General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI believe it is correct to criticize Bernie when he disrespects my party.
He is throwing bombs from the sidelines at a party he won't join.
Republicans do that. I don't like it when they do that.
I don't like it when greens do it.
I don't like it when libertarians do it.
I don't like it when an independent democratic socialist does it.
End of story.
greeny2323
(590 posts)Well said. And so simple to understand.
FBaggins
(26,714 posts)That it's exactly the response that Republicans want us to have. One would have hoped that the OPer would feel constrained by that... but I guess not.
Goodness... they can't wait for us to have a dozen+ candidates with their own variations of this debate.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)"Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo, they would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats".
Exactly who is he referring to. And that was from this year 2017.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Who voted against the original ACA and who have voted with the GOP to weaken or repeal it while Obama was in office.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)Who is he and you referring to be explicit/exact please.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)There are still Dems in Congress who voted against Obamacare
boston bean
(36,217 posts)Along with republicans to repeal aca???
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)So do you think that Sanders, who votes with the Democrats overwhelmingly, and takes leadership roles, and gets out the youth vote, is less valuable to the Democratic party than the Blue Dog DINOs that vote disturbingly often with the GOP? Who is a better Democrat party platform promoter?
boston bean
(36,217 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Criticisms and Attacks. I know, it's tough to understand.
Fla Dem
(23,573 posts)Not on national news/ talk shows or forums and speeches. When he does that he doesn't come across as a team player, but rather as someone who is saying look at me, look at how smart and insightful I am, the Dems are losers.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)The thing is, he is valuable to them precisely because he is not beholden to the hive mentality. Someone that can see the forest for the trees. IMO Sanders IS smart and insightful. And as a prominent independent that votes with Democrats, he is in a unique position. And the fact is, Democrats have been 'losers' a lot lately. And the pattern of shutting out the left wing of the party and trying to out Republican the Republicans has been a colossal failure. So its only natural that his voice would be listened to now. That criticism is deserved and needed to find new ways to win.
The only time I hear accusations that its all about him and he is only interested in promoting himself to show "how smart and insightful" he is, is from those that don't like him and are projecting that onto him. Because you can say that about any leader throughout history. We only know about those leaders because they stepped up so the public could find out how "smart and insightful" they were. How else do they operate? If his exposure and what he says makes him popular....instead of criticizing that popularity, maybe, just maybe, what he is saying is important?
George II
(67,782 posts)His function as Chairman of Committee Outreach is to communicate the views of the various Senate Democratic Committees to the other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)OK to launch that attack because ONE PERCENT of the party thinks that way?
Absurd.
Ridiculous.
You really believe a couple of rogue democrats is why Bernie says these things? It is worth attacking the entire party as he has done here and with the recent attack about it being a failure, because two or three are wrong?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Congratulations. You're helping keep the party divided.
This.
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)But here are just a few of those Dems he's talking about:
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2015/1/23/1359748/-These-are-the-Democrats-who-voted-against-abortion-coverage-Wall-Street-reform-and-the-environment
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)on this page?
Not seeing any.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)90-7.
Only 4 Democrats voted no. And one independent.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)Democrats should not vote for national defense?
Rural_Progressive
(1,105 posts)to line the pockets of the military industrial complex.
Shall we examine how Feinstein and her husband have become millionaires?
http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Richard_C._Blum_and_Dianne_Feinstein:_The_Power_Couple_of_California
I suspect that's the kind of thing Sanders was talking about.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)Seems like you are talking like you know something prosecutors don't.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)quid pro quo...it is meaningless...Consider this. The link is below. I am not saying Sen. Sander's did anything wrong; one needs money to run an election, but you are wrong to attack Sen. Feinstein in this manner for essentially the same thing...taking money in order to win election.
"A lavish Marthas Vineyard Democratic fundraiser that Bernie Sanders attended in 2007 featured lobbyists for many of the industries he now rails against on the presidential campaign trail, according to a guest list obtained by MSNBC."
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-campaign-finance-purity-not-always-possible
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)Not everyone.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)I wouldn't go that far right off the bat. Start with the worst and work your way in.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)I think this is a big part of the issue. None of this is backed up with facts or a valid reasoning. This stuff like the party is status quo, the party is corrupt etc and no one can back it up with FACTS.
People need to stop accepting these attacks as truth unless a true fact can be articulated in support of the attack.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)And they are right out there for all to see.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)They are corrupt?? Establishment?? Not real dems?? Please explain exactly how this works.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It's called getting elected, and Obamacare hurt the house and senate worse than any other issue. Yet you never hear about that part of what "Dems are doing wrong".
boston bean
(36,217 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Has turned out to be a nutter. And so it goes....
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)A CNN poll just came out that said 58% of people are against an increase in military spending.
Yet it passes 90-7. An increase of $80 billion. To put that in perspective, that's almost twice as much as Bernie's free college program. Yet if he were to introduce that bill tomorrow, there would be 10 threads on this board by so called liberals going all out asking about how it would be funded.
And guess what they're going to be cutting to make up for the increase?
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)hueymahl
(2,447 posts)Cuts to the heart of the issue.
Yet it passes 90-7. An increase of $80 billion. To put that in perspective, that's almost twice as much as Bernie's free college program. Yet if he were to introduce that bill tomorrow, there would be 10 threads on this board by so called liberals going all out asking about how it would be funded.
I'm all for party, but when you are party first, second and third, and then principles somewhere down the line, you have some serious soul searching to do.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Other people's pork- not there own.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Bernie takes HIS pork. And we all know he fought for it with fervent fury. Damned Bernie - out there beating the drums for MORE military waste!
His constituents took the money because it's there - not because their senator fought for it. Now if his constituents had all protested their portion of the pork pie, they'd have petitioned Bernie to bring in some cash to support the maple syrup industry.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)You can't convince me they're not full of shut when theycall HRC a hawk and talk about cutting miltary spending. Leaf peeping and ice cream aren't enough to keep the lights on in Vt.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)And so is Sander's, yet you speak as though his record is somehow superior. Does that mean you oppose the Brady Bill, waiting periods for gun purchases, and believe gun corporations must have civil liability so as to not have a their profits encumbered by pesky citizens concerned about their lives? Do you also approve of Sanders four votes opposing closing Gitmo, his votes against every immigration reform bill since the 90s, except the one the year before he announced for president? Do you support the Minutemen and the f-35? How about subsidies for big sugar? Your comment above about the defense bill today make me wonder if you have actually ever looked at Sanders voting record.
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/22/defense#.WcHjVtFOmhA
I myself don't happen to agree than the profits of gun corporations should take precedence over human life, and I view gun policy in America as a form of genocide on urban populations. I dont believe that affluent white communities should send their toxic waste to poor brown communities, and I certainly don't think it appropriate to profit from such dumps.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eoin-higgins/what-about-sierra-blanca-bernie_b_9233818.html
I also don't think it appropriate for politicians to have off-shore trusts. https://vtdigger.org/2017/09/18/investigation-underway-police-stop-rabbi-gunpoint/#.WcEgINN97-Y
I happen to think govt officials should be transparent about their financial holdings so voters can be informed of any potential conflict of interest.
Voting records are indeed public. What is unfortunate is how few citizens look at or care about them, particularly those who put the careers of certain politics before principle, citizens, and intellectual integrity.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)If by Independent you mean Sanders rather than King. It is fascinating what presidential aspirations do to one's voting record. https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/22/defense#.WcHjVtFOmhA
Does that mean he's going to stop backing the F-35? https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/12/why-bernie-sanders-is-backing-a-15-trillion-military-boondoggle.html
If the govt could get some of those trillions of dollars back, we might be able to pay for some healthcare.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)on guns, the F-35, Gitmo, immigration, Gitmo, and a host of other things. Why is he exempt from the criticisms he hurls at others?
And how do votes by three Democrats justify attacks on the entirety of the party AND its voters?
delisen
(6,042 posts)He must not be questioned, his statement must not be discussed or evaluated, at least according to some of his presenter/followers.
To the extent that I consider myself a Democrat, when I listen to Senator Sanders on the Democratic Party, I am reminded of the time I put in at a particularly authoritarian religious school, and almost reflexively feel the urge lower my head and atone for my sins I am bad, bad, bad, and must mend my ways.
I never responded well to that approach as a child, and am unlikely to do so as I adult.
I actually don't think Sanders can help making his negative comments. I have begun to see him as a type of revivalist preacher.
I think it would have been great if he had warned us about McConnell's machinations in his latest attempt to destroy heath care coverage for millions. Instead he focused on rolling out his Medicare for All plan.
I really should not expect Senator Sanders to alert me. He marches to his own drummer, has his own priorities and ambitions. I think I need to keep my attention focused on the Republican attempts to harm us.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)A fair statement would be that in both major parties, some people would let the ship go down, as long as they had 1st class seats.
But he targeted it to only one side, and unfairly accused everyone in that party of doing that or being complicit. That's not a fair statement. That's an attack, no matter how you look at it. There's only one reason to make such a general attack against a party: to harm that party, the entire party, and only that party.
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)The DEMS have suffered massive electoral losses in all aspects of government, nationally and locally and to claim everything is just fine is laughable!
boston bean
(36,217 posts)shanny
(6,709 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)shanny
(6,709 posts)neato, even
boston bean
(36,217 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,121 posts)mentalslavery
(463 posts)lancelyons
(988 posts)that is another insult to the democratic party.
I just read that he isnt going to run as a democrat in his 2018 senate run....He is going back to running as independent.
CrispyQ
(36,413 posts)Even though the repubs control all three branches of the federal govt & a majority of state govts, they are POd at his statement. Sure, the GOP lied and cheated and stole their way into power, but for being the supposed smart party, the dems sure got played.
4now
(1,596 posts)I won't help him do it again.
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)Are you able to prove him wrong?
George II
(67,782 posts)"The Current Model of the Democratic Party Obviously Is Not Working".
The "current model" is based on the most recent Party Platform, written last year. He lays claim to helping to change the platform to include his ideas and policies.
So, he helped form the "current model", and now he's claiming it's not working. So why doesn't HE take at least partial responsibility for the model that's not working?
CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)why should Bernie take responsibility? I thought he wasn't a Democrat?
In all honesty though, is the model working? We have lost over 1100 seats, under what model of anything is that considered a success?
DownriverDem
(6,226 posts)Gerrymandered districts helped those losses. Remember 2010? Many repubs won control of many states that election. They drew the lines. The Dems got screwed.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)Why we lost seats has more to do with gerrymandering than anything else, I shouldnt have to say that on a LIBERAL or DEMOCRATIC site, I shouldnt be reading something here that makes me say that...
CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)and as far as gerrymandering having to do with it more than than anything else, I will disagree and I will cite you this as my source why I say this. Does gerrymandering play a part? Sure but there is a lot more to it than that.
mcar
(42,278 posts)OK.
CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)I would say so yes.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)mcar
(42,278 posts)And a majority in Congress that is about to vote, again, to kill people.
I really wish Senator Sanders would direct his ire in their direction and actually work to help the party with which he caucuses, rather then tearing it down.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)Link to tweet
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/7/16069112/bernie-sanders-obamacare-trumpcare
Throughout this whole thing, there was always the temptation to pivot to make a stronger case for Medicare-for-all, rather than keeping the ACA at the center of our focus, one aide recalled. Bernie always insisted to us: No, no, no.
Sanders has been a team player.
mcar
(42,278 posts)Yes, he said this and good on him. But what gets the most attention? His constant attacks on the Democratic Party.
My suggestion is he ease off on that and focus more on his good criticism of the current regime.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)For the democratic party
boston bean
(36,217 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...and just look at the selected 30 seconds, she said he's the leader.
delisen
(6,042 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)And she talked about him the most. Like it or not, he's the heart of the party.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Tell me if you think I'm wrong, whose name did she say before his?
boston bean
(36,217 posts)saying a name or what name was said first.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)And when presented with facts that counter what you say you ignore them.
It is useless to argue with you so fare thee well friend.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)brush
(53,735 posts)Our members decide that, along with congresspersons (all of them not just her) and party officials.
It's ridiculous and absurd to be arguing that a non-Democrat is "the" leader of the Democratic Party.
He caucuses with us and that's fine. He's given some leadership responsibilities to, frankly, keep him and his supporters happy.
It's sorta of a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" deal. (we get to use you like you used us to run under the Democratic Party banner}.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)I know what she said and I strongly disagree with her. Bernie is no leader of anything, especially the Democratic Party. (Yes, I know that's heresy and I should be burned at the stake!)
thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)...by telling them to stop doing the same thing that has already cost them the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and a bunch of Governorships.
mcar
(42,278 posts)Surely, he's more media savvy than that. MSM likes nothing more than their silly "Democrats in Disarray" meme. Surely, Sanders knows better than to perpetuate it.
There are ways to improve the party that don't involve publicly trashing it. Again, the good senator surely knows that.
thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)brush
(53,735 posts)and keep on saying he's trying to help the party helping the party by trashing it is certainly a "different" approach.
Sienna86
(2,148 posts)Of the Democratic Party.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)hueymahl
(2,447 posts)Especially when they claim to be members of the Democratic Party
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Sanders, like all of us, has every right to criticize the Democratic Party not that he has done much of that. I swear I'm so sick of these posts here. Keep fighting Sanders. The GOP and Trump appreciate it.
George II
(67,782 posts)....they occurred last year, in order to comply with the TOS, I can't. And he's still doing it.
thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)Do you have an example from 2017, i.e. that "he's still doing it"?
George II
(67,782 posts)....stop at that.
Plus, Nina Turner said this summer that she and he would be open to endorsing republicans in future elections.
thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)If we've lost the House, Senate, Presidency, and so many Governorships, then I think "The current model of the Democratic Party obviously is not working" is a fair criticism. I know, you say he didn't stop there, but maybe you stopped too soon, because you didn't include anything objectionable, at least IMO.
As for Nina Turner, last I checked, she was not Bernie Sanders. If you have to reach to other people to "prove" that Sanders is saying he shouldn't, then I guess it wasn't so easy to actually find Sanders saying things he shouldn't.
George II
(67,782 posts)...did that happen?
I won't get too deeply into what Sanders has said, even during the general election campaign. Don't need alerts and removed posts.
Fact is, he DID criticize the party yesterday despite us GAINING seats in 2016.
Nina Turner is his chosen President of "Our Revolution", his organization, and she claims to speak for him.
thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)...is that Obama was a transformational candidate. You can't count on always having that. I think the DNC was stronger under Dean than under Obama's Wasserman, though.
George II
(67,782 posts)thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)2016 congress is a complicated conversation. Yes, we picked up seats, though I would not say that we did well. So in a classic glass half empty vs half full scenario, you could either say our gains in 2016 are evidence that the Dem party is on the right track or that our limited gains in 2016 (considering what was available in competitive races) are evidence that we need some changes. I guess I would just suggest this question: Looking at the bigger picture, are you happy with the progress of the Democratic party over the last 20 years?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,905 posts)You may not like the electoral college, but thems the rules. We knew that going in.
George II
(67,782 posts)thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)The newspaper gave it a sensationalistic headline, but it's the same thing he said before. Let's just stick with Sanders' words. Not someone editorializing about what he said (in a headline or otherwise). Not the words of someone else who claims to speak for him (if indeed Nina Turner has claimed that as you suggest, I don't know). Just *his* words. And this article had basically the same thing you already provided i.e.:
The Democratic party needs fundamental change. What it needs is to open up its doors to working people, and young people, and older people who are prepared to fight for social and economic justice.
The Democratic party must understand what side it is on. And that cannot be the side of Wall Street, or the fossil fuel industry, or the drug companies.
Dems like Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown could have given very much the same speech, IMO. Certainly that last paragraph. Sanders may be more dramatic in his delivery, but the point is the same.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)divide it. I guess that's why they joined the party.
thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)I'm saying that neither Warren nor Brown are going to go with a message of attacking the Democratic Party right now. They have similar messages about wall street etc, but they aren't engaged in circular firing squads.
moriah
(8,311 posts)He shouldn't have run in our fucking primary if he wasn't going to keep his word to work from within it to change it.
Instead, he's continuing to tout his "Independent" label and use it to divide the Party further, when it's the last thing we need right now. You can be a vocal voice for change within the Party, and that's what he said he was going to do. He's not taken even the token step of putting a D beside his name. He only did it when it was convenient, when he wanted to make a Presidential bid.
Until he does that, no, he isn't like "all of us", nor does he have the same right to criticize.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)By your logic, no one but Republicans have the right to criticize the GOP. Sorry, but the Democratic Party is FAR from perfect and frankly some of the posts on here are creepy. I've come to suspect that some DUers would vote for Genghis Khan over Sanders provided Khan made sure to run as Dem.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)This forum is called Democratic Underground.
When you say, "All of us", that suggests internal criticism, which is extremely healthy indeed. It's why we have primaries, why we work to build a platform. We have flaws and must find ways to work with everyone in our big tent. We will have our squabbles, because it is a big tent. But the ideal is unity and trying to get the best for everyone in our big tent, including the little groups within it.
If that's what I truly perceived Bernie to be doing -- making the criticisms, but from inside, with the goal to strengthen the party -- I would have few issues. But he sadly is pushing a division in the party of addressing economic vs social justice, when we should be focusing on both. And even if it wasn't his intent to do so, that's what his candidacy did.
And we can't make the false assumption that social justice will come when we have economic justice. (If we all drove the same car maybe, but we know that's not what Bernie or anyone supporting him means by economic justice) But since rich black men are still pulled over and harassed on the presumption they stole the nice vehicle, obviously just having the trappings of wealth doesn't negate the social paradigm we have to address as well.
They both must be worked for together, and we must work together as a Party to get the best for everyone.
----
There's a big difference between the right "all of us" have to criticize our Democratic candidates -- where our criticism is for the health of the party -- and the rights of outsiders to trash it and cause division.
We of course are all Americans and can say whatever the hell we want. But that's what I meant by "the same right as all of us". Us Democrats.
If you really can't see the distinction, perhaps this isn't your home. And I'm sorry for that, because you've been with us awhile.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)Long exchange there, two years old. I can't find a revision to the founder's thinking anywhere, so if you can, please post it and I'll sit corrected.
Until that time ... it seems clear that you are misinterpreting the terms of service.
moriah
(8,311 posts)Because if TOS says I'm not allowed to say I really AM pissed that Bernie let people lie for him to say hed'd be putting the I aside, then you better alert on both of my posts.
And fast.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)I think that would contribute to the ongoing disruption of this forum.
moriah
(8,311 posts)For more history, you'll understand I hope that DU has had several long-standing rules that could get posts removed if you posted supporting independents OTHER than Bernie when a Democratic candidate was running in the same election, because he effectively had made it where no Democratic candidate could win VT but caucused with us.
You could promote a Green running against a Republican only, but not if the Democratic Party was also fielding a candidate in that election.
And also, we are supposed to be reasonably respectful when speaking of him, as we would of others we perceive to be "on the same side". And I do think Bernie is on the same side -- I just strongly disagree with his tactics being what we need when we have a divided Party and Republican majorities in government.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)But several members have the same sincere misunderstanding as you re: Sanders being a Democrat or not, and have applied same in the jury system.
That's probably all I can say without having this post hidden because of this, from the TOS:
Don't interfere with forum moderation
Don't post messages about site rules, enforcement, juries, hosts, administration, alerts, alerters, removed posts, appeals, locked threads, or anything else related to how this website is moderated (except in the Ask the Administrators forum).
Why we have this rule: The purpose of Democratic Underground is to discuss politics, issues, and current events. Open discussion of how the website is run tends to distract from our core purpose.
moriah
(8,311 posts)But I do still misunderstand why YOU seem to think I have a "sincere misunderstanding" of Sander's party status.
Despite letting Weaver promise for him that he would remain part of the Democratic party even if he lost, he continues to self-identify with the Independent label -- even on the "DNC Unity Tour".
For posts on this forum, supporting his efforts is allowed and making attacks vs criticism is not.
That's not because of his official Party affiliation, but was a special rule for him long before he made a bid for the Presidency because even though Dems still ran in VT, their candidate was likely to lose. And remains because he accepted money from the DNC for his Senate bid and has, for the most part, caucused with the Democratic Party.
I think I have a very clear understanding of both his actual party affiliation and how he has been treated by DU TOS since practically the beginning of time.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)some criticism is permitted apparently of Democrats...Sen. Sanders is not subject to different rules.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I can also assure you that I would never vote for anyone who was not a registered Democrat.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,905 posts)you would not have voted for him?
DownriverDem
(6,226 posts)We have a two party system. Why would you think we Dems want a non-member?
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)PragmaticLiberal
(904 posts)But with that being said, I agree with you as well.
I'm not a fan of "backseat drivers".
thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)PragmaticLiberal
(904 posts)I just take Bernie at his word: He's not a Democrat.
RandySF
(58,447 posts)The earth would open up and swallow Pittsburg but we'd be too busy swarming over Bernie threads.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)Why are people more offended about the response to the attack than they are offended by the attack?
brush
(53,735 posts)If he wants to critique the party there's a way of doing it interally instead whenever someone sticks a mic in his face.
A certain independent senator is too fucking eager to do that.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... independent democratic socialist only ran as a Democrat in order to use the Party's resources to further his personal political ambitions, and then dropped the (D) designation the minute it no longer served his purposes.
CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)somebody somewhere will be upset about something about Bernie. Sigh...
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)to President Barack Hussein Obama our Democratic President that was loved by many, yet hated by a few. He was vilified.
CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)sheshe2
(83,637 posts)Best President of my lifetime...yet
Yes, Bernie Sanders Wanted Obama Primaried in 2012. Heres Why.
https://www.thenation.com/article/yes-bernie-sanders-wanted-obama-primaried-in-2012-heres-why/
mcar
(42,278 posts)And those of us who supported him were mocked and ridiculed. I won't forget.
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)I arrived here a month before the 2012 election.
I am grateful that we had the BOG back then...never would have survived without it.
mcar
(42,278 posts)I couldn't believe my eyes some days.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Most Democrats just don't like him.
CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)Show us one which says otherwise
George II
(67,782 posts)CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)I'm not going to get into a dance with people who refuse to believe things, and no matter what, nothing will be good enough for them.
George II
(67,782 posts)CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)sheshe2
(83,637 posts)My opinion, he was vilified and many that did that are long gone. Willy and Manny come to mind along with the POSUCS, Pitt.
James48
(4,426 posts)I know that Bernie inspires me, as he also inspires millions of Americans to think big.
I know that he is correct is saying that Dems need to welcome people with diverse views into the party.
I am a gun owning, pro-life Union leader Democrat. I voted for Bernie, and then I voted for Hillary.
I WANT my country to be better- and it is going to take millions to become inspired to make it happen.
It's going to take Bernie types, and Hillary types, and young people, and old people, and a wide range of Americans in order to make change happen.
God bless all leaders in OUR party.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)marked50
(1,364 posts)I am glad that the Democrats are known for their ability to look at all sides and inputs from all sources-painful as it may be. Intolerance is Republican- Tolerance is Democrat
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,711 posts)BigmanPigman
(51,564 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)Response to boston bean (Original post)
Post removed
boston bean
(36,217 posts)You sound extremely angry at me. Did I make you mad?
KTM
(1,823 posts)"My party right or wrong" works for one party but it's not ours, and I am happy about that.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Yah, and of those 200+ responses, how many express total disagreement with the OP ?
mucifer
(23,470 posts)it's not about the party. It's about the people. It's about everyone.
They want us attacking each other and it seems to be working.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)there ave been many things that I have disagreed with the party on or with individual politicians on. I voice my opinion and vote accordingly. Not doing so would make me (imo) a sycophant.
If you don't stand for what you believe in then get what you deserve.
I think many of Bernie's ideas are very popular among Democrats and I think thst some of his criticisms are well founded.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Stop stirring the pot.
Just stop.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... a "Democratic-supporting website" where you're free to criticize ANY Democrat, but you can't say a word against the NON-Democrat who thinks he should be running the party he refuses to be a member of.
Posting ad nauseam about how Hillary screwed-up her campaign and lost the election is fine - but mentioning what Bernie has said after the election is "re-fighting the primaries".
I've been here so long, I still remember when supporting Democrats was what DU was all about. Who knew that it would devolve into a site where a self-proclaimed non-Democrat would be given special status, immune from any criticism whatsoever - forever and ever, amen - no matter much he denigrates the Democratic Party - the very party this site was founded to support, and defend against all outsiders who disparaged it.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... I remember it well.
Seems like a million years ago now, when you realize how far this site has strayed from its original purpose.
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...the OP remains.
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #115)
Post removed
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Oh, wait, that was Harry Reid.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)And he didn't and hasn't gone on a book tour tearing the party apart with insults and attacks.
dgauss
(882 posts)If the criticism is uncomfortable, another idea is to judge the legitimacy of that criticism based on a lettering system.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm sensing an infinite regress coming on.
dgauss
(882 posts)Catch2.2
(629 posts)are starting to be like the attacks about Hilary's emails!
Enough with the Bernie bashing!!!
boston bean
(36,217 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)They had no problem attacking the Clinton Foundation. They had no problem attacking Hillary for her speeches to bankers which by the way were all about her experiences as SoS. They had no problem calling her vile names, so you might want to think again about what you see as attacks on Sanders.
Catch2.2
(629 posts)No one on DU had a problem attacking Hilary and her emails??? Are you serious or joking? I had a problem with it like most people, including Bernie supporters. They had no problem calling her vile names???...What are you talking about? The only people that had no problem were right wingers. You can try and connect it to Bernie Sanders supporters, but that is simply false.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Response to boston bean (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
boston bean
(36,217 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Response to boston bean (Reply #130)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Name removed (Reply #138)
DesertRat This message was self-deleted by its author.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Disappeared in the middle of a jury. Let's just say it was an easy decision.
brer cat
(24,515 posts)Wordilocks
(99 posts)You're overreacting, Bb.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)The ACA is in serious jeopardy and his everything-and-nothing plan is a deceptive distraction. We need to keep focused on the real issue and MFA isn't that. It's not like we haven't been down this road before and where has it left us? No TPP, no Paris agreement, nuclear brinkmanship with tiny NK, you name it. And if the ACA goes Social Security and Medicare will soon follow.
CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)Voltaire2
(12,939 posts)It is a really sad chart.
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Post removed
betsuni
(25,371 posts)This is a forum for Democrats. You're kidding, right?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)That's offensive. Stop it!
ProfessorGAC
(64,827 posts)Criticism of "the party"? Tell me you're kidding.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)No where in the OP does it state "the party"... LOL
ProfessorGAC
(64,827 posts)You see a distinction. I don't.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)In this case it was not said.
LOL...
roomtomove
(217 posts)I quoted "party".......NOT "the party"
boston bean
(36,217 posts)Gothmog
(144,890 posts)usaf-vet
(6,161 posts)Republicans have the House, Senate, White House, SCOTUS, media advantage (radio talk), Citizen United, majority of state Governorships and legislative bodies.
Maybe the party needs a direction change.
DownriverDem
(6,226 posts)I like Bernie's ideas. I want him to join the Dem Party sooner rather than later to avoid the mess of the 2016 election, if he wants to run again. That's pretty much it. For this I got a warning email that I broke the rules. I will never understand this thinking.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Criticizing Sanders requires no permission.
dogman
(6,073 posts)They were outmaneuvered by the lowest of the low.
End of story.
hueymahl
(2,447 posts)murielm99
(30,712 posts)certainly not what you call "your" party.
Hillary won the popular vote. There is more activism and more Democrats are running for office than ever.
The lowest of the low? The election was stolen by the Russians, gerrymandering, stolen votes, the biased media, Comey and a variety of other factors.
HRC was up against a barrage of barriers to her victory. I am sure you would be here criticizing her even if she had taken office.
BTW, this is MY party. I will criticize anyone who disparages it, uses it for personal gain or says unjustified things ... ESPECIALLY if they are an outsider to the party.
dogman
(6,073 posts)I am a retired Union member who watched the Clintons push Unions out the door with their centrism and third way DLC bullshit. You can disparage whomever you want, my point is, so will I. BTW, in spite of my dissatisfaction with their methods, I have voted for them in all national general elections.
murielm99
(30,712 posts)to hear from the fringe left. Centrism. Third way. DLC. I am glad that though you make a lot of noise online, there are actually very few of you IRL.
LOL.
Hillary was not involved in any third way activities,. This is a bullshit accusation. The DLC has not existed for years.
Yes, it is my party. It is a big tent. You can try to shove your credentials down our throats all you want. You are still unjustified in your criticisms of the Clintons.
BS is the one trying to tear our party apart, and it is not the first time. He wanted to primary Obama. He is not a Democrat, and he is divisive.
dogman
(6,073 posts)Reject voters at our peril, that is how we ended up with T-rump. Arrogance was a key to her loss, keep it up.
murielm99
(30,712 posts)Goodbye.
dogman
(6,073 posts)I was handbilling for Democrats in my county at the age of 10, before Hillary was even a young Republican. She is an interloper in my Party. She helped Bill, after he was failing as a politician in Arkansas, by building a bridge to the GOP. She may be a successful politician but to me she is a newcomer and helped surrender our Party to 3rd way schemes. Bernie has brought a new generation to activism in politics. Bernie is more of a Democrat in his views than she could ever be. That being said, she is not my enemy, I will not surrender to the GOP to advance my career, nor has Bernie.
Nitram
(22,755 posts)But cut the negative stuff. The GOP handles that quite well already.
Fluke a Snooker
(404 posts)A general view of the party itself would indicate where we go not just as a party as it exists today, but what the Democratic Party should do to advance society in the future. To that end, the Democratic Party represents to me the following:
1. Transformation of oppressive capitalism to progressive socialism
2. Transformation from restrictive states rights to national progressive policies
3. Transfer of wealth from mostly white elites to all people on an equal basis
4. Elimination of private property to that of progressive community control and allocation
5. Elimination of all fossil, thermal, and nuclear fuels
6. Universal health care
7. Elevation of women and minorities in all areas, including the demotion of men and whites to accommodate this necessary process
8. Acknowledgement of all wrongs with appropriate reparations in perpetuity as mandated
THIS is the way I see the Democratic Party advancing.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)unfortunately he's only one person spend most time on health care.
other Ds currently elected work hard too on several issues like the give away of Americans public lands. unfortunately several bills Republicans just won by a very slim 20 votes?
midterms most are up for re-election, Republicans will love any help from "Ds" to get rid of Bernie. He always votes with D-party.
mwooldri
(10,299 posts)So when we have a Democrat in all but name come along...
Then the Democratic Party needs to take note and act according to Democratic party values.
KPN
(15,635 posts)End of story.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Republicans do it. I don't like when they do that.
I don't like it when greens do it.
I don't like it when libertarians do it.
I don't like it when independent democratic socialists do it.
End of story.
Growing up in the Bush years, what most visibly separated Democrats from Republicans was the capacity for critical self-reflection. So, I guess we're done with that now?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In fact, I believe it is correct to criticize ******* when she *********** *** *****, although this is not a forum where I can state that view.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The party is not Hillary Clinton. It's not Elizabeth Warren. It's not Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi. The party is us. You. Me. Every registered Democrat. The people sitting in office are not our leaders. They're our employees. And like any good employer we should be constantly evaluating their performance.
Lately, though, things have been hunky dory. People don't want efficacious politicians. They want celebrities, surrogate parents, and saints. And none of them seem to realize this obsession with media figures is partly what put Trump in the White House to begin with.
More_Cowbell
(2,190 posts)I agree.
George II
(67,782 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,576 posts)I consider myself a Democrat because I support the party's platform and I vote for Democrats. My state is not the only state that does not have party-based voter registration. Are all the people in those states - there are 22 of them, in fact - who consider themselves Democrats and vote for them not really Democrats because they aren't registered Democrats?
Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...in this discussion.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You ipso facto have a dictionary at your disposal.
Use it.
George II
(67,782 posts)....that by you saying "I don't goose step" you're equating the Democratic Party with the National Socialist Party of 1930s Germany?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Hint: Google is not a dictionary.
Additional hint: Dictionary.com is a dictionary. It's easy to remember because its name is what it is. Neat, right?
George II
(67,782 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Witty retort.
George II
(67,782 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,905 posts)the first thing I get is a definition. The link right under that is the Wikipedia link. Weird that yours is so different.
SunSeeker
(51,504 posts)Your reference is pure disrespect to Dems. It is not constructive criticism. It is shameful. Calling Dems who do not want others disrespecting their party Nazis is outrageous. EVERYONE deserves respect. That is very difference from saying you can't criticize someone. Nowhere in the OP is she saying no one should criticize the Democratic Party.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)That they treat their political party like it's a fucking social club instead of a means to an end. As is enshrined perfectly by your insipid response.
I mean, really. Nazis? Where in the galloping fuck do the Nazis come into this?
George II
(67,782 posts)tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Since that claim is DEMONSTRABLY false, how much weight does anything else you write merit?
George II
(67,782 posts)God bless you.
3.....2.....1.....
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Result #1: A dictionary definition of the term.
Result #2: A Wikipedia article describing goose stepping, its history, and a long list of not-Nazi countries currently employing it.
Result #3: A video of the SS marching.
So, yeah. Nazis are the first thing that pops up... if you ignore the other two items that pop up first.
And not that it is especially relevant. Goose stepping originated nearly two centuries before Nazis, was in common use by the German military before the Nazis took over, and remains in common use today by non-Nazi countries. The order in which Google results appear does not change that. To search for this term and conclude by virtue of a 30 second YouTube clip that goose stepping is the purview of Nazis is evidence only of one's failure to verify this conclusion with other, perhaps more in depth references. Whether this failure is due to laziness, ineptitude, or dishonesty is immaterial.
George II
(67,782 posts)....how sweet of you.
Do you understand how google works? Go to another computer somewhere and do the same search. Chances are good that you'll get a different search result.
Have a blessed day.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)..."Do you understand Google employs a ranking system to determine the order in which search results are displayed, with that system being based on 1) how many times a site is linked to by other sites, 2) categorization tags, 3) PageRank, 4) number of subscriptions, and 4) number of times the result is clicked"?
No, I obviously don't.
But I'm glad you're now in agreement that maybe you shouldn't draw conclusions purely from Google's ranking system.
George II
(67,782 posts)I'm still trying to figure out if I'm "lazy, inept, or dishonest..."
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)if the one criticizing is not even a member of the party.
Voltaire2
(12,939 posts)stunning, but thanks for sharing.
aikoaiko
(34,161 posts)I like it when Bernie criticizes the Democratic party even when he says things that people like you think are disrespectful.
It makes you and people like you listen.
samnsara
(17,604 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)taking any ownership yourself, but it is certainly your right to criticize Sanders for things you disagree with him on. But it isn't just YOUR party. It's our party. I want OUR party to be better. What Sanders is saying about where we've gone wrong and what we should be doing, is in my opinion, pretty damn accurate.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)about Supporting the Democratic Party and not bashing Democrats.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)trashing him either because he does caucus with Democrats...above my pay grade
snort
(2,334 posts)Pauldg47
(640 posts)RiverStone
(7,228 posts)Bash Bernie! Then let's bash Hillary!
We need to laser focus on uniting to win in 2018.
So sick of this divisive bullshit!
Mountain Mule
(1,002 posts)I believe it is correct to be upset when Trump disrespects my country and uses his high office to commit treason, destroy the social fabric of our country while enriching himself and his family and cronies, dismantle vital agencies like HUD, the EPA, NOAA, etc., and is doing his best to get us into a nuclear shoot-out with N. Korea.
I believe that my time and my energy are precious, and I choose to use what I have to fight to get my country back. I don't give a damn what Bernie said or Hillary said or Alfred E. Newman said. I want actions - not quarrels over supposed or even real insults that occurred in the past.
Keep on with the championing of your PAST candidate of choice and just see what happens in the midterms and 2020. Do you really think the average voter will give a damn about what Bernie said in 2016 or 2017? Will the average voter have memorized Hillary's book and make their votes based upon something she wrote 3 years before the 2020 election. They will not.
If you want to fill the repugs with glee and give them an edge in the upcoming elections, just keep this crap up, people.
Just tell me this: What viable candidates can the democratic party field in the 2020 presidential election and what can we do to ensure that the dems win big time in all the elections? Screw Bernie and screw Hillary. Bottom line.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)Many of us are sick of the divisive bullshit.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)The party has been getting it's ass kicked with some regularity of late. Our last presidential candidate lost to a caricature cross of Pee Wee Herman and the Pharma Bro, brought somehow to life, one assumes with a magic ball cap or the equivalent. Figuring out WHY we are failing is the task at hand, not dickering over whether we are. That ship sailed some time ago.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)then it does no good for everyone. This may help.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)haveahart
(905 posts)FairWinds
(1,717 posts)it will have to shift its position on a number of issues . .
The Dem establishment backs the TPP (still!), won't challenge Big Pharma,
doesn't do much about predatory student loans, or other "extractive" non-industries
like pay-day lenders, they back the militarists' policies in Syria and brag about
wrecking Libya, they look for ways to oppose universal health care and the
Fight for $15, they have no interest in taking on the banksters or the ONE
PERCENT, they are fine with the party taking in tons of corporate cash. I could go on . .
It's not about loyalty, it is that Bernie is right on these (and other) issues.
So please stop demanding unquestioning loyalty - it does not work, and never has.
harun
(11,348 posts)I'm guessing many more.
DownriverDem
(6,226 posts)I'm a proud member of the Dem Party too. I am very on board with the Dem Party.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)but I want them to change - both for my sake and my
kids and grandkids.
Initech
(100,029 posts)*EVERYONE* is attacking the democrats, and it's getting quite revolting honestly. We aren't the ones who elected the fat jerk in the White House now.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,121 posts)SunSeeker
(51,504 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,905 posts)Comparing Sanders to Republicans and libertarians and Greens is not going to help the Democratic party move on.
I mean, sure, if he's wrong about what he's saying, then don't change those things. But, is he wrong? Seems to me like there is a fundamental problem with a party that has lost control of the presidency, the House, the Senate, SCOTUS, and a majority of governorships. SOMETHING has to change. If we just do what we did in 2016, nothing will be different.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)I always thought people had a right to run for office. But, some are holding this anger because Bernie dared to run against Hillary for President.
Even though it is perfectly within rights to run for office.
And they never forgave him for doing so
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)To me, if he wants to be a Democrat, he needs to be a Democrat. It gave me no grief that Hillary was awarded the "Democratic" nomination with her having been a lifelong Democrat.
To date, independent candidates have not done well in a Presidential election; therefore, Bernie felt his best chance was by having one of the major parties' candidacy. He tried and failed to achieve that, and I actually thought that Bernie (himself) was okay with that.
At this point in time, he needs to either become a Democrat or else understand that NOT being one is going to have limitations as with any other independent. Accept the limitations of being an independent if that is his choice.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)I am a lifelong democrat. I have been supporting democrats for over 40 years.
And frankly, the party took a wrong turn in the 90s and keeps hitting dead ends ever since.
For the party to fix itself and get better it needs some tough love, some honest talk and a good shaking to snap it out of its current nonsense.
It needs a good kick in the pants.
To just go along, or say you are not going to say anything when your party is being dumb, to think being a loyal democrat means walking in lockstep, being a stepford wife, is harmful and does it no good. It will just keep making dumb choices and mistakes until people tell it the truth.
Just like being a good friend is to be honest when that friend screws up, its the same with the party.
lancelyons
(988 posts)Bernie keeps criticizing the team he says he is part of. He is doing this on purpose to push his base of supporters like he did with the anti-Hillary push.
If he is going to be a democrat he needs to work for the democratic party not insult it.
stonecutter357
(12,693 posts)Progressive dog
(6,898 posts)and that should be obvious to all Democrats. In the age of T-party and Trump, we have to support our friends.
UT_democrat
(143 posts)stop. already.
Voltaire2
(12,939 posts)I have no idea what the intent of the OP is, although "a strong and unified party going into the 2018 election" would seem far-fetched.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)lillypaddle
(9,580 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Quixote1818
(28,918 posts)mudstump
(342 posts)running a deeply entrenched establishment candidate in the most anti-establishment election in our history was a strategic mistake that cost us. The party needs to be able to feel the pulse of the country and stop being tone deaf.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I've never seen "establishment" used like an albatross round the neck of a politician the way it was used last year. Any organization that endorsed her became "establishment" by dint, the height of absurdity - these were advocacy groups who toil for the most vulnerable in America.
The only candidate who actually cared was the so called "establishment" one .
Anti-establishment arguments work well for Republicans because of their loathing for government. A woman who wanted to defend Obama's legacy and make more progress for Americans was demonized, even though it was Republicans who made Obama's terms in office a nightmare because of their constant obstruction.
Hillary is no more "establishment" than Biden, for example, or Senators who have been in Congress for decades and"Tone deafness" - did you read the Democratic Platform?
Also, it seems you have an issue with the 4 million who favored the Democratic Nominee over her opponent?
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Both times HRC ran people treated her like she was Bill Clinton's wife running for president.
There was no basis for it. She was no more establishment than Joe Biden or John Kerry or Barack Obama.
And she certainly never ran on the message "it's my turn."
It is disgusting how she was treated.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I have NEVER seen "establishment" thrown around so carelessly against a candidate, over and over. It was a sly political hit job.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)means. And the reason why most party regulars did or did not like her at various points is because they followed the sentiments of the American people.
Hillary had fantastic poll numbers for many years. Politicians followed the polls, as they often do. It wasn't imaginable that the damage from the fake email scandal would be as bad as it was. And they certainly couldn't allow themselves to believe that Benghazi could be legitimately used to cause lasting damage.
2016 was not as much an anti-establishment year as 2008, or even 2012 when the Great Recession was dragging on. If it was then Trump would not have been facing such a major defeat had it not been for repeated efforts by the FBI to destroy the Democratic candidate.
When the state of the election flipped after the Comey intervention people took advantage of it to act like Trump had been racking up support all along and we just didn't see it until Election Day. The evidence clearly contradicts that IMO.
JHan
(10,173 posts)hell and just for one example: she's so establishment, the media loved her ( OH wait........)
egduj
(805 posts)It's the whole "I'm going to criticize Bernie because Hillary lost the general election to Trump" stance that comes off a bit askew.