The "#NeverKamala" faction take it too far...but it's legitimate to ask policy questions.

[Ken Burch]

I've seen some of those tweets about Senator Harris, and there are pretty much all inappropriate. I wholeheartedly condemn the those who make them.

But if Senator Harris is to be our nominee, progressives do have the right to ask tough questions about what she believes on the issues of the day, just as we always ask such questions of anybody else we as a party would consider nominating.

In particular, we, as a party have the right to know if she, like all the other possible candidates, is going to run on a new program, or just one more rehash of our current policies(or, God forbid, any of them make the proposal to move further right on any significant issues)

We need to know to know where every candidate comes down on defense and foreign policy...it can't be progressive to get into any further military interventions anywhere anytime soon. And we owe it to the country to get the hell out of the Arab/Muslim world militarily, given that our presence there has done nothing but damage.

We need to know where every candidate comes down on the role of corporate donors in politics-especially since we know that corporate donations are never without strings, and always end up constraining our party from taking progressive stands on a large number of issues, issues that matter Just much as the issues corporate donors accept us taking progressive stands about(i.e., those NOT involving economic issues, trade, and defense).

We need to know where every candidate comes down on the idea of and the way trade deals are made...it's time to have a process for that that includes labor, peoples of color, environmentalists and the poor ON the negotiating teams.

And we need to know where every candidate comes on how to deal with poverty and economic injustice, on the question of extreme concentration of wealth-and on finding ways to economically revitalize(at high wages and with union representation)the parts of this country that were left to rot economically since 1981, some left to rot long before that.

The hashtagers communicate in unacceptable ways. But that doesn't mean there aren't reasonable questions that can be legitimate asked of ANY of the possible 2020 candidates.

In condemning abusive tactics, we must make sure that the condemnation never turns into a demand for silence.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. So much "concern" and so soon, weird that.

[apcalc]

81. Yeah the 'legit concern' trolls are so obvious

Transparent as well

[Wellstone ruled]

2. Who are the people behind this Group?

They have to be exposed and their faces known.

[Fla Dem]

6. Link to twitter showing lots of "#NeverKamala mentions both for and against.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23NeverKamala&src=tyah

Willing to guess the agitators are Bros, or Russian moles & bots.

[Gothmog]

12. And the idiots who post on JPR

That board is composed of russian moles and bots

[Wellstone ruled]

16. Oh boy did you name one of the

culprits.

[Omaha Steve]

235. Why do you never mention Bill's Playground?

[Gothmog]

236. Because the posters on that site were sane and that site is closed down

The posters on Bill's site were all Democrats who cared about the party. There was no fake Russian news posted there or posts defending Putin and Russia

[Omaha Steve]

237. So it was ok for certain DUers to openly ridicule other DUers, candidates, etc

Got it!

[Gothmog]

238. Most of the JPR posters are people who were banned on this site

JPR is posting videos from Infowars. At one point there were six or seven threads on JPR about pizzagate even after the RWNJ conspiracy theory was debunked. I was amused to see the idiot admins finally had to ban pizzagate threads after a while.

Even now there are threads stating that Russia did not hack the DNC and that it was Seth Rich and/or some IT person from DWS office. The Conspiracy theories on that board are fun to read. I do think that Putin is a great leader and I find the defense of Russia on JPR to be amusing.

[Omaha Steve]

239. So it was ok for certain DUers to openly ridicule other DUers, candidates, etc?

[JustAnotherGen]

241. I think you are confusing

Bill's site with that jackass radicals site. I read both. I didn't see the ridicule at Bill's site - the jackass one appeared to be making fun of jackradical members - not du members. One could have been both a member of the radical and DU site - but the few times I read the jackass site - it was all directed at the jackradicals.

My personal thought on the ass site was it was really a marketing tool for the radicals site. We'll never know.

[Cary]

255. So you don't deny that JPR proliferated Russian fake news?

And you don't deny being infiltrated by Russian trolls?

And you expect sympathy?

[Omaha Steve]

260. Nice deflection

I was talking about the Playroom.

I don't see anywhere I asked for sympathy. Putting words in my mouth!

[Cary]

261. Still no denial

I never said you said anything. I inferred that you expect sympathy and pointed out your admissions.

[Omaha Steve]

262. I admit that JPR wasn't started until long AFTER the playroom crap got posted on the DU

You don't deny the crap there. Or that it is still there, just hidden from the public. Not so proud of their work.

IF you think I'm working for sympathy, you have no idea what you are talking about!

[Cary]

266. I have no idea what you think you're saying

[Eliot Rosewater]

242. Sounds to me like attacking the D party and loyal democrats is something

that goes on at this JPR place, but then it happens HERE as well.

I dont know much about JPR, from what has been described here I would never want to go there, if I want to see incessant attacks of my party I can go to free republic or "putin's playground".

[Ninsianna]

252. Um, didn't you just do that? Assuming this Bill person was a DUer, of course.

[Omaha Steve]

254. You consider mentioning the the site an attack?

Did I speak of ANY individual.

By that logic mentioning JPR by name is an attack on active and non-active DUers there.

No JPR member ever made fun of me dying from dementia! Can't say that about the other site.

The site still functions. But it's isn't viewable these day. You need a link & PW to get in etc.

Ball is in your court.

OS

[Ninsianna]

263. You mentioned someone named Bill. That is an individual.

You don't die from dementia.

Game. Set. Match.

Please clean up the ball, when you leave the court.

[Omaha Steve]

264. Surrender your medical license!

https://www.fightdementia.org.au/about-dementia/types-of-dementia/frontotemporal

How does frontotemporal dementia progress?
Although people with FTD may be assessed as having one of the three subtypes above, the disease will progress and symptoms of 2 or 3 subtypes are likely to occur.

FTD causes progressive and irreversible decline in a person’s abilities over a number of years, and is a terminal disease.

I mentioned a (room) possession, not a person.

Clean up your act.

[Ninsianna]

269. No thank you, also, I don't appreciate the threatening PM you sent me.

Sure, but patients don't die from dementia, even a terminal type. They die from infection, malnutrition, febrile episodes, actual damage.

It's not what kills a patient.

You mentioned a person, named Bill. Perhaps you didn't not understand what you did.

Please take your own advice, and stop being abusive and threatening to people while hiding behind an "online" ailment to excuse truly terrible behavior.

There is no excuse or diagnosis (real or imagined) that justifies your hostility, take your own advice.

[sheshe2]

267. You did mention an individual.

You mentioned Bill, who posts at DU as William769 and often referred to as Bill here.

[Omaha Steve]

268. Fine

It was his room with many of your friends that started the entire fiasco that followed.

[Ninsianna]

270. So you admit you've attacked a DU member and now are personally attacking

yet another one specifically and other DU members?

This is the definition of hypocrisy.

[Ninsianna]

273. Was that the name of the site, or were you referencing the person, Bill and your characterization

of his site?

[Ninsianna]

276. So you referenced a DUer, made up a disparaging name and cannot figure out

why that is an ad hominem attack on a fellow DUer?

Nope, it seems that ad hominem and attack is the only thing going on here, both against fellow DUers, one of whom doesn't seem to be on this thread, another who is and me via PM.

These are the acts that need cleaning up. Online diagnoses even when they're about frontotemporal issues do not shield or excuse bad acts.

[sheshe2]

277. You mentioned Bill by name not just a site.

He is William769. A poster, a member and a friend of many on this site. Bill is a friend of mine. Bill is a very proud gay man that has aids. He has almost died and fought back more than once.

Here you talk about a death illness to you and attack a Bill, William769 when he himself has spoken openly about his aids and near dying. I think you should walk this back and apologize to William/Bill. His suffering is no less than yours.

Please apologize to Bill.

[betsuni]

278. I agree, apology to Bill needed.

This is really unpleasant.

[sheshe2]

279. Bill/William769

He is my friend, a dear friend. He never hurt anyone here. He fought for Hillary and gay rights. I am sad to see he so maligned here. It is not right, Betsuni. He has fought aids for years and came close to death more than once.

[Ninsianna]

288. Wow. Just wow, digging in deep on the attacks on DUers.

[betsuni]

292. Fiasco is as fiasco does.

Every comment shown was perfectly true and 100% deserved, and more.

[Ninsianna]

293. I guess that self defeat is the closest we'll get to an actual apology.

[Ninsianna]

271. What fiasco is he talking about?

And why is he sending me PMs telling me that I need to get a new DU ID?

[sheshe2]

283. WTF?

Block the PMs.

[sheshe2]

285. Well...since you did not send me any DU mail

it would be difficult for me to mention content so stop wagging your finger at me.

and please show me where it is against rules if someone did.

[Ninsianna]

289. Ad hominems, flaming attacks and threats to fellow members are forbidden

per the TOS, yet it doesn't seem to stop those who feel the need to attack.

Who are you wagging a finger at exactly, given who's guilty of forbidden actions here?

[Ninsianna]

291. Did you forget that you did indeed comment?

Since I was threatened, and I'm a fellow DUer, that's how that's a threat.

[Ninsianna]

287. I alerted on the mail, its up to the admins how they wish to proceed here.

It seems that the hostility and the attacks on DUers and Democrats is something that bleeds on over from JPR. Hiding behind a supposed frontotemporal disorder to engage in inappropriate behavior is truly sad and desperate.

[lunasun]

78. The few bros I come in contact with are not backing down and buy any crap that is fed to them

I am sure that lot falls into this creed .

[Bladewire]

227. So many bots on that hashtag

I'm pretty sure (hoping) the bots have lost a lot of their influence as we've all been enlightened since 2016.

[Ken Burch]

39. Apparently, they are on Twitter.

I hadn't heard of them until the thread that discussed them yesterday.

Finally saw some of the things they said, and I'll agree that they, whoever these people are, they need to be called out.

[lunasun]

79. No they have been here @ du for a while also

[Ken Burch]

96. I truly hadn't known of them.

A lot of people hadn't.

[yardwork]

129. Like for ten years or so.....

[Weekend Warrior]

139. Said person says they had never heard of this group until yesterday.

I'm of the belief they are a founding member and it supports your comment that they have been here for a while.

This is a quote from the op on August 6, 2015. They are talking about Harris.

"She represents diversity-in-name-only. A female centrist of color is just like a white male centrist."

Then there is this from the same day almost two years ago.

DURHAM D "Kamala will be our first female POC President"

Ken Burch "Not that you'll be able to tell that from anything she'd do in the office."

And more.

"she is a bland centrist insider"

"She represents diversity-in-name-only."

"As senator or president, we'd never know she had any real connection to any community that faced oppression. None of that heritage survives in her, given her record in office so far."

"Ms. Harris does not speak for women of color as a community here-a community insiders can't be capable of struggling for.

It's not as if HRC cares about women of color."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1251498178

[OKNancy]

144. Boom

[JustAnotherGen]

167. This post wins the thread

The End.

[Starry Messenger]

197. The cosmos snickers in glee.

You win everything.

[Ken Burch]

215. I have nothing to do with that group. That is the truth.

All I'm guilty of is wanting to make sure we nominate the most progressive candidate possible.

If I was in that group, I'd never have pledged to support her if nominated.

That group is horrible and my OP called them out.

[Weekend Warrior]

216. I truly respect the evolution. Nt

[Ken Burch]

217. If I had defended the group, I could understand your response. But I never once did.

And I still don't.

Are you going to keep calling me a racist until I say that Kamala is the only possible Democratic presidential candidate?

Commenting on a politician is commenting on a politician.

And it's not as though there's anything I could say that would singlehandedly knock her out of the race.

I'll study up on what she has to say.

[Weekend Warrior]

218. "I'll study up on what she has to say."

Sounds good.

[Ken Burch]

219. My feelings about her were about issues.

I don't want a "stay the course" campaign for 2020. I don't think we can win if all discussion is silenced. That's what drives all that I do. Nothing else.

[Weekend Warrior]

220. I wish you the best in your mission. Good luck. Nt

[Ken Burch]

222. My only "mission" is working for a progressive future.

And I focus on issues, not personalities.

I don't even have an opinion about the asset seizure thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

223. You think Ken Burch from DU started the "#NeverKamala" hastag?

Just, straightfoward question, no snark intended: Are you on twitter? Do you understand how hastags work?

It's not a "group", per se-- and if you go on twitter, you can search the hashtag itself. You will see a chronological list of tweets containing it.

Go back to the beginning, the first person to use it- that's the "founding member" of the.. uh, hashtag.

[Tarheel_Dem]

224. Oh wow! I wish I could say I was surprised.

[Warren DeMontague]

225. Apparently the "founding member" of the .. uh, hashtag was someone named "Adorable Deplorable"

Link to tweet

At least, that's the first instance of it I could find. Nothing before April 6, 2016.

[Weekend Warrior]

234. In theory, someone was working the effort well before that.

That's pretty clear.

[Ken Burch]

244. It damn sure wasn't me.

I didn't know of the thing until two days ago now.

Yes, I said some harsh things about Senator Harris two years ago...but that doesn't mean I'd organize something like this hate group.

And if I did, why would I start a thread to call them out?

[Weekend Warrior]

249. Kick. nt.

[grossproffit]

265. KABOOM!

[JHan]

3. ...

[lapucelle]

73. ... indeed

[lunasun]

80. I forgot about this . I miss her so much

[JHan]

87. lol.

so epic.

[emulatorloo]

112. Loved that moment, saw it live.

Michelle has a great bullshit detector.

[R B Garr]

114. LMAO!

That is so perfect!

[JI7]

82. Yup

[Weekend Warrior]

4. They sure do take it too far.

Duplicate.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post9
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post26
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post2
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post10
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post17
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post30
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post12
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post33
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post56
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post59
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post94
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post24
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post35
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post18
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post60

[Hekate]

46. Good catch

Someone is very concerned

[Ken Burch]

90. I'M not in that group.

All I said in that thread was that I hadn't heard of them, and that a distinction needs to be made between that crowd, on the one hand, and people who might simply want to know what this possible candidate or any other possible candidate actually stands for.

I hadn't heard of that group until yesterday.

Most people haven't.

I haven't defended them.

MY OP said they were out of line.

Why isn't that enough?

[Kentonio]

119. Because to some people here, having a differing opinion is considered heretical

Apparently the endless snide little 'concern' replies don't class as personal attacks, despite being exactly that. Also the clear implications that some DU posts are trolls/Russian bots/right wingers somehow also doesn't constitute a breach of the rules, despite it being clearly stated in the rules that these kind of accusations are in no way ok.

But it seems if you just put on the very smallest pretense that you're speaking generally not directly about an individual, you can indeed attack whoever you like.

It's a shame the same people don't put a fraction of the same effort into attacking the moron in the White House, then we might actually have a chance in 2018/2020.

[Weekend Warrior]

121. "Because to some people here, having a differing opinion is considered heretical"

Simple acceptance of differing opinions is not an admirable trait. Sound good on paper, completely foolish in reality.

[Kentonio]

133. I couldn't agree with you more.

If there's a view you think is wrong, its absolutely reasonable to debate it and provide counter-arguments. What is really pathetic though is people who refuse to counter an argument and instead try and attack the poster instead. The whole 'concern troll' thing is about at the intellectual level of a high school clique trying to make the outsider kid feel unwelcome.

[Ninsianna]

253. Isn't that usually because they cannot counter an argument?

Ad hominem is the fallacy of choice for those who cannot defend their positions.

And there do seem to be some cliques here, complete with decoder rings and swarming on the new kids. I think you're being a bit gracious on the "high school" thing, this is 3rd grade level tops.

[Kentonio]

257. Yeah true.

It just disappoints me because I expect better from the politically engaged. Not sure why, it's not like experience has taught me to have such expectations.

[NurseJackie]

5. You act as if it's a done-deal. What makes you think such a thing?

But if Senator Harris is to be our nominee... (blah-blah-blah)

So it's been decided? Three years yet to go, and she's our nominee? Wow.

In condemning abusive tactics, we must make sure that the condemnation never turns into a demand for silence.

Nobody in the real world is doing that. NOBODY. It's imaginative, but it has no basis in reality.

[MGKrebs]

15. If people can start a thread warning about attacks on a particular leader,

it seems completely appropriate to caution about taking that warning too far. What could be wrong with that?

[NurseJackie]

21. Well, things are not always what they "seem"... are they? Especially when...

Especially when the (ahem) "caution" comes across as an outright accusation and irrational paranoia, rather than well-founded wise words of prudence. I think we can all agree that it really serves no good purpose to start making insinuations or allegations (even veiled or p/a ones) so early in the process.

There's a long road ahead. No need to make it any longer or contentious than it needs to be.

[MGKrebs]

24. I don't know, I get the impression that there is something personal going on that

I don't know about. Not surprising as I don't often pay attention to who is writing what.
Seemed like a pretty reasonable post to me though.

[NurseJackie]

32. I can't address that kind of speculation. Sorry.

[MGKrebs]

44. No problem.

[Weekend Warrior]

17. "Nobody in the real world is doing that. NOBODY."

[Ken Burch]

40. No...I honestly just meant that it was at least a possibility.

as in "there's a chance this person could be nominated, it's fair that tough questions be asked of this person as they would be of anybody else who might run".

I would say this of any candidate I myself was committed to. We always need full, open debate.

In this party, we've had a long-standing tendency of some inner circle types trying to essentially pre-nominate a person, to make the primary process superfluous. This goes back to Mondale in '84, and possibly to Ed Muskie in '72. We always get told that there is one person who simply MUST be the nominee, that it's silly to ask specific policy questions of that person.

I've been in politics(and the real world)basically all my life, so I can speak from long experience.

[NurseJackie]

51. Good grief!

In this party, we've had a long-standing tendency of some inner circle types trying to essentially pre-nominate a person, to make the primary process superfluous.

We have a primary process. The voters decide, right?

We always get told that there is one person who simply MUST be the nominee,

Really? Always? Who? Who's telling us such things? Oh wait, that's right... the VOTERS DECIDE!! Remember!

I realize some passionate people have a tendency to exaggerate, but ultimately it weakens their argument and credibility. It's like crying wolf. Eventually people stop listening or stop taking that person seriously.

In any case, what I think you're struggling to describe is actually part of the campaigning process. One should EXPECT that type of campaign rhetoric. The people who SUPPORT a particular candidate are going to RECOMMEND and TALK UP and HYPE and GENERATE EXCITEMENT about their preferred candidate.

What's wrong with that? Why would you object to that? It's how campaigns work. If a particular candidate has a LOT of support, then I'm sure it may APPEAR to people who support 3rd-tier candidates as if they're being "told" ... but that just doesn't match up with reality.

Look forward! I know that many people are resentful about the past, but it's over now and we must move forward.

Sing it with me! "Yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone! Ooooo! Don't you look back!"

[Gothmog]

7. How about disclosure of tax returns?

I do see that Senator Harris released her tax returns. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article108767562.html

U.S. Senate candidate Kamala Harris and her husband, attorney Douglas Emhoff, earned nearly $1.17 million in 2015 and paid almost $450,000 in state and federal income taxes, according to their 2015 tax returns.

Do you think that the nominee of the party should disclose their tax returns?

[NurseJackie]

10. I think anyone VYING to be the party's nominee should disclose their tax returns...

... BEFORE the first primary or caucus is held! It should ALL be out in the open. Absolutely!

[LisaM]

13. That would certainly be helpful.

Unfortunately, it seems to be the new thing not to have to release them.

[Gothmog]

14. There will be changes to ballot access laws to require these returns in many states

There will be a number of states in 2020 where one cannot get onto the ballot unless they release their tax returns. I support these laws

[NurseJackie]

22. I'd hope (and I'd be very impressed if it happened) that a candidate would ...

... voluntarily be transparent about such things EVEN WITHOUT having to conform to any state laws or party requirements, or any other thing that compelled the candidate to do so. We shouldn't even have to ask or demand.

[lunamagica]

30. Yes! It shows integrity and honesty. I mean, why not show them? What are they hiding?

[Salviati]

107. Yes, well we're seeing where relying on norms and tradition have gotten us.

I personally think that a lot of the things we've been skating by on, because we've been operating on the assumption of people at least pretending to govern in good faith, should be codified a lot more strongly.

Off the top of my head:

1) tax returns should be required to be released for all candidates
2) upon election to the presidency, investments should be required to be liquidated and placed into a blind trust
3) nuclear Armageddon should require a second opinion

I'm sure we'll discover more to add to the list in the weeks to come.

[Ken Burch]

110. In '20, anybody who runs would do that anyway.

So this whole subthread is a strawperson.

[NurseJackie]

135. Wrong, it's relevant and it's important.

So this whole subthread is a strawperson.

That's not correct. We already know that at least one candidate has found excuse after excuse for not releasing his tax returns... and I expect that the state ballot requirements will be challenged at various levels... so there's really NO guarantee that this is a certainty.

In the meantime, if we're to examine a potential candidate's qualifications... looking at their tax returns is a good place to start. It can reveal SO MUCH.

Wouldn't you agree? I think we can all agree that this is indeed LOOKING FORWARD and not at all as controversial as you're now suggesting. It fits right in with the topic you started in the OP, so I'm a little befuddled as to why you're taking such an aggressive and contrary position?

When a candidate releases their tax return information (without delay and without excuses) it reveals a LOT about that person's CHARACTER. I'm happy that Harris has done that and I sincerely hope that ALL candidates will do the same (without delay, excuses or legal challenges.)

When ANY candidate delays or makes excuses or breaks promises, that reveals their character too. It reeks of deception and dishonesty. Makes you wonder what they're hiding. (And Trump still won't release them.)

[Ken Burch]

91. That has nothing to do with this thread.

Why are you bringing it up?

[Gothmog]

105. In the real world this is very relevant to this thread

No one should run for the Democratic nomination unless they release their tax returns. Lame excuses will not work under the proposed ballot access laws. The next cycle a number of states will require the release of tax returns to get onto the ballot. One reason why I like Senator Harris is that she has already released her tax returns and will have no issue with this requirement.

Do you agree that it is totally unacceptable for a candidate to be on the ballot if they have not released their tax returns?

[Ken Burch]

106. We are both in the real world

And I think you are trying to refight the '16 primaries.

There's no reason you should be trying to do such a thing, given that your candidate was nominated.

I agree that candidates should release their tax returns.

What's past is past.

[Gothmog]

108. The failure to release tax returns will be an important issue for 2020

Again a number of states are in the process of amending their ballot access laws so that trump cannot be on the ballot unless he releases his returns. Trump will litigate these requirements and we need to have an united front on this issue. I live in the real world and so I follow these issues. It is not clear that these ballot access laws will survive challenge and it would be a bad thing if one or more candidates for the Democratic nomination refused to comply with these laws.

Will you agree that no Democrat should be allowed in any debate or on any ballot unless they release their tax returns?

[Ken Burch]

109. Yes. Why are you bringing this up in this thread, though?

I'm not supporting any candidate at the moment-therefore, you can't assume I'm supporting a candidate who refuses to do so.

You have no reason to be belaboring my views on this issue.

[Gothmog]

115. In the real world this is a very relevant issue

The silly premise of your amusing but silly OP was that we need to exam and question potential candidates qualifications. The release of tax returns is a qualification that is very important in the real world and will be very important in 2020. I am glad that Senator Harris has released her returns. That is a important issue for me.

Again, I do not care if Senator Harris is not going to adopt the failed platform of another candidate. That platform has lost every time it has been tested in an election. We need to focus on issues such as transparency including releasing tax returns. BTW, Joe Biden aka Uncle Joe to those of us in the real world has released his returns starting in 2008 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bidens-tax-returns-show-modest-wealth/

[Ken Burch]

116. You are pretty much stalking me from thread to thread now.

You have no reason to be this fixated on me, or on trying to discredit me personally.

[NurseJackie]

134. Wait, wait! So you post provocative OP's then get upset when people reply and...

... participate in them, and challenge you in them? Nobody is "stalking" you, Ken! What a horrible thing to say.

What exactly are you expecting? I'm sure it would be very satisfying for someone to make an OP and have hundreds of comments in agreement and praise. I'm sure it's disappointing when that doesn't happen.

You've accused me of "stalking" you as well... simply because I respond to (or challenge) something you said, or because we exchanged several messages of disagreement in a row (as you and Gothmog have).

Nobody deserves to be treated that way. What good purpose does it serve for anyone to make false accusations of "stalking"? That's disrespectful of other valued members here.

He as as much of a right to comment on the things you say, as you have to say them in the first place. There's no need to treat anyone here like a child. No need to talk down to anyone.

Trying to silence the exchange of ideas accomplishes nothing.

I'm not attacking you, I'm just pointing out some things you may not have considered.

And all I'm saying is that everyone here deserves to be treated with respect and everyone here has a right to participate without having accusations hurled at them and trying to drive them off the board.

Please think about it. I know you're a good person at heart and if you step back a moment, you'll hopefully reconsider the things you're saying to others.

[Ken Burch]

259. Responses should always be strictly about the issues raised, not personal derision.

My OPs since the election have been about working for unity.

They could all be summarized as calls for dialog, mutual respect, and the search for common ground, mixed with a few suggestions for positive change.

In what universe is THAT provocative?

[yardwork]

124. We had two major candidates who refused to release their tax returns in 2016.

In a thread about concerns, I would think that topic would be one of the first issues discussed.

Why don't you think it's important?

[lapucelle]

141. Of course it is relevent to the thread.

As long as people are setting up standards that "we" should follow, "we" have a right to some input.

Just because something is inconvenient to the subtext of the thread, doesn't mean its irrelevant.

[Weekend Warrior]

18. If they want my vote they should. nt.

[lunamagica]

25. Thank you. We need to know every candidate's tax return. The only ones unwilling to disclose

such information have been trump and Sanders.

[NurseJackie]

33. Interesting.

[Hekate]

49. Very

[Tarheel_Dem]

226. +1

[lunamagica]

27. "Do you think that the nominee of the party should disclose their tax returns?

I doubt you'll get an answer to this question.

[Ken Burch]

48. I always believed people should do that.

Other than O'Malley, nobody who ran in 2016 will run in 2020, so it's fair to expect that of them.

That's all that needs to be said.

As to any past candidates, they are in the past and that's all put to rest with the end of any past campaigns.

[Gothmog]

57. Under the proposed changes to ballot access rules, candidate will not be able to get onto ballot w/o

filing tax returns. Only two candidates in 2016 failed to file their tax returns. I keep seeing comments on JPR and twitter that both of these candidates are currently intending to run or reserving the right to run in 2020.

Do you support these changes to the ballot access rules?

[Weekend Warrior]

69. "Other than O'Malley, nobody who ran in 2016 will run in 2020, so it's fair to expect that of them.

Why wouldn't it simply be fair to expect that from them? Why is it necessary to hedge that comment in any way?

"so it's fair to expect that of them."

That should stand on its own without a qualifier.

[Gothmog]

70. Agreed

The idiots on JPR are expecting Sanders to run in 2020 as a Democrat or as indie.

Who ever runs needs to be provide their tax returns at the start of the process

[Weekend Warrior]

71. Ahhh. Now I get the hedging.

Everyone else should........

[NurseJackie]

75. I see it too.

I always suspected as much in the first place, but I always enjoy being proven correct. Especially when someone's own words (or awkward phrasing, or what they say, or omit) reveals the truth whether they intended it or not.

[Ken Burch]

92. Because it sounds like this issue is being raised solely to retroactively delegitimize someone.

I won't say anything more, because it appears that the poster who raised it wants to refight the 2016 primaries-at a time when any issue related to those primaries should be considered put to rest.

[Weekend Warrior]

120. Persecution complexes leave one without a clear compass....

And the inability to comment on issues without hedging. Defies reason and common sense.

[elleng]

84. What's this 'Other than O'Malley' stuff?

[Ken Burch]

88. Nothing besides the fact that, of the candidates from that year

O'Malley is the only one for whom a plausible case for a '20 candidacy might be made.

I think he'd have to develop a far larger national profile to manage it, fwiw.

[yardwork]

125. How do you know who will run in 2020?

[BainsBane]

169. Including off-shore trusts

What's up with politicians having off-shore trusts anyway? Doesn't that failure to disclose present potential conflicts of interest?

[Gothmog]

171. Yes, there are a ton of games that can be played with these trusts

[JustAnotherGen]

179. I do!

[bettyellen]

8. You could have, after the first paragraph.... maybe talked about what to do about these Dem punchers

But instead you make the case that some could be right at some future time... just not the ones we've been discussing here. #notall_____. Not helping any.

[NurseJackie]

29. You're correct, of course...

... but I've found that I reduce the likelihood of my being disappointed whenever I lower my expectations. (I don't mean one should lower their standards... but only what they expect in others. If you know what I mean.)

All I'm saying is that it's usually better to be pleasantly surprised on occasion, than to be continually disappointed.

[Ken Burch]

47. I said they were out of line.

Not sure what to actually do about them, at this point.
I hadn't even heard of them until yesterday.

[leftstreet]

9. Whole thing seems fishy n/t

[Squinch]

20. Yep. Seems, kind of ... planted. And then it's being spread by... why, by threads like this!

[Gothmog]

11. BTW how do you feel about Uncle Joe?

One of my prized possessions from the national convention are a couple of Joe signs. I really like Joe and would support him.

[George II]

19. I like him as well. Surely you aren't anointing him, are you?

[Gothmog]

23. I have framed my Joe sign from the national convention

Is that the same as anointing him?

[George II]

26. Only if you surround it with candles and burn incense!!!

[Gothmog]

31. What type of incense? I may try this

Can I use left over Hanukkah candles? It would be fun to be responsible for the anointing of a candidate. Joe will have locked up the Jewish vote already

[Ken Burch]

45. Not sure who are referring to.

I don't support anybody for 2020 at this point. My interest is in issues, not personalities.

[Gothmog]

56. In the real world, Uncle Joe refers to Joe Biden

[Ken Burch]

117. You have no reason to keep saying I don't live in the real world.

If you disagree with me, fine-make a case for what you support instead of the things I support.

That's legitimate-personal derision is not.

As I've repeatedly proved, I've been involved in political campaigns since 1976. I'm just as practical as you are. We simply disagree on
the issues.

I hadn't heard Biden referred to as Uncle Joe.

And you need to let go of this delusion YOU seem to have that I'm secretly campaigning for Bernie. I'm not. And I don't want him or any other individual to "take over the party".

I'm totally neutral about who we should nominate for president next time. And I've said repeatedly that I think Bernie SHOULDN'T run
I support his basic economic policies(most of the country does, according to the polls)as I supported policies like those long before Bernie ran, but I support a much stronger overt commitment to actively opposing social oppression than he did, and also a much-less militarist foreign policy. None of the things I support are unpopular. The country wants corporate power constrained and the right of workers to organize strengthened, and is sick of the pointless, unwinnable wars we've been stuck in in the Arab/Muslim world since 2003.

So stop following me from thread to thread on what looks more and more like an obsessive campaign to get me to stop posting. You simply have no reason to be this obsessed with me or with any of the other people you keep trying to drive away. It's petty, it's childish, it makes you sound like an old-time playground bully. In the name of your own dignity, stop already.

No one here deserves this from you, and you do this party no favors by treating people this way.

[Gothmog]

136. Again, your posts speak for themselves

I like living and working in the real world. It was in the real world that I have heard repeatedly Joe Biden referred to as Uncle Joe. In the real world, the Onion has been having fun with Biden for a long time. I have saved and framed one of the floor signs from the National Convention when Joe Biden spoke. My son took my other copy of this convention floor sign and is going to frame it also. According to this thread, my son and I may be able to anoint Joe Biden as the presumptive nominee if we use the right incense. This may worth trying (BTW this is called a joke in the real world).

Have you made it to an indivisible meeting yet? I am helping our local chapter set up a PAC. Again, the real world is a nice place. I am also having fun keeping two different groups informed as to what is happening in the Texas redistricting case. A state representative and the NAACP are working hard to get the three judge panel to rule on a badly gerrymandered state house district in my county. I discussed the latest filings last night with the state rep and he is optimistic.

Ken your platform has been rejected every time it was used in the real world. I am free to disagree with your platform and to based my disagreement on what is happening in the real world. You can keep on proposing unrealistic platforms and others are free to disagree with these platforms.

[KTM]

145. Oh look - its Ken's Personal Stalker !

Everywhere Ken goes, there you are, being you as only you can. So tell me, you still think Ken is a young man in college ? You still think IRV requires voting machines be connected to the internet ?

You talk a lot about the real world, but I dont know if you have visited it this century.

[Gothmog]

160. Actually ken is not worth my time to stalk but I was amused to see someone check his posts out

I am amused by Ken. He engaged in a long series of PMs with me and when he lost the exchange badly he ran away. These PMs and ken's post have given me enough material to draw my own opinion as to Ken's amusing proposals.

I was amused to read this post from someone who clearly spent the time researching Ken's prior posts on the topic of this thread. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9405265 Someone had fun checking out Ken's amusing posts.

[KTM]

184. Hahhahaha - suuuuuure.

You are ALWAYS all over Ken - I dont think he has ever posted a thread in which you DIDNT reply. You know we can all see this.

We could look at some of your old posts too... like THIS one where you clearly dont know how IRV works, or THIS one where you insulted Ken right up until you found out you were wrong, then fled. Thats fun.

Mr. Real World is frequently wrong, like most bullys are. I suspect the time when Ken "lost the exchange badly" you were wrong as well. You claim to like the Real World - you should check it out sometime this decade.

[Gothmog]

187. Did you read this post yet?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9405265 It is a hoot

[Ken Burch]

247. That post is a false accusation.

I have nothing to do with #NeverKamala.

What I posted about her there was the last thing I'd posted about her until this week.

[Gothmog]

251. Then why the silly apology thread?

Keep on trying to advance your agenda. It is getting rather amusing. I have been having fun reading that thread.

BTW, you have a "fan" club on DI.

[Ken Burch]

258. It's not silly to admit I said a stupid thing.

I hadn't said anything else about Senator Harris since then.

And I'm not part of the hashtag group. I've made maybe three tweets in my entire life...none about Senator Harris.

If I was part of that group that is doing that, I would never have vowed to support her if she is nominated.

[heaven05]

240. "You do

this Party no favors by treating people this way". Really, but you are with your obvious stances and position concerning BS right? Right. A lot of americans are sick of the pointless racism and murders of unarmed minority persons in the name of white supremacy...your preferred candidate(2016 and beyond?) didn't seem to see that drift, now policy of an governing administration, as important as generations long economic inequity/racism... all that economic falderal is to be respected, yet a very sizable minority is lost in that falderal of BS policies when it comes to the then racism and now cancerous and growing racism of ameriKKKa.

[vi5]

28. God, no more 2020 talk until we handle 2018.........

Hell, even until we handle whatever few elections there may be in 2017.

Yes, I know it's important. But part of the shitty situation we've found ourselves in is because we continually keep our eyes on this one prize (the White House) above and at the expense of all others. Nobody's saying it's not important, but at this point in time, in this situation it doesn't even rank among the top 20 things we can and should be doing to return the country to some level of sanity.

[NurseJackie]

35. Good luck with that.

[vi5]

37. Yeah, I know....

...and then many of these same folks will be pulling the "How did this haaaaaaaappppen!?!?!?!?!" routine when we fail to capture every available seat at every available level of government for the next 3 years because they've been too busy playing political Dungeons and Dragons and worrying about whether other people are giving their hypothetical, metaphorical Orc or Wizard enough health points.

[Ken Burch]

43. And I didn't want to bring up 2020.

The only reason I mentioned it was that there was a thread on the #NeverKamala clique, and I wanted to address that.

I agree that we should focus on 2018.

[m-lekktor]

50. good post. nt

[Me.]

34. Damned With Faint Praise

Here we go........and are we going to hold the men up to the standard of needing to know how male candidates stand on the issues. There are several who seem like they might declare, she has not yet the magnifying glass is out because we're not examining every candidate but her and possibly Senator Warren. And, no, let's not have silence, like that demanded of her in a committee hearing.

[NurseJackie]

36. Same old, same old, over and over, it never stops. Are you...

... as tired of this shit as I am? Jesus-god!

I hope I can hold out.

[Me.]

38. Fed Up With It........Yes

But will Persist.

Back at you.....

[Ken Burch]

41. Yes, we should and must hold the male candidates to the same standards.

My views on who we should nominated have never been about gender.

They have always been strictly on the issues.

If Senator Harris is now being talked-up as a presidential prospect, isn't it natural that people would ask issue-based questions?

And I agree that it was unacceptable that silence be demanded of Senator Harris in that committee meeting. That was disgusting.

[HarmonyRockets]

118. I don't know...

haven't we basically gone through this exact same thing with Cory Booker? And haven't there been a lot of threads on this board critical of or questioning Bernie? So right there are two male possible 2020 candidates that have been under a pretty big magnifying glass. There was a thread about Joe Biden too. And there is one currently going on about Deval Patrick in which some people (including myself) are coming out against him as a candidate. People are just going to criticize candidates, it's inevitable. And about Warren, I don't know, to me it seems most "Bernie Bros" here are pretty warm on Elizabeth Warren. The last time I remember any real critical thread of her here was way back when she said something negative about Obama (can't remember what it was), and the outrage then of course came from the other side.

[Me.]

127. But None Of These Men

Have been shushed, either on the Senate floor or in a committee hearing. As for further criticism, you are missing it, as it has been amped up lately.

[Hekate]

42. Concerned. So concerned.

[Squinch]

64. Always.

[ismnotwasm]

52. Ok -- I'm not understanding this OP

The neverkamilla crap is just that--a very familiar group of strange brew that have zero information of political process but Fucking phd's in How to Talk Shit.

OF fucking COURSE Kamilla positions will be examined and evaluated-when has this never happened with a political candidate? Just as of course these creepy morons will try to sabotage her. If she decides to run, she will have a platform to examine. If these usual suspects group of assholes attempt to distort, lie, take out of context, minimize, belittle and suppress her, they have a huge motherfucking surprise coming.

[Squinch]

58. Well, the OP DOES get the Never Kamala hash into a headline. So there's that.

[ismnotwasm]

60. That's why I didn't use the hashtag

Don't want to give it the least amount of air.

[NurseJackie]

76. Yikes! You're right! Jesus!

[NBachers]

54. Nice positioning, way ahead of time, too.

[Squinch]

59. This way, we'll never notice.

[Skittles]

65. I didn't notice

did you, Squinch?

no indeed

[Squinch]

68. Notice what?

[Weekend Warrior]

67. That is funny. nt.

[Ken Burch]

98. Notice WHAT?

I have nothing to do with the hashtag crowd.

[FreepFryer]

61. The NSDAP faction take it too far, but it's legitimate to ask policy questions. (n/t)

[Squinch]

62. Bwaaaaahhhhh!!!!! Perfect!

[Ken Burch]

89. Uh no...the analogy doesn't work.

People who'd have questions about any possible candidate's views on the issues are not going to be comparable to Nazis, for God's sakes.

[FreepFryer]

94. The "alt-Left" isn't fooling anyone. Next up: armbands? Have a great day. (n/t)

[Ken Burch]

95. I'm not part of the "alt-left", nor do I defend them.

I called out the hashtaggers in my OP.

[FreepFryer]

97. I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the so-called 'alt-Left'. (n/t)

[Ken Burch]

111. Than why did you use a bad parody of my thread title?

If you weren't trying to associate me with the "alt-left", there was no reason to do that.

[FreepFryer]

113. If you think there was no reason, then you clearly don't get my comment. (n/t)

[phleshdef]

63. I think its kinda silly to jump the gun when we don't even know who is running in 2020.

This is like Elizabeth Warren all over again. She has never shown interest in running for President, yet people spent a good part of the lead up to 2016 treating her as a candidate.

[loyalsister]

66. I think the assumptions and accusations are out of hand

We have heard one, but there is a flip side. Some overzealous supporter could be behind it in order to promote unquestioning support. I don't think that is true, and I think that there are alternate exagerations.
It's important to ask questions and dig deep. We may have to grudgingly forgive to get the best possible result, but I think it is reasonable to ask plenty of questions.

[LittleBlue]

72. Kamala Harris supported asset forfeiture in California, even for people who haven't been convicted

No way am I voting for her. Seems like we're inviting another 2016 debacle.

Sacramento >> In an effort to fight criminal organizations, a newly proposed bill could give prosecutors the power to freeze illicit profits before filing criminal charges.

From drug-selling rings in Salinas’ Chinatown to corruption scandals with more than $10,000 at stake, the Assembly bill introduced Monday would allow prosecutors to seize assets before initiating criminal proceedings — a power only available at the federal-level — if there is a “substantial probability” they will file a criminal complaint....


The bill is being sponsored by Attorney General Kamala Harris, who has focused on battling transnational criminal organizations. Harris said those groups have made California the biggest point of entry for methamphetamine trafficking into the United States, adding that this bill could equip local and state law enforcement with tools to “dismantle these dangerous organizations.”

http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20150223/NEWS/150229908

This is a ridiculous power to give the government and it is used disproportionately against minorities.

[RandySF]

138. No one is saying there are no legitimate issues to discuss.

But I went on Twitter and they were making up all sorts of conspiracies.

[RhodeIslandOne]

211. "No way am I voting for her"

Even in the general election?

[Expecting Rain]

74. Democrats need candidates who will fight multinational drug gangs

Standing idle-by while illegal opioids and methamphetamines flow into the country isn't good politics, isn't good public policy, and isn't good morality.

Good for Kamila Harris for wanting to take action against the ill-gotten profits of drug-gangs before they have the chance to hide those assets.

[still_one]

77. where did Senator Harris say she was running for President in 2020?

[NurseJackie]

83. That's the thing, isn't it? One truth is abundantly clear, however...

... if she did run, if she was nominated, she'd be a very strong contender against any GOP nominee, any Green candidate, or any third-party Independent candidate.

My best guess is that the people who are partial to or who have a predisposition to support either of those three types of candidates (GOP, Green, Indy) then they are most likely to be the ones who see a strong challenger on the horizon and they're lobbing attacks and cheap shots NOW rather than wait until she becomes a genuine threat to their preferred candidate.

These things do not happen in a vacuum. This isn't random. There's an actual reason for the attacks on her, and one doesn't need to look very far to see WHERE the attacks originate and WHY they're coming at this moment in time.

Anyone who defends such things and such tactics is beneath contempt.

[Expecting Rain]

85. Yes, of course...

These are coordinated attacks that will be aimed at any good liberal Democrat who begins to emerge as a potential nominee in 2020.

It isn't random.

[still_one]

99. It is almost as though some folks want to do a pre-emptive attack on HER. Hmmmm, where have I seen

happen before........

If she decided to run, she has solid progressive credentials, and would make a terrific candidate. For now, I will concern myself with 2018, and wonder why some want to dwell on this speculation rather than what the country is going through under trump and a republican congress

[Ken Burch]

93. I hadn't heard of her saying it myself.

And until yesterday, I hadn't heard of anyone doing a coordinated campaign against her.

There should be no such campaign.

[still_one]

100. Personally, I think it is more productive to figure out how to deal with trump and the republican

congress, to limiting the damage they can do, and focusing on 2018, where we can actually change the course

[Ken Burch]

103. And I agree with that.

Until yesterday, I didn't know of the people I mentioned in the OP.

[still_one]

104. I had no doubt we would be on the same page on that, along with I would hope most here

[JustAnotherGen]

86. It's too soon

The End.

[NastyRiffraff]

101. Oh my god not again

Do you EVER stop? "I condemn something, BUT!!! Yada yada yada" followed by a tediously long, faux-concerned post.

Why not just join the "discussions" (a term I use advisedly) by the people who are attacking Senator Harris? Why do they attack her? Who the hell knows.

Senator Harris has not hinted at a presidential run. Personally, I hope she considers it. If she does run, we certainly can and should talk about her policy positions, as we would for anyone running for president. Attacking or, excuse me "asking tough questions" before then really is a waste of time.

[RandySF]

102. Who are the #neverKamala people?

I like her, but I don't think she's presidential material (yet). First, she needs to stop chasing the camera. She did a lot of that when she was DA and I think her performance suffered for it. As State Attorney General, she worked hard and served the state well. Now, she's chasing cameras at a time when there is a lot more work to be done.

Now, to the matter at hand, what's the beef? Is there an issue or set of issues they are unhappy about, or are they trying to take her down to make room for someone else on the left? Progressives SHOULD be happy with her. I wanted to personally escort Edwin Ramos to the electric chair for murdering three members of a family (he mistook them for rival gang members), but Harris refused to seek the death penalty.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. A hashtag churned up by Russian trolls should not be confused

with a movement.

[yardwork]

126. It's unimportant which is why we create OPs about them - several OPs a day.

Stop talking about the hashtags, which are meaningless anyway. Rec my thread about it.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. You noticed, huh?

[RandySF]

182. Are we going to see online attacks on Dem candidates from now through 2020

Solely for the purpose of helping a favored figure?

[GulfCoast66]

196. Did not take too long to see the trend develop.

You can expect to see any democrat gaining prominence to face this from some of the 'Progressives'.

When you see #never(fill in the blank) just read as really saying #no on but our guy.

Count on it.

[BannonsLiver]

194. Eh I'm not sure that's been the case

I have no idea how she handled media when she was in CA and don't much care, but I watch at least 3 of the Sunday shows and she's been pretty scarce the last 6 months. Ditto for prime time cable news.

We have seen her show up in clips from hearings but that's hardly chasing the cameras. They're already there.

[WinkyDink]

123. The Democratic Party is not (just my prediction, don't take offense) going to put forward a nominee

of color in 2020. Just not going to happen--not Harris, not Booker, and not Obama's alleged fave, Deval Patrick.

And not another woman, either--not Harris, not Warren.

Finally, we will not nominate an elderly man--not Biden, not Sanders.

We will nominate a Middle-Aged White male. Someone who will show his mettle in the intense struggles to come with the White House; Trump's actions re: NK, Iran, China, and of course Russia; tax "reform"; etc.

[MaryLouisaWillis]

131. Why not a woman?

The country voted for one in 2016 in overwhelming numbers. What we need to worry about is why our votes were not counted correctly.

[MaryLouisaWillis]

130. I do not believe there is any legitimate concern about Kamala Harris

as our nominee. I think this nonsense is being generated by bernie bros and russian bots (same thing) and that any female candidate that becomes too interesting will get the same treatment including Hillary if it starts to look like she might run again. Do not buy into the legitimacy of it all. Don't do their dirty work for them. This is nothing but second hand sexism.

[RandySF]

137. This week Kamala, next week someone else.

We;re going to have four years of these Twitter attacks.

[LanternWaste]

132. Who specifically is arguing that asking policy questions is invalid or illegitimate?

Who specifically is arguing that simply asking policy questions is invalid or illegitimate?

[Weekend Warrior]

140. This board has a search function. You are one of the originators of "NeverKamala"

It's not honest for you to say you just heard of it.

I'm of the belief you are a founding member.

This is a quote from the op on August 6, 2015. They are talking about Harris.

"She represents diversity-in-name-only. A female centrist of color is just like a white male centrist."

Then there is this from the same day almost two years ago.

DURHAM D "Kamala will be our first female POC President"

Ken Burch "Not that you'll be able to tell that from anything she'd do in the office."

And more.

"she is a bland centrist insider"

"She represents diversity-in-name-only."

"As senator or president, we'd never know she had any real connection to any community that faced oppression. None of that heritage survives in her, given her record in office so far."

"Ms. Harris does not speak for women of color as a community here-a community insiders can't be capable of struggling for.

It's not as if HRC cares about women of color."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1251498178

[NurseJackie]

142. OMG! WOW! Thank you for that! This whole thing sounded FISHY from the start...

... it's a complete scam, isn't it? Totally disingenuous!

I truly appreciate you digging into the archives to find out THE TRUTH about what's really going on.

[Weekend Warrior]

143. It's some kind of very personal grudge.

Very personal.

I forgot to put up the link. There is more "there".

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1251498178

Lots more can be found in a search. IMO, they go far past dog whistles when talking about Harris.

[NurseJackie]

146. I'm not in a position to speak about that person's motivation... HOWEVER...

... based on my observations, I can tell you that it's all very UGLY.

Nobody deserves to be treated that way. The fact that a DEMOCRAT (on a "Democratic" discussion forum) is treated with such contempt and derision is very troubling to me.

It's very divisive and it WEAKENS the Democratic Party. It tarnishes our "brand".

As I said, I can't speak authoritatively about someone's MOTIVATION for doing such things, but it does make me suspicious and curious as to WHY someone would want to do that.

PS: Thanks for the link. (https://www.democraticunderground.com/1251498178)

[Eliot Rosewater]

147. FANTASTIC work, my friend.

Yes, there is an agenda here that is the same one from

oops, i cant mention it

But be sure of ONE thing, on THIS board there are many many posters who have the agenda of keeping democrats out of power

MANY
what you just did was fucking CLASSIC and WONDERFUL

[JustAnotherGen]

166. Thanks

I generally don't waste my time on stuff like this - but the link is very helpful. BOTH of our posts are very helpful.

[heaven05]

176. YEP

[Gothmog]

221. Again, great work

[Gothmog]

159. I agree with your analysis

I am amused

[George II]

148. "Diversity in name only"? On this site?

[NurseJackie]

165. Looks like people are catching-on. Good.

Finally!

[R B Garr]

149. Yikes! There it is right there. The smearing of Democrats

is apparently really big business....

How sick.

[Eliot Rosewater]

150. It is almost as if there is a group of people on Democratic Underground, working in concert

to bring down the Democratic Party.

Doesnt ring a bell, does it?

Oops, I am not allowed to talk about that.

sigh

[R B Garr]

162. It does seem like a coordinated effort, and with stale talking points that voters

REJECTED. And they have rejected it many times over several elections.

This is a clear insight into the methods being used to damage candidates -- up and coming Democrats. This is just proof that the campaign against this good Democrat has been afoot for awhile.

[heaven05]

177. yes, you are

there is, so far, still free speech/opinion rights....even here I suppose

[Eliot Rosewater]

181. Not here, if I do as we say in the stand up business a "call back" to this particular

thing, I will immediately be reported on by those who dont want us to remember the past.

[lunasun]

229. I agree but can't say . They are not just here @ du unfortunately

[Maven]

151. Wow.

That's all I can say.

[BainsBane]

153. I saw him use that exact language to attack Perez

Last edited Thu Aug 3, 2017, 12:21 AM - Edit history (2)

To the letter, verbatim. Empty, mendacious insults of "corporatist and establishment" to someone who grew up in a poor immigrant family and worked as a janitor to pay his way through law school.

The language was identical, the finger prints unmistakable.

Did you see anything about Harris "sleeping her way to the top?" That's all over Twitter.

No wonder we see non-stop misdirection, dissembling, and retreat into empty buzzwords and insults. It's all part of a ruse to conceal a craven power play.

[NurseJackie]

161. Others have been banned for less, I imagine.

I must admit that I'm at a loss to explain why anyone would feel that such things could be done with impunity and without risk or consequence. I'm relieved to see the pushback in this thread. It's good to know that there are still many people here who find this sort of thing to be unacceptable and aren't afraid to let their opinions be heard.

As loyal Democrats ourselves, it's really our DUTY to speak out in opposition when our Democratic politicians are smeared, attacked and denigrated. It's our duty to support the Democratic Party from those whose actions only serve to WEAKEN and DIVIDE us.

[Gothmog]

164. Same here-the same attacks were used on Tom Perez

[Eliot Rosewater]

170. I dont understand why people havent figured this out yet

that we cant afford a repeat of

oops, I am not allowed to mention that

but if we repeat that in 2018, the net neutrality and speech laws that WILL be changed will put this board out of business.

I just dont understand why this is happening AGAIN

[BainsBane]

172. I think it entirely appropriate to argue for any candidate people choose

but why the subterfuge? And why do they have noting to say but insults and character assassination toward potential opponents? It's almost like they know they can't win on the merits.

If I support someone, I make a reasoned argument for why based on policy and accomplishments. I don't engage in an underground smear campaign because I'm afraid a candidate I might prefer can't handle competition.

[Eliot Rosewater]

173. Great observation.

I no longer consider most of them real progressives at all, I consider them something else.

[brer cat]

155. Dayum!

Welcome to DU, Weekend Warrior!

[tammywammy]

156. That's some nasty stuff there.

"Diversity in name only"

[NastyRiffraff]

157. Excellent [post!

I hope you will post more, Weekend Warrior.

And Ken? Research can be your friend. So is honesty.

[Gothmog]

158. Great post

Thank you for using Ken's own words against him.

[stevenleser]

168. Wow. nt

[boston bean]

174. The silence from the one you posted this to, is deafening!

good work!

[Gothmog]

180. Yes that silence is amusing

[BannonsLiver]

189. Unmasked! Very well done.

[herding cats]

195. That's 1367 watts of sunlight right there!

Thanks for looking that up and sharing it here. As I said, it's illuminating!

[SunSeeker]

198. BABOOM!

[Ken Burch]

200. Those are things I said two years ago. I'd forgotten I'd even posted them.

They were harsher in tone than they should have been.

She would be the first female POC president.

But what a candidate stands for matters as much as who they are.

[Weekend Warrior]

201. "They were harsher in tone than they should have been. "

Much of it is outright racism that cannot be explained away.

"She would be the first female POC president."

Really?

[Ken Burch]

202. That is simply a factual statement.

I'd support her if she was nominated.

[Weekend Warrior]

203. I'm glad that while being dismissive toward her because of the color of her skin...

You would still support her over a Republican.

[Ken Burch]

204. I'm not dismissive of her over anything pertaining to her race OR gender.

I'm not dismissive of her at all.

I simply don't see her as inherently superior to anyone else who could run-I don't see her as inherently inferior, either.

She's as qualified as anyone else.

What more do I need to say to prove I'm not dismissive of her?

Isn't it enough to say she's one possible candidate among a number of possible candidates?

I'm not trying to hound her out of running.

My focus is on issues.

I don't believe we can win running on the exact same platform, with any alternative ideas automatically excluded.

[Weekend Warrior]

205. "She represents diversity-in-name-only."

"A female centrist of color is just like a white male centrist."

A reply of yours about Harris being the first POC female President

"Not that you'll be able to tell that from anything she'd do in the office."

"She represents diversity-in-name-only."

That is racism. Bold and undeniable racism. Cannot be explained away. Stop dismissing it.

[Ken Burch]

206. I said nothing racist.

I was commenting on her views as I'd heard of them-views that seemed to be conventional and mainstream.

And if I held racist views on politics, I wouldn't have campaigned for Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama, and Barbara Lee and Shirley Chisholm wouldn't be among my political idols.

I also just started a thread apologizing for the things I posted then.

[Weekend Warrior]

208. "I also just started a thread apologizing for the things I posted then. "

Yes, you apologized for posts. Not for what they were.

[Ken Burch]

209. They weren't racist.

If I held racist views, I wouldn't have campaigned for Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama, and I wouldn't revere Barbara Lee and Shirley Chisholm.

[Weekend Warrior]

210. They were. There is no explaining it away or justifying it. nt.

[Ken Burch]

214. No they weren't. I hate racism.

That's why I'm on the Left.

[NurseJackie]

212. Oh brother! That's almost as good as "some of my best friends..."

... I do not believe that your statement (even if true) gives you the blanket protection that you seek. It's just too much protesting, and that makes me suspicious. Yes, I know it's cynical of me... but that's just the way it is. I've seen it all before and I've been proven correct too many times before. It's unlikely that I'm going to start second-guessing myself now.

Campaigning for or voting for a POC does not make someone "not-a-racist". My own dear father, rest his soul, was (to my great embarrassment) a racist. He'd deny it, but he was. If you'd met him, you'd say he was too. Guess what, he voted for Obama, and had an Obama bumpersticker on his car. But, neither of those facts didn't make him any LESS of a racist.

It's always been my experience that one's unguarded words and attitudes reveal more about the true individual than when they're "on guard" or "being defensive" or when they're trying to portray themselves in the most positive light.

In any case, all I'm trying to say is that you've got your work cut out for you. My advice is to think before you speak (or post) and try to consider everyone's feelings and point of view. That's all. I'm not angry with you. It's nothing personal at all. Just some friendly advice and observations that I hope will make you a better person.

[BainsBane]

228. Exactly

[bettyellen]

230. Bullshit/ you accused her of being a war monger. Where the hell did you get that idea?

Or is it the same 5-6 talking points you use for everyone you feel like labeling a neo-liberal? It's parroting bullshit.
Hawk my ass.

[betsuni]

231. I think same talking points. It's the "big doners" who push Dems into "right-wing trade deals" ...

"open to more military intervention" and make them "fixated on anti-progressive goals."

[bettyellen]

232. Didn't he figure out where the Hillary will war w Russia came from? Guess not. Funny he can

Claim to have such deeply held convictions and forget all about them. Wow.

[betsuni]

233. Wow is right.

[Ken Burch]

243. No. I said I wanted to know if anybody we might nominate was a hawk or a dove.

I didn't accuse her of anything.

The issues I listed are among the most important of any of the issues a president might deal with.

And they are the same list I've had for decades.

[bettyellen]

246. You baselessly accused her of being in favor of US military intervention- this crap gets parroted

Over and over again by RW bots pretending to be super lefty. You claim you had good intentions- but you're literally fabricating issues against Dems out of whole cloth. You don't get to do that and pretend you're posting in good faith.



"Star Member Ken Burch
12. Not that you'll be able to tell that from anything she'd do in the office.
There's no way to use a trade deal or a U.S. military intervention for anything anti-racist."

[Ken Burch]

248. Those were references to HRC's positions, not Harris'

n/t.

[bettyellen]

250. The convo was about Harris and our nominee- you were trashing both with the same propaganda...

Last edited Thu Aug 3, 2017, 03:47 PM - Edit history (1)

You haven't figured out where the "Hillary wants war w Russia" crap came from yet? You were used to spew bullshit w no basis in reality. And you do it against Perez, Booker to this day, using the same words to describe them all, probably because you've also dismissed them before doing any research. You claimed you knew too little about Harris to comment now, when you've trashed her ages ago. You trash Dems so reflexively, you can't even remember doing it. That's a problem for me.

We see you, and we don't believe you anymore. Period. Credibility, gone.

[RhodeIslandOne]

207. But you made them, and it makes your OP now suspicious

Why not leave such questioning of Kamala Harris's positions to someone who clearly hadn't made up their mind, eh?

[betsuni]

213. Thank you!

[heaven05]

152. yeah but any "reasonable questions"

about BS here are quickly alerted on and silenced(hid). So leave Senator Harris alone UNTIL she sets a platform, IF she want's to run in this racist nation and put her family in danger...from the racist trumpers that have, like the zombie movies, risen out of their graves in all their ugliness and evil.....but if she declares, she will be a viable and real candidate of the people, I think.

[Codeine]

154. You never fucking quit, do you?

Transparent as hell.

[tammywammy]

163. So transparent.

It's amusing. You'd think he'd get embarrassed.

Did you see post #140? Kamala Harris is "diversity in name only" according to Ken.

[Ken Burch]

175. I'm speaking there solely on her stances on the issues.

I'd support her if she was nominated. And my OP condemned people who were unfairly attacking her.

What else do you need?

[tammywammy]

178. Sure.....

[BainsBane]

183. Policy

Poverty and economic injustice. Riiiight.

A commitment to ending poverty so great that we see a series of proposals focused on the white male middle to upper middle class, efforts to disenfranchise and poor and people of color through extending the caucus system, and attacks on those public officials who managed to work their way out of poverty. If were concern with poverty, we wouldn't see a concerted effort to direct the party toward a focus on the those whose incomes far exceed the national mean. People who earn $100-200k a year may pretend they are poor, but where I come from that's fucking rich. Millionaires and near millionaires may respond favorably to their inclusion in the "working class" while low to median wage workers are rhetorically excluded from it, but such overtures do nothing to address poverty.

A concern for poverty would mean respecting the votes of the poor, listening rather than insulting them as "establishment" and "corporatist." It would mean inviting their participation in the political process rather than working to disenfranchise them by speaking caucuses.

Besides, you yourself said the poor weren't the priority. You insisting that addressing inequality in K-12 that cements generations of poverty wasn't nearly as important as guaranteeing "free" college to students to wealthy to qualify for financial aid. That's not about addressing poverty. It's about concentrating wealth and opportunity in the upper 15%.

Addressing poverty would mean that the people who earn in the hundreds of thousands would be willing to sacrifice some of their own comforts for those who can't mange the basics. But of course we see the opposite of that. We see the poor and people of color dismissed as "establishment" (literally, AA as an entire race), while progressive is reserved to those who enjoy far greater privilege.

This is part of the language of obfuscation, a class project that falsely presents wealth and privilege as poverty, while targeting the poor and marginalized for further exclusion. And as we observe in the case of Kamala Harris and before her Tom Perez, obfuscation and is a central tactic in power plays on the behalf of self-entitled minority.

After years of hearing the same words, with absolutely no willingness to listen to the concerns of the poor and marginalized, it's become clear that they are invoked as rhetorical justification for a very different class project. I remember being told by one "progressive" that food stamps at their current level was an adequate response to poverty. Food stamps, something the most conservative Democrats vote for.
That isn't about ending poverty. It isn't about addressing inequality. It's throwing a few crumbs to the poor to keep them poor while government focuses on the middle to upper-middle class.

It's also worth nothing that the Club for Growth and other RW outfits have likewise adopted the language of anti-corporatism. We see no qualms about using leftist language to advance deeply reactionary goals.

I don't know much about Harris's record or background, and if she runs I will inform myself. But I do know that the people who are attacking her have already proven their lack of concern for poverty and equality beyond any shadow of doubt. That they continue to use words like poverty and equality while repeatedly arguing against policies that would address those problem betray goals very different from what they pretend.

[Ken Burch]

185. I've never insulted the poor.

The poor voted for the candidate you preferred in the primary(and had the right to do so, and I respect their decision, and that is now put to rest)because they thought she was stronger on issues of social oppression...also they liked her K-12 proposals(proposals any Dem president would be trying to implement).

The 2016 primaries and election is over. Neither of the strongest Dem primary candidates are candidates now. In all likelihood, neither will be again. And I've said repeatedly that I don't think the person I supported in the primaries SHOULD run again-too much baggage and he'd be too old.

I have no candidate for 2020 at the moment, and don't plan to even think about that until at least late 2018.

The poor who voted(most poor people didn't vote) and most people of color didn't vote for the candidate I preferred in 2016.

That doesn't mean they can be assumed to disagree with everything his campaign called for.

Most of them are in agreement with him on economic justice issues.



And I never, not ONCE, called the poor "corporatist".

Nor have I ever taken the side of people earning "hundreds of thousands of dollars' against the poor.

People who earn that much money didn't support the candidate I supported. They all voted GOP.

And people earning THAT much money would all be paying out of their own or their parents' pockets to go to private universities, just for the exclusiveness.

As to free(or even low-cost college)I personally support it, in significant measure, because it would give the poor a greater chance to go to college if they wished to do so-I don't see college as something only rich people, and especially only rich white men, want to attend.

I don't hate Kamala Harris. I have no strong feelings about her at this point one way or another.

If she runs and is nominated, I'll campaign for her.

All I said is that, while no one should be demonizing any possible Dem candidate, people have the right to ask questions about what any possible candidate stands for. The first line of my OP was a condemnation of the haters-an unambiguous condemnation.

[Weekend Warrior]

188. Hi Felicia!!!!!

[NurseJackie]

190. I know! Right? :-D

[NurseJackie]

193. Think about it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

191. Scurry on back there.....scurry on back.

Say hi to the folks dwelling in the caves.

[Skidmore]

199. What

are you going on about? Unless we get a majority in one or both houses of Congress in 2018, we are going to be hurting in a way no POTUS can singlehandedly change. Progressive purity tests are not the answer. For me, it brings to mind all the weight of Teabagger purity tests dragging us over the cliff now.What we need is sound proposals and empathy. A period of practical problem solving for the two-thirds of the nation that may be willing to coalesce around them. Trump and his GOP can keep marching off the cliff, but first we need to pry their fingers off of the government. Hashtagging can be divisive also.

BTW, I have yet to see an election where Democratic Party candidates did not provide positions on issues.

[Ken Burch]

245. I agree with you about 2018. I didn't even want to talk about 2020.

n/t.

[bettyellen]

256. you slimed her so reflexively you don't even remember it? WTF. Just stop.

[hrmjustin]

274. the Never Kamala forces are only interested in tearing down Democrats!

In the past few days they have gotten hysterical on Twitter! And they seem to be going after African American Democrats.

[Atticus]

282. This entire thread, now 280 replies, is a great example of the keyboard warrior mental masturbation

that may very well cost us the House in 2018 and the White House in 2020.

It's simple: the lives of Americans will be better if we vote Democratic, period. One has to wonder how many of these nit-picking comments are initiated by "the Dark Side".