIT candidates from accepting campaign contributions from corporations and from unions.
It's just another way to smear and attack Democrats. More lies. More bashing. I'm sick of it.
And, true to form, when you ask someone DIRECTLY to provide information on WHICH SPECIFIC DEMOCRATS are in violation of campaign finance laws... they never answer. Or they hem and haw and avoid giving a response that backs up their initial claim.
This should be repeated EVERY TIME someone pushes this propaganda. I will try to do so.
In the past when I've asked for specifics, the only response I got was, Oh, that's against TOS. Suddenly coy and bashful about their "constructive criticism."
Thanks for clearing that up. It's good to know exactly where you stand.
It's political fantasy. Pie in the sky. Empty promises.
... that the other person knows their arguments and position are weak, so as a final resort, it's used as p/a attack on an entire group to suggest that they lack the ability to think for themselves. It's probably just a "parting shot" from someone who wants to gracefully (??) exit the exchange without conceding defeat.
anonymous person!
Thank you! 
... that really does NOT strike me as a very effective way to gin-up enthusiasm and support that will get people to JOIN the Democratic party, or that will get people to VOTE for Democratic candidates.
That kind of talk serves to turn people OFF and turn them AWAY from Democrats and the Democratic party.
That's the kind of destructive rhetoric that SUPPRESSES the vote and support for Democrats.
Why would anyone want to do that?
What good purpose does it serve?
He's the only one who can answer the call.
... it doesn't benefit the Democratic party. It doesn't benefit Democratic candidates. It doesn't benefit GOTV. It doesn't benefit any fundraising efforts on behalf of the Democratic party.
This makes me so angry I cant stop the trembling of RAGE I have thinking about it
If I have to APPEAL to you to remove the MURDEROUS NAZIS from office , well if I have to do that, FORGET IT
BTW, that is VERY FAMILIAR
The idea that any voter has to be wooed into voting Democratic is infuriating. And, it's incredibly insulting to all well-meaning Sanders supporters - they cannot possibly be that selfish and childish.
Yet we see people posting this threat as if it's logical.
and I agree - there's nothing imo to debate. We are all needed - as we move forward towards the next election.
FWiW, the first thing I thought of is this Bill Stains song
(I'll just link it, so not to slow down this already very weighted down thread!)
(eta, sorry, I have no idea how to just hyperlink it)
If we wouldn't stand quietly while the GOP smears our party, why should we remain silent while anyone else does the same thing?
Besides, nobody is "bashing" him. This is valid criticism. How can anyone expect to improve themselves if they're not willing to accept criticism?
If you're going to try and use that to shield him against criticism, then in all fairness, shouldn't he also be held to the same standards when it comes to those divisive smears and attacks on the Democratic party and Democrats?
I mean... fair is fair, right? Why hold people to different standards? There's a word for what that's called. I'll think of it in a minute.
240. You routinely bash Sanders
258. In My Not So Humble Opinion, you do
I do agree with you that "heckler" isn't a very flattering term, but it's not an insult. It's not a pejorative. It's a valid word that clearly describes a specific type of behavior. The definition from Wikipedia is one that appears to be completely in line with the message that the OP was trying to convey. (A heckler is a person who harasses and tries to disconcert others with questions, challenges, or gibes.[1]) That sums it up. He heckles, loyal Democrats push back.
What exactly do you guys expect? A pat on the back? Abject silence and encouragement to continue?
Not gonna happen. As long as the attacks and smears and insults persist, loyal Democrats will push back. Get used to it.
His "criticism" is denigrating. It's divisive and it weakens the party. It drives people AWAY from the party and from Democratic candidates. We see it for exactly what it is. Stop pretending that it's "helping" when everyone knows it's not. Nobody is buying it.
Ha! That's funny!
First, he would actually have to offer something substantive in order to receive a substantive response. The only thing I see that he has to offer are insults and smears and attacks. He needs to stop.
And not unexpectedly, he put his foot in his mouth over the MLK/Obama flapdoodle a few days ago.
Little wonder he's considered tone-deaf to African-American concerns.
I can't remember where I saw it, but I chuckled when I read someone who compared "Our Revolution" to PETA. Loud, but largely ineffective... and that they lacked an understanding that "creating awareness of their own existence" did not necessarily translate into "creating sympathy for, or support of, the cause". The person went on to say that Our Revolution likely caused division, and therefore caused harm to progressive causes and candidates that run in opposition to GOP candidates.
Of course it was worded much better than my summary... but that was the gist of it.
I do not understand why some politicians take such pride at accomplishing nothing. Lots of "no compromise" talk that's big and blustery, but in the end nothing is accomplished. Either we remain stationary, or we move backward... and still he or she will boast and brag about "sticking to their values" and their "all-or-nothing" philosophy (ignoring the unnecessary suffering it causes the most vulnerable among us.)
And there he or she sits... big grins... beaming with pride at his/her handfuls of NOTHING. They attack those who are willing to compromise and make small incremental advances. Or, I've even seen what appear to be deliberate acts of "sabotage" that prevent any compromise from moving forward. (Why would he/she do that? What good purpose does that serve?)
Personally, I'd rather have half-a-loaf instead of NO loaf at all. Hell, if it meant that we'd be a few steps closer to our ideal goals, I'd happily compromise and accept just a single slice. I see no particularly useful value in the false pride of offering nothing and getting NOTHING in return, and getting NOTHING accomplished.
There will be no "revolution" ... with the attitude we've seen, there will be only continued suffering because of those who oppose compromise and who refuse to engage in the normal process of political give-and-take that creates trust and progress.
Is there a specific government web page that lists those things for each senator? Every politician likes to brag about their legislative accomplishments, even the modest and humble politicians often include a discreet link on their official gov't page or on their campaign fundraising page.
Just to be fair, I just want to make sure I'm not overlooking anything.
But... fingers crossed... maybe something will happen... someday.
in deep shit as a party. How to build a bigger, stronger party -- NOT.
Many of us have been pointing out for a very long time that those types of attacks and smears on the party will NOT be a very effective way to gin-up support for the Democratic party or Democratic candidates.
If a "bigger, stronger party" is genuinely your concern, then where is your outrage at the divisive attacks and smears on our party and our candidates?
Why would anyone be so distraught about whats said at this isolated and insulated and relatively obscure website, rather than being upset at the repeated highly visible and public attacks against the Democratic party? That's a big clue about someone's priorities.
Honestly, his attacks on the party do NOT do anything to make our party "bigger" or "stronger". Instead they divide and weaken the party... why aren't you complaining about THAT? (Or is that just a bridge too far?)
They can't point to any progress, but if anyone points out the lack of progress (and their unwillingness to compromise, and their EAGERNESS to do nothing for the sake of pride) they call it a "strawman".
Personally, I always get the feeling that for some of them, they probably find it more satisfying to boast about their support of a "no compromise" philosophy (as if it's some mark of greatness or an ego trip) rather than being able to take pride in ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS. Even if those accomplishments were "tainted" by having to compromise, or having to accept less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy
Response to David__77 (Reply #118)
Oh, and those corporations and big banks, they expect a return on their investments.
In your earlier post, you act as if he's doing something unique and special because his campaign doesn't accept money from corporations.
Obviously, what you're implying is that HE doesn't but OTHERS do. Sorry... I'm gonna have to call you out on that. Either, you didn't know that, or you didn't fully understand that... or you're not being entirely truthful with me.
Care to tell me which Democrats are violating the law?
Jill Stein got lots of donations for those 'recounts' too.
Calling Bernie an "outsider" is amusing considering the decades that he spent in Congress.
I love the Big Dog, but that response reminds of the time of when Bill Clinton talked about how the word "is" defined. The response ultimately didn't satisfy anyone.
How many times have posters emphasized that Bernie caucuses with the Democrats? Bernie can't have it both ways. It's a single binary choice with no shades of grey in between. The contradictory messaging will confuse everyone.
The fact that you have to define what an "outsider" is was the first twist in the pretzel though. The term doesn't need to be defined and it reminded me of Bill Clinton's feeble attempt to define what the word "is" is. It was laughable and nobody but yourself bought it. Trying to define the term based on timespan because I mentioned that Bernie is the outreach chairman is also laughable. However, I will bring to mind that Bernie was chairman of the veterans affairs committee and held other committee posts during his tenure. An "outsider" would never be able to be elevated to a position as a committee chair.
I could go on, but there are other things that I want to do today and I don't want to deal with the other redefinitions and digressions that you made elsewhere in the thread.
My blood pressure has gone up recently, so I purchased the reduced salt pretzels. 
Changing the subject. Moving goalposts. Splitting hairs. Avoidance. Insults. Name-calling.
When things like that begin to happen, it suggests that the other party is aware that they're approaching things from a weak position or a flawed premise.
I wanted to find a list of his major legislative accomplishments were... but nobody wanted to reply.
I had to laugh (literally... out loud) when I was told that my "problem" was that the my "measure of success is intentionally skewed"
I imagine that it's got to be terribly annoying when people want to measure success with actual legislative accomplishments instead of how GRAND and MAGNIFICENT the unfulfilled promise was.
Another part that made me chuckle is when I read an outright admission that Bernie is an "outsider" whom nobody should "expect to get get his legislation or his agenda passed directly."
So, in that case... if one accepts the last thing that was explained to me... the premise of the OP is absolutely correct.
Bernie has made it abundantly clear that he's going after grassroots America, which means getting out of the hallowed halls of Congress, outside the Beltway. Like Dean, his focus is on the 50 states. How best to do that than hold townhalls and rallies, you know, engaging voters in the 50 states? He brought in new voters with his primary campaign. He brought in new money, including an impressive number of small-donor contributions. None of that was lost on Democratic Party leadership, hence his role.
What else ya got?
plus making it totally inhospitable to those of us who originally supported Bernie but in the end supported the Democratic nominee.
I'll answer that question just as soon as you answer mine.
suppose to bring up the reality of that!?
But, glad you did!
The OP is a mindless screed. No constructive criticism.
You sat next to a "Bernie" and it scarred you for life?
His attacks and smears on Democrats and the Democratic party only serve to divide and weaken the party. That's really not an example of the party being the "best it can be". I see what's happening. I see what's going on. He's not fooling me.
I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but that's not a unique distinction about him. Here's the thing... Corporations and unions are banned from donating money directly to candidates or national party committees.
When someone make such a showy effort to point this "difference" ... it's clear that this is an backhanded way to accuse others of BREAKING THE LAW and that they are guilty of accepting donations from corporations.
By saying that Bernie is "different", the insinuation is that everyone else is guilty of it. They're not. Stop it.
Great post! Thanks for your succinct analysis and recommendations. That covers everything!
Democrats mocking Democrats. That's certainly a recipe for WIN!
=============
It should've been clear that my post wasn't referring to the OP or to critiques of Bernie, because the mocking is clearly between DU members all throughout the thread.
===========
We owe so much to our vets and to our country's military families.
Is there a specific government web page that lists those things for each senator? Every politician likes to brag about their legislative accomplishments, even the modest and humble politicians often include a discreet link on their official gov't page or on their campaign fundraising page.
... that is intended to silence critics ("stop saying that or we're going to lose and it will be all your fault'')
The reality is this: as fun as DU is... it's really not a politically influential website. It's a gathering place for the regular active posters (what do you guess... maybe 500 active regular posters... if that) to discuss, debate, argue, commiserate, etc.
This is definitely NOT a newsmaking or policy-influencing site. It's a "clearing house" for an aggregate collection of news stories (written by OTHERS) but it's not a headline-grabbing site with it's own scoops and investigative reporting.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely enjoy coming here... but it really serves no good purpose for anyone to exaggerate about DU's political importance in an effort to coerce people or silence people.
to work anymore.
Reality isn’t going to bend to accommodate some stale campaign lines anymore.
And that insult about Republicans can be more easily turned around on types who refused to vote for Hillary, and we know who they are.....
Oh well!
Love your gifs, always so appropriate and funny!
Everything you are parroting is straight out of a divisive campaign. That is now PROVEN FACT. You don’t get to change the facts of the world around us —look at the news, read about the Russian investigations and what motivated them to help Bernie. These are facts now, not just message board opinions. Facts.
It is truly absurd to suggest that adoration of one man is our only answer. That is the exact opposite of what is needed. Pointing out hypocrisy is what is needed now. You can’t change reality now with your THIRD attempt to turn the tables on what is now proven fact about the divisiveness that the Russians exploited.
Quit attacking Democrats. THAT is the lesson. Adoring One man is NOT the lesson. Facts. First things first.
Calling the Democratic party "corrupt" and "feeble" and "ideologically bankrupt" is SMEARING AND ATTACKING THE PARTY. It denigrates the party. It is the cause of distrust and division. Therefore he's WEAKENING the party with his attacks.
It serves no GOOD purpose for him to do things that weakens and divides the Democratic party. A weakened Democratic party only benefits the GOP (and the Russians).
Yes... he's BASHING the party. I guess it helps to bring in donations to his campaign funds or to "Our Revolution"... but it's certainly NOT helping Democrats. It's NOT making the Democratic party look like a desirable option for voters.
He needs to stop. You need to stop.
Which makes it more complicated.
If he's actually doing fundraising for the DNC (or for other DEMOCRATIC organizations) I'd love to hear about it. Everything I've heard and read about previously indicates that he's hesitant and reticent to be involved in any fundraising efforts that directly benefit anyone other than himself (or where he does not have direct control, or influence, on where the money goes and how it's spent.)
Thanks for kicking the thread
...borrowing on his baseball (oops, sports) analogy. 
Hi Cha!
further expand..
:
