Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How the extreme left gave us Nixon, Bush and now Trump [View all]NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)260. Hi, Ken! Can you explain some things, please?
...are you going to respond to everything I ever post on this board with suspicion and distrust?
When people challenge you (or when people ask for proof or data) why do you take it so personally?
Are you going to assume that everything I say here is a part of some sort of insidious plot?
Here's a perfect example. Instead of answering questions, or clarifying your position, or providing additional info to support your claim/s ... you have a habit of deflecting and avoiding and changing the subject.
I campaigned all fall for Hillary and was grief-stricken with the Electoral College result.
Such drama! And this is an example of irrelevant info being tossed-in... apropos of nothing in particular... you just throw it out there.
Perhaps it's in response to an imagined (non-existent) accusation that you didn't support our party's nominee. I've looked up and down this thread, and nobody has made any such accusation about you.
I could get the person who ran the Thurston County Democratic campaign this fall AND the chair of the Democratic district in Juneau to vouch for my years of party loyalty if you need proof that I'm not some sort of an infiltrator.
OMG, Ken! OMG!! Seriously? What fresh hell is this? "Infiltrator?" Seriously? Nobody has accused you of any such thing.
And I never supported having any one person "take over the party".
Not in so many words, but to debate this in any great depth would be to risk running afoul of more than one of the "rules". I'd advise that you (and others) avoid pursuing this discussion.
What do I have to do or say to get you to trust that I'm not a saboteur or the enemy or whatever it is you think I am?
Who here has accused you of being a saboteur? Who said you were the enemy? Please, show us... we'll wait.
Yet, as per usual, you say these patently absurd things that have nothing to do with anything. You're defending yourself against imagined attacks and imagined insults. Nobody here has accused you of ANY of these things.
Nobody has accused you of being an "infiltrator".
Nobody has accused you of "not supporting the nominee".
Nobody has accused you of "lying" or "deceit".
Nobody has accused you of being a "saboteur".
Nobody has accused you of being a "disloyal".
Nobody has accused you of being the "enemy".
Why do you do this? You're not the "victim" you're pretending to be. You're not being personally attacked when someone challenges you or when someone refuses to accept everything you claim at face value.
BUT... by pretending that you've been attacked... and by getting all huffy about it, you get to deflect and avoid having to respond when someone challenges your worldview. It's a distraction and a way that allows you to ignore demands for additional info or data.
217. It's nor that you ask for evidence, it's that you keep acting like I can't be trusted
Asking for details or evidence is not an attack on you.
As though I have some secret agenda or something.
Who said that? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)
Like I'm the enemy.
Who said that? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)
What is it about what I post here that is so intolerable to you?
Who said that? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)
Why can't you accept that I'm posting with straightforward and positive intent?
Who said that you weren't? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)
Are you still angry because I used a harsh phrase about Hillary over a YEAR ago? A phrase which, as it happened, made no difference at all in either how the primaries or the fall campaign came out? OK. I shouldn't have used that phrase and I apologize. There was a valid point to be made about her foreign policy approach being too casual about military intervention, but I shouldn't have used the words I used and apologize.
It's difficult for me to imagine that ANYONE would remember or care what you may (or may not) have uttered about Hillary "over a YEAR ago".
As far as I know, I've done nothing else you have any reason to hold a grudge about.
Who's holding a grudge? What evidence do you have that someone is holding a grudge? It's been my observation that people often make accusations about other people's motivations and emotions that are actually only true about themselves.
So, I ask again, who's holding a grudge? That just meant as a question for you to think about, no answer or response is required. (But it's not like that would have happened anyway, right?)
230. And I've done nothing to deserve that from you.
You do realize that this is a political discussion forum, right? We're all adults here.
This isn't some Downton Abbey afternoon tea where calling "bullshit" on someone would cause the Dowager Countess to clutch her pearls and drop her lace-edge hanky. Stop acting as if it is.
All I'm guilty of is being a little to the left of your comfort zone.
What evidence do you have? How would you actually KNOW what her "comfort zone" is?
I don't lie.
Who said that? Did someone accuse you of lying? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)
I don't undermine.
Who said that? Did someone accuse you of that? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)
I don't advocate the party doing anything that would harm its chances.
Who said that? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)
I never said anything personally critical about our nominee OR refought the fall campaign. Not once.
Well, again... not in so many words, but to debate this in any great depth would be to risk running afoul of more than one of the "rules". I'd advise that you (and others) avoid pursuing this topic.
What this really comes down to is that I didn't support our eventual nominee from the moment she declared her candidacy and didn't accept that the other major candidate in primaries should not have run at all.
How would you know such a thing? Who said that? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)
Nothing would have been better or even different if there'd been no contest in the primaries. We wouldn't have taken any additional votes anywhere in the fall if the nominee had been acclaimed at the start or if our policy offer had been blander and further to the right.
Can you back this up?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know... I've asked you to "back up" something. Horrors! I'm "attacking you" right?
If you don't want to answer, just ignore it. Don't even bother. No need to do the same old song-and-dance pretending to be offended, pretend that I've accused of of any number of things.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
544 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
And let me guess... which candidate is the only one in history to have "moral positions?"
ehrnst
Mar 2017
#321
This is why trump is about to destroy the human race, thanks for your purity
Eliot Rosewater
Mar 2017
#402
I hear that's why Hitler rose to power - the lack of a truly inspirational candidate
ehrnst
Mar 2017
#325
So does history blame Hitler's opponent for being "less likeable" or charismatic for his rise?
ehrnst
Mar 2017
#365
People who understand what a 2 party system is and care about the planet would NEVER
Eliot Rosewater
Mar 2017
#403
One's house will never be perfect, nor one's naval. Time to stop gazing upon it
delisen
Mar 2017
#36
Thanks for the reminder about running FOR something. It is so easy to forget.
Jim Beard
Mar 2017
#490
Not enough of the gop to win unless dumbshits scream "but emails" and vote 3rd party
Eliot Rosewater
Mar 2017
#405
Yeah, "centrists" like the Congressional Black Caucus and Planned Parenthood....
ehrnst
Mar 2017
#539
The far left will play their purity bullshit again. I want to stomp them in the face
Blue_true
Mar 2017
#113
I hear ya, i do. It will happen again in 2018, you can see it in this thread.
Eliot Rosewater
Mar 2017
#408
Looks so yummy now I am hungry and have completely forgotten what this post was about
lunasun
Mar 2017
#80
Stein and Sarandon are two sad people who are proud of their efforts to elect trump
Gothmog
Mar 2017
#96
They arent actually left at all, but that is what they call themselves, yes.
Eliot Rosewater
Mar 2017
#416
And you could primary anybody you want but you come together after that, which
Eliot Rosewater
Mar 2017
#420
I always thought that people in this country have the right to vote for whomever they want.
milestogo
Mar 2017
#21
They stared into the face of fascism and said they couldn't be bothered to oppose it... nt
sweetloukillbot
Mar 2017
#352
You act like you're watching a porn flick, where the actors have to excite you.
Blue_true
Mar 2017
#119
Oh, so, you've got all the answers. Cool. Maybe you should be running the party.
GoneOffShore
Mar 2017
#22
Yes indeed. Wasn't it a shame that people like Sarandon likely discouraged the "wishy-washy" voter
NurseJackie
Mar 2017
#35
She did that for sure. People are stupid, she capitalized on that fact.
Eliot Rosewater
Mar 2017
#424
Zero lessons learned from '08 (inspired turnout), '10 (apathetic midterms), '12 (declining turnout)
KeepItReal
Mar 2017
#73
And the fringe-left FAITHLESS ELECTORS would have handed it to Trump if things had been that close.
NurseJackie
Mar 2017
#31
They prove they cannot be counted on to vote for the Dems, then they cry when the Dems go after the
Foamfollower
Mar 2017
#41
Don't expect Stein to take responsibility for anything. She is worst than Trump. nt
Blue_true
Mar 2017
#122
Nader is responsible for Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act
Gothmog
Mar 2017
#32
What part of getting more votes than anyone but Obama in '08 is unclear to you? (nt)
ehrnst
Mar 2017
#385
so whether Dems run a lefty or "centrist" candidate and lose, it's lefties fault?
yurbud
Mar 2017
#60
Only close elections...I wish that you had the power to win...but I have never seen that.
Demsrule86
Mar 2017
#82
Well then get your centrists allies to stop blocking the left and stop losing seats.
Rex
Mar 2017
#379
it's what that 10-15% IS. Privatizing public education is not small potatoes for teachers & parents
yurbud
Mar 2017
#64
Part of the problem is lefties think that just because the GOP did it, we can too.
forjusticethunders
Mar 2017
#65
I don't disagree with some of this...but the point seems very divisive and I must say
Demsrule86
Mar 2017
#66
Diversion and divisive thread....Keep on topic - Comrade Trump Russian operative
Talk Is Cheap
Mar 2017
#70
Hillary Clinton received 3 million MORE votes than that piece of maggot shit in the wh.
onecaliberal
Mar 2017
#75
It's not denial...it's inaccurate to blame the Left and incendiary
DemocraticSocialist8
Mar 2017
#101
I am living with the effects of the voter suppression laws made possible by Nader
Gothmog
Mar 2017
#104
It's been shown that more Dems voted for Bush than Nader, but no one blames DINO Dems that
DemocraticSocialist8
Mar 2017
#109
So you're just going to repeat the lie even after being shown the numbers that say otherwise?
DemocraticSocialist8
Mar 2017
#159
It's divisive because we should be making the far left our ally. I'm among the far left by the way
JCanete
Mar 2017
#273
You are using far left to define people who want right wingers and racists to succeed, not me.
JCanete
Mar 2017
#307
Stein voters voted for Trump and many of these voters are happy that trump won
Gothmog
Mar 2017
#383
Bullshit! Bobby's assassination gave us Nixon; Tony Scalia gave us Bush; Putin gave us Trump.
Zen Democrat
Mar 2017
#90
There will *always* be fringe leftists, 3rd party, nader, stein voters. ALWAYS.
yodermon
Mar 2017
#126
Whether you like it or not, the radical left played a part in our 2016 loss.
liquid diamond
Mar 2017
#143
The left was not to blame for Nixon in '68, so that part of your title is unfair.
Ken Burch
Mar 2017
#148
What you're missing, though, is that there's no widespread public support for "centrism"
Ken Burch
Mar 2017
#149
No widespread support for "centrism"? I'll bet more than 60% of the electorate are "centrists".
George II
Mar 2017
#161
"centrist" is what people self-identify as...when you ask what ideas they actually SUPPORT...
Ken Burch
Mar 2017
#168
Of course I do. And I will. I'll be posting polling data on that tonight and tomorrow.
Ken Burch
Mar 2017
#176
It's nor that you ask for evidence, it's that you keep acting like I can't be trusted
Ken Burch
Mar 2017
#217
Single Payer was rejected in Colorado by a huge amount. people can claim anything. the way they
JI7
Mar 2017
#195
so lets stop pretending people support things they don't . it doesn't help if you actually want
JI7
Mar 2017
#208
I didn't pretend. The polls were evidence. A referenda in Colorado doesn't nullify the polls.
Ken Burch
Mar 2017
#213
same sex marriage and other gay rights still are not safe. it doesn't help to pretend people support
JI7
Mar 2017
#219
we don't need to pretend candidates are losing because they don't support single payer
JI7
Mar 2017
#226
If their voting behavior has nothing to do with issues, there's nothing we can ever do to recover.
Ken Burch
Mar 2017
#233
Quite honestly I don't think the majority of the public even knows what single payer is.
George II
Mar 2017
#257
They get Medicare for all, and before that they supported national health insurance.
Ken Burch
Mar 2017
#276
Unfortunately there IS a general ignorance and apathy about the ACA and Medicare....
George II
Mar 2017
#297
Very few people "self-identify" themselves as anything, only those deep into political discussions..
George II
Mar 2017
#255
I campaigned for Hillary all fall and worked to persuade people further left to support her.
Ken Burch
Mar 2017
#182
I can back it by referencing the ads the party ran in the fall, and the speeches I heard.
Ken Burch
Mar 2017
#285
You set an impossible standard in asking that I prove that different ads would've worked better,
Ken Burch
Mar 2017
#289
"There's no way to prove a speculative outcome." Yes, thank you for admitting that!
NurseJackie
Mar 2017
#290
When are they going to bring that OP rule back of 500 hundred posts or less cannot be done?
nolabels
Mar 2017
#167
Yep, we gotta keep going for those "moderate republicans" who don't fucking exist.
killbotfactory
Mar 2017
#200
First, Idealogical purity isn't the issue. Idealogical diversity is one thing.
JCanete
Mar 2017
#206
I think the problem is that progressives are starting from an entirely wrong framework
forjusticethunders
Mar 2017
#270
Beg to differ: FDR (and to some extent, Adlai Stevenson) gave us Eisenhower.
no_hypocrisy
Mar 2017
#245
Who was it who said: It's easier to fool people than to convince them they were already fooled.
nikibatts
Mar 2017
#293
I didn't put words in your mouth, I quoted you exactly as you have it printed.
Exilednight
Mar 2017
#320
I quoted you verbatim, and it's not my fault your OP is factually inaccurate
Exilednight
Mar 2017
#347
Now you're changing your hypothesis which is still based on a false premise
Exilednight
Mar 2017
#521
How you point out a flaw when you admitted that you didn't read the whole thing
Trumpocalypse
Mar 2017
#404
blame US?? did WE pimp out turnip like the TEEVEE GNEWZ? no. THEY have been pushing the rite wing as
pansypoo53219
Mar 2017
#332
The tens of millions of Republicans and those potential voters sitting out elections...
Orsino
Mar 2017
#364
The left has always been united, it is the centrists that keep selling the party down the river.
Rex
Mar 2017
#418
No I am not, your OP title is all about blame. Did you miss all the other people saying the same?
Rex
Mar 2017
#458
True, but I don't think it's possible when you have people that won't compromise.
Oneironaut
Mar 2017
#511
When speaking to a lot of people about the election, it turned out many stayed
caroldansen
Mar 2017
#506