ONE candidate causes MASSIVE disruption

[Eliot Rosewater]

One candidate ATTACKS all Democrats.

Hint, it is NOT a republican.

When will we be able to DISCUSS EXACTLY what is going on so MAYBE we can PREVENT it from HAPPENING

I cant even say the next word without risking problems.

Fuck

WHILE i type this the so called prez of the US is telling 45 million people to KILL US ALL if we dont behave. He is gonna send his bikers and deplorables out to KILL US ALL if we dont.

And our side is allowing ONE PERSON to probably prevent us from STOPPING this madness? I dont think I will EVER fucking understand

[Me.]

1. Wonder Who.....

+1

[Larrybanal]

29. he who's name can not be spoken

but his number is 45 and hopefully soon it will be many more numbers on a prison uniform

[DownriverDem]

56. It's not a repub

I think you better read it again.

[aikoaiko]

2. Speak freely Eliot.

I don’t know what you’re talking about.

[Chemisse]

3. Do we have examples of current attacks on fellow Dems here on DU?

If you can't link to any, please send me a pm. We should NOT put up with in-party sniping.

[MineralMan]

5. Or not, perhaps.

[ehrnst]

14. No need.

[pdsimdars]

31. Now, THAT is a brilliant picture. Family photo of Mr. Strawman

[ehrnst]

43. I doubt that many of the strawmen that are attacked

in some threads I've seen were that big, tho.

I think some acquire them in bulk.

[ehrnst]

41. I was correct, thanks. I was trying to save you the trouble of having to link

to the post by showing you that I understood exactly what you meant by your comment on that post.

Is that clearer?

[Wounded Bear]

40. Pretty sure that is hay, not straw...

[ehrnst]

44. Could be. Do you think that's what caused him to self delete all his posts? (nt)

[ehrnst]

49. We hardly knew ye, Zipp.

[George II]

51. ...

[Heartstrings]

52. 😂😂

[Me.]

55. Wow

[KitSileya]

8. Posting lies about a candidate

Would you call that an attack? I would, but you may have a different opinion.

But posting big images with supposed votes against minimum wage raises and medicare for all, claiming that a candidate didn't vote for these two things, when that is an utter lie, is that an attack? Especially since these images originated in another candidate's campaign, and has that candidate's logo at the bottom? That makes me think that the lied about candidate is being attacked by the lying candidate, but YMMV.

[George II]

17. Here's a good example, under the subject line of:

"Beto voted against Medicare for all and a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=22101

A blatant and totally FALSE attack posted at almost the same time as O'Rourke's official announcement. Cued up and ready to go, just waiting for the announcement.

[SidDithers]

22. Wow...

missed that thread.

That's pretty blatant.

Sid

[R B Garr]

28. Omfg! That is insane. This is what another poster was

talking about with logos at the bottom. Bernie/groups idea of “vetting” Democrats?! I’ve already seen enough of that from 2016.

No excuse for this.

[oasis]

32. It's troubling, to say the least. nt

[Chemisse]

33. That's very disturbing. n/t

[Chemisse]

6. Nevermind. It's all clear in another thread in which they aren't afraid to say it. n/t

[Amimnoch]

9. Mmm hmm. 100% with you. -nt.

[Autumn]

10. How is Bernie, one out of sixteen candidates, preventing us from stopping Trump?

[cab67]

48. At the moment, he's not.

But I'm concerned he'll do what he did in 2016 - refuse to step down long after his nomination became mathematically impossible, giving false hope that somehow, some way, he'd become the nominee anyway. A lot of his followers bought into elaborate (and false) stories of fraud and collusion between the DNC and Clinton campaign.

I regularly encounter Bernie fans who, to this day, think their decision to not vote, or to vote for Jill Stein, was the right one.

It did a lot of damage.

[Autumn]

66. Actually Trump won the electoral vote with Russia's help in 3 states. nt

[cab67]

73. I didn't say Sanders was solely responsible.

But his refusal to drop out when Clinton all but clinched it didn’t help.

[Autumn]

75. Why didn't Hillary staying in after Obama clinched it in 08 hurt him?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24953561/ns/politics-decision_08/t/clinton-refuses-concede-nomination/#.XIwdxeHYpEY

[R B Garr]

78. Hillary and her staff didn't promote 3rd parties. They didn't

smear the Democratic party. Nina Turner voted 3rd party. She encouraged it. Only about 75,000 people made the difference in about 3 to 4 states.

[backabby-blue]

80. not even close to the same

The difference between Hillary and Obama was 1% and Hillary did not say she wanted a convention floor flight.

[cab67]

83. Different political environment

The economy had crashed, and the Bush jr administration had bungled so many things that the electoral environment strongly favored a Democrat.

[Cha]

84. Of course they think they're right

about staying home and pouting.. while trump has blood on his hands.

They don't give a damn about babies and kids being ripped from their parents arms. The Supreme court, Climate Change.

They're such fucking "green" geniuses they helped get a vicious climate change denier in charge.'

And, yeah the Russians did their part but so did jill fucking stein's LIES. Fucking idiot.

[yaesu]

58. Darn it, you ruined the suspense

[The Wielding Truth]

11. When arguing a point, it helps to NOT use the words always, never, everyone, no one, all and none.

It makes you seem hyperbolic. You should do more to investigate this person to see if your assumptions are true. Your frustrations with this person may be because you are not seeing this person as one who does not conform to following a path that does not lead to the best out come for our national and international problems. Maybe? Our first proprieties are saving our planet and saving democracy.

This person is just moving the ball. It is unlikely that they will score the goal. The message is the ball. We have many players and they are moving the ball to the finish line. One player in this case will not stop the right message from reaching it's goal.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

12. I believe in a big tent.

It is a big country. We should be a big party. Diversity should be our strength.

Recently some quoted LBJ's idea that it is better to have people inside the tent pissing out, than being on the outside pissing in.

What LBJ didn't anticipate is that we might have someone on the inside pissing in.

ONE PERSON has done enough damage to our party for a lifetime.

Enough!

[Chemisse]

35. He clearly harmed the Party last time around.

The lies about O'Rourke don't harm it in and of themselves. But they show he is prepared to use the same scorched earth strategies that did so much damage last time around.

And that could cause irreparable harm to our chances in 2020.

[George II]

39. His supporters are doing so. See #17.

[radius777]

76. Exactly. Sanders has a right to his beliefs, but

the issue is how his more vocal supporters conduct themselves IRL and online, in 2016 as well as now.

They seem to operate like a beehive, swarming anyone they view as a threat to Bernie.

All political campaigns and movements do this to some extent, but his is more pronounced than normal.

[Autumn]

21. Do you really consider Sanders, who votes with Democrats 95% to 99 % of the time

from 2001 to 2010 to be inside the Dem tent pissing in it?

Bernie Sanders rode a message of “political revolution” to a blowout victory in New Hampshire. But while he talks a radical game, a deeper look at his quarter-century record in Congress reveals more of a conventional Democratic lawmaker.

While he is prone to grand speeches — monopolizing the Senate floor for nine hours in 2010 to deliver an apoplectic diatribe against extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, for instance — he votes regularly for standard Democratic fare and has fallen in line with the party on everything from a major tax-and-budget deal to health care reform and bank regulation.

He campaigns as an independent who describes himself as a Democratic socialist, but Sanders voted with Democrats 95 percent to 99 percent of the time from 2001 to 2010, according to CQ Vote Studies. The member with whom he most often votes is Sen. Maria Cantwell, a liberal former business executive from Washington state, according to the congressional tracking website OpenCongress.

Sanders goes his own way most often on issues involving Wall Street and trade — for instance, he was the only non-Republican in the Senate to vote last summer to let the Export-Import Bank expire.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-democratic-votes-219140

[George II]

27. That's simply not true. This was posted last night:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=23198





Propublica, who are in the business of researching such matters, has an entirely different conclusion.

[Autumn]

54. So Sanders votes with the Democratic party close to 68% of the time in your link.

Two different sites have different ranks. Interesting stats from your link for the 116th Congress

Sanders voting against the Democratic party 18.6% of the time
Harris voting against the Democratic party 18.8% of the time
Booker voting against the Democratic party 22.2% of the time
Gillabrand voting against the Democratic party 21.75% of the time
and Warren voting against the Democratic party 20.4% of the time

Your link is giving stats for the 116th Congress, the CQ Vote Studies linked to in the article I posted seems to give stats for years, 2001 to 2010 to be exact.

It looks like my post about Bernie voting with Democrats wasn't that far off. Voting with the Dems 68% of the time since 2019 , and voting with Dems 95% to 99 % of the time on different votes over 10 years , sounds good to me. Not bad stats for someone that a few people consider to be "pissing in their tent." YMMV

[rwsanders]

63. And the 32% was probably stuff that was better to vote against

I think the Democratic party has more problems because of what they haven't done when they've had the majority than anything any candidate could do. It is still up to the voters last I looked.
I've been paying better attention since the Clinton years and time after time there has been a bunch of stalling and delaying tactics until there were enough Republicans around again to blame the failure on. Sadly a lot of voters took revenge by sitting out or voting for republicans. I think that is what happened in the mid-terms in both Obamas and Clintons presidency.

[lapucelle]

77. BS votes with Democrats 81.4% of the time.

There was a concern thread yesterday about "troubling" fact that Beto voted against the majority of Democrats 8% of the time.

This was the explosive click-bait headline taken from The Guardian via David Sirota:

Beto O'Rourke frequently voted for Republican legislation, analysis reveals

The analysis was based on data from Pro Publica which also happened to have the same data for BS:

[Autumn]

79. Yes I responded above to that Pro Publica link about Bernie above. I didn't read the OP you

are posting about. The data from Pro Publica is for the 116th Congress. The numbers I posted in my post above about Bernie Sanders voting with Dems 95% to 99% were tracked from a 9 year period and is an older article. Bernie is not a person from "inside the tent pissing in it". He is an ally who votes with Dems most of the time. I like Beto, my niece worked on his campaign, I don't have a clue how much he has voted with Dems or against them while he has been in office and I'm not taking him serious enough at this time to consider him in my top 5. I'll wait and see how he does, outside of Texas before I get excited.

[lapucelle]

81. BS's record from the 115th Congress has him voting with Democrats 79.6% of the time.

[handmade34]

15. ...

[TCJ70]

16. MASSIVE DISRUPTION...

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2019, 03:38 PM - Edit history (1)

...for who?

There are plenty of people on DU that support his policy goals so it's clearly not them who are disrupted. The only people I see disrupted are people who don't like him. They tend to get really worked up over him.

I think that we would all benefit from making positive arguments for candidates rather than tearing down other ones and further dividing people who are otherwise on the same side.

[LiberalLovinLug]

18. Right On!

[George II]

19. "...we would all benefit from making positive arguments for candidates....

...rather than tearing down other ones..."

I think most of us agree with that, but unfortunately we have some who are hell bent on tearing down other candidates to the point of misrepresenting or even lying about the voting records of their candidate's opponents.

See my post #17 for such an attack.

[TCJ70]

20. I agree that that should not be, and isn't, acceptable.

As it's also unacceptable to make vague insinuations about a candidates motives or their supporters motives.

[watoos]

23. Anyone, give me the name of your favorite candidate,

and I can tear him/her to shreds. Why are we doing this? The Republican agenda for 2020 is to divide Democrats, to get us to fight among ourselves.

It appears to me, mission accomplished here on DU.

[LiberalLovinLug]

24. The only "massive disruption" on DU are irrational hate filled attacks on one of our own candidates

Like this one.

[George II]

30. Please see post #17. Thanks.

[LiberalLovinLug]

59. How does that support the accusation of the OP that Sanders is causing a 'massive disruption"?

As well you are using tactics of "Look over there!" We've seen that tactic used all too often.

But nice trying to help paint Sanders himself as being the same person that posted that OP with the pamphlets. The OP did not claim "ONE poster on DU is causing MASSIVE DISRUPTION". They accused one of the candidates themselves. Personally I think, the OP you linked to worded the title wrong out of ignorance rather than subterfuge. Using the word "voted" instead of "supported".

But unwilling to go on the record as supporting something is kinda telling too don'tchathink?


Anyways, I thought I'd check out the people that put out those pamphlets.

https://summerforprogress.com/platform

They rank Democrats on a progressive scale, of those that have signed their pledge for working for issues like medicare for all, minimum wage increase, etc.. Beto is far from the bottom, rated at 25% based on his willingness to commit to certain progressive goals:




Have no fear though there are others much less eager about social progress:




Personally I'd be stoked with any of the candidates, Beto included. Even with his non commitment to important issues. There is no reason to lie about one of our candidates causing "massive disruption"

[George II]

61. Mine was in response to your statement:

".....The only "massive disruption" on DU are irrational hate filled attacks on one of our own candidates"

I was agreeing with you - what I linked to was an "irrational hate filled attack(s) on one of our own candidates". Agree?

[LiberalLovinLug]

69. Oh you agree? Great!

You did not mention that at first, you only re-directed eyes to a "but but but look at this..." OP.

There is a difference though, in one OP directly accusing one of OUR candidates of causing a "MASSIVE DISRUPTION"

and an example of an anonymous poster on DU mislabeling the title of their OP. Do you think, they thought, that they'd get away with purposely mislabeling the "has not signed up yet" with "voted for" on a message board filled with educated liberal Democrats (like yourself) to fact check them?


And to reply to your other post; yes they have an agenda. Progressive policy promotion. Shared mostly by all of our candidates.
From their platform page the issues on the front burner:

https://summerforprogress.com/platform

Medicare for All Act

College for All Act of 2017

Raise the Wage Act

Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance

Automatic Voter Registration Act

Justice is Not For Sale Act of 2017

Inclusive Prosperity Act

Keep It in the Ground Act of 2017


Do you have a problem with their agenda?

[George II]

62. Those are rankings created by "Summer for Progress". They have their own agenda.

[Cha]

74. ".....The only "massive disruption" on DU are irrational hate filled attacks on one of our own..

candidates"

[LiberalLovinLug]

90. nice

[Devil Child]

25. Which is true?

Sen. Sanders as the ineffectual amateur or Sen. Sanders as the all-controlling all powerful singular entity responsible for all current woes?

Sen. Sanders running for the Democratic nomination will not cause Trump to win in my opinion. The only thing that carries Trump to a second term is if there is diminished Democratic voter turnout.

I will not let threats from scum dictate who I may support or let them dictate who WE run.

[jalan48]

26. Massive!! OMG!!

[pdsimdars]

34. There is osomeone who says no impeachment . . . .but that is strategic for now.

[underthematrix]

38. I was wrong when I said this is the year of the white male.

Actually, this is the year of the tall slightly gray sexy white male. BETO O'ROURKE

[Hortensis]

42. Moscow and the Repubs would use someone else for massive

disruption if this one hadn't chosen to oblige a second time.

And, yes, that replacement useful person they found and launched would provide the ammunition they needed to multiply to create an inflammatory splinter candidacy. There's no shortage of hostile gadflies on the dissident left.

Reminds me that apparently Tulsi Gabbard's greatly admired down that rabbit-hole forum that revolves around DU. Unfortunately for her ambitions, of course, she's female. That presents obvious difficulties when trying to put together a populist movement, which by definition would be dominated by social conservative followers and most of them male.

[watoos]

64. Can you translate that for me?

I'm not real bright.

I like Tulsi, she is one of my 3 choices because she fits my criteria, tough as nails, former military.

[Hortensis]

72. Remember when she was on the DNC and got so

involved in infighting that she ended up having to leave and chose to take her squabbling public, using strife to grab the national media spotlight during the Democratic primary. Remember her using the national spotlight to badmouth Democrats in the middle of the Democratic battle against the Republicans? Spinning it as being far too high-minded to be acceptable to the lowlifes in the DNC?

That got her a whole lot of support among those who admired Sanders' own strife with the DNC, but with the giant threat on the right, the Republicans, kleptocratic billionaires, and Russia, all benefiting, that alone took her off my list permanently. The kind of honorable "one good man" I'm looking for would NEVER, ever, ever do anything like that. Never.

Of course after, needing a new home, she of course then offered herself to Sanders himself, but he was far too smart to let someone who'd left the DNC in that style into his inner circle. He had some pictures taken with her, etcetera, and that upped her popularity more with his supporters.

And so on, Adelson, etcetera, looking for a power bloc to make her a big offer. Didn't happen. And now in this strange era she's...running for president. A sign of the times.

You admire her. I do not. We'll see who's right.

But I see someone who's very undependable and unpredictable ideologically, or whatever's directing her erratic course. In spite of her conservatism and other possibly acceptable behaviors, I don't think she'd do better among the Republicans simply because they're not as open to diversity of any type, including "individualism," as we are. She is one of a kind.

As for tough as nails? Maybe. But I really suspect that what I see as dysfunctional behaviors are outweighing her talents, so that she is self destructing slowly. It's pretty common, actually.
A lot of people's biggest talent is self aggrandizement, but once they get there... In any case, if I turn out to be right, she'll basically become a voter discard as far as national, and perhaps even Hawaiian, politics go. (She already has someone with strong support running against her for her seat.) And then maybe she'll go on to be tough ex-military at something else. Perhaps lobbying for some defense contractor who's donated to her in the past?

[Eliot Rosewater]

86. Thank you for agreeing this is happening AGAIN

If only we could

...

but

nope

[LexVegas]

45. ...

[Kurt V.]

46. a little over the top.

[liftallboats]

57. Indeed,

but perspective is everything and I choose to see the humor in it. I read this and I see John Stewart getting "the vapors."

[lame54]

50. MAAA...

Make America Altamont Again

[CrossingTheRubicon]

53. Please to meet you, hope you guess my name.

[yaesu]

60. As soon as I read the MASSIVE disruption

I filled the bathtub up with water & headed for the basement

[SFnomad]

65. It's a bunch of BS if we can't call them out on it n/t

[melman]

67. Oh what a terrible burden it must be

To have such important things to SAY but not be able to SAY them.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

70. lol. Yep. Silenced, I tells ya!

[KayF]

68. "don't elect Bernie because we can't afford to lose to Trump!"

that argument isn't as powerful as it once might have been.

[SFnomad]

71. But it's no less true than what it once might have been n/t

[Eliot Rosewater]

85. If only ...we ...but... no..

oops

better not

[Turbineguy]

82. Lohengrin

apparently.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

87. I was just listening to the Prelude to Act I, Karl Bohm; Wiener Philharmoniker

[Turbineguy]

89. Hmm....

We may have the same recording...

[CrossingTheRubicon]

91. Mine is a Deutsche Grammophon Virtuoso compilation w/ Siegfried Idyll etc

conducted by Bohm, Kubelik, and Jochum. Just acquired it.

Then, in the mood, I put on Lohengrin by Kempe.

[rgbecker]

88. Forum, Democratic Primaries has become a refuge for the undecided with lots of negative thoughts.

Just about 20 candidates to choose from for starters, yet 50% just come on the forum to bash them all. The few who profess love of one or the other for some reason don't want to commit, even for a day.

[McCamy Taylor]

92. Brilliant satire!

[Autumn]

93. More like performance art at this point. Not a single debate and Bernie

is the one preventing us from STOPPING this madness?

[stranger81]

94. The only thing I see causing MASSIVE disruption

is a small group of posters on this board that, since sometime in 2015, have been running around with their hair on fire because -- ZOMG -- a candidate they don't personally prefer threw his hat in the ring.

That group of posters does not define liberalism, progressivism, the appropriate boundaries of discourse on the left, or who can run in a primary. And it fucking KILLS them that they can't control actual politics the way they've controlled this board for three years.

ENOUGH.

[Eliot Rosewater]

95. That is the only fucking thing you see? really?

I see a nazi fascist in the WH...I could explain how he got there, but I wont waste my time

[David__77]

96. Thanks for your post.

...

[TCJ70]

97. Thank you...

...There’s a Creative Speculation form where you can pretty much post whatever you want. If you have a theory, put it there. Enough of the not-so-vague insinuations.

Or just put whatever you want to talk about out there.