J. Sanders: If the Democratic party doesn't become progressive, there will be a third party

[KitSileya]

At Left Forum 2018 last weekend, Jane Sanders stated that "The Democratic Party has to become a progressive party. If it does not...there will be a continued loss of faith in the electoral process and there will be a third party."

Link to tweet

In other words, she blames the Democratic party for the loss of faith in the electoral process, not the Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression, nor Russian interference and meddling in elections. We are not "prgressive" enough, and apparently that is why election integrity is going the way of the dodo, not Putin and his trolls influencing both the extreme right and the extreme left. But the Democratic party is to blame, according to her.


With "friends" like these....

[bettyellen]

1. Screw these threats. Carrying water for the GOP with this BS.

[KitSileya]

2. I agree. It is a very worrisome signal months before the most important midterms ever.

It simply is a fact that the 2018 midterms are *the* only chance we will get to save democracy in the US. Voting for anyone other than the Democratic candidates is voting for fascism, dictatorship, and the end of the Republic. ANything other than full-throated support of the Democratic party is putting the Republic in danger. This is so blindingly obvious that we have to ask ourselves, what is the agenda of anyone who criticizes the Democratic party at this time - who are they working for? Who are they actually supporting, and what is their goal?

[DFW]

9. It does carry a whiff of that

When East Germany collapsed, and the Soviet Union soon after, many of the so-called "far left" groups in what was "West Germany" and elsewhere in western Europe turned out to have been completely financed by the Stasi or the KBG. Some of them claimed to have no knowledge of this, and some of them claimed to have felt "betrayed," which was crap. They all knew who their sugar daddies were, and whom they were really helping.

For that matter, look no farther than Montana, where Democratic Senator Jon Tester is in a fight to keep his seat. He received a challenge from a supposed "Democrat" who came out of nowhere and was financed by no one discernible. I haven't followed that race much, but from what I understand, as Tester has done better in the polls, his so-called "Democratic" challenger has faded.

I suppose that if we had as much dark money as the Republicans did at our disposal, we would consider trying to finance a split in the Republican Party between the extremist faction (McConnell, the Trumpadors, etc.) and the traditional wing (McCain, Bush senior, etc.), but we either don't have the money, or if we do somewhere, we find better uses for it.

The line of "not progressive enough" seems to carry the not-so-hidden message of "let us take over, we're better." But we hear that every time a new brand of toothpaste hits the market, too. Whether it's "The people say" or "Four out of five dentists recommend," I want something more concrete.

[KitSileya]

34. Substantive changes like throwing issues that concern minorities overboard,

so that we can focus solely on the issues that interest white working class men - totally ignoring the fact that the working class is overwhelmingly female and people of color, and their concerns aren't as narrow as to only look to wages? Or switch to focus on what white college-age men want - when our most faithful base are African American women?

Yeah, civil rights issues (or "identity politics" ) are divisive, instead we need to focus solely on money issues...

[NurseJackie]

65. Nailed it. (Thank you.)

Sadly, that poster isn't around to respond to your excellent points. Oh well!

[pandr32]

127. Bingo!

[bettyellen]

148. Even when they're smart enough to outright say screw POC and women they hint how it's "not a winner"

And that’s how you get a peek at their souls. And usually it’s white guys who have tasked the women to do their heavy lifting for many many years. I do t see them hitting the streets or running or defending our rights nearly as much as they should. Yet they want their pet agenda elevated. Nope.

[Gothmog]

151. Don't you know that we need to focus on white male voters only

We need to convert trump voters and should only spend our time on these voters.

BTW, we tried this in Texas for decades and it does not work

[JCanete]

165. in what example? When Sanders said "identity politics", the very context of it was that you

actually have to fight for issues that affect the demographic you are claiming to represent. Sanders is absolutely not jettisoning civil rights issues, and just saying so because it sounds clever is getting old.

[Meadowoak]

59. +1

[JI7]

3. Does this mean she will Release the Tax Returns ?

[comradebillyboy]

58. Of course not.

[Blue_true]

106. Transparency only applies to little people. nt

[ansible]

4. It's already happening in California, with more independents than republicans

Wouldn't be surprised if the first truly viable third party starts here.

[JI7]

5. no, the democratic party is NOT becoming a third party in California

[KitSileya]

7. Well, if the party being replaced is the Republicans, I'm not going to holler too much

The problem is the attacks on the Democratic party, mere months before them most important midterms ever. Winning in 2018 is crucial - most likely there won't be any coming back if we lose in 2018. Trump is setting himself up as a dictator, and the GOP is going along with it. If the Democratic party doesn't have a significant increase everywhere in the midterms, we're screwed. And I sincerely question the loyalty and patriotism - not to mention the humanity - of anyone who would rather use time right now to attack the Democratic party rather than work to defeat the GOP. You don't criticize the construction of the life buoy as it is being thrown to stop you from drowning, you clasp it and let it help you float. When you are on dry ground and have been checked out by EMTs, then you can present your better life buoy designs.

[Hekate]

12. A lot of those "independents" are former Republicans, not former Democrats...

As for a third party, Trump the phony populist is effectively running it. He hijacked the GOP, and is a RINO.

[seaglass]

29. That's not how it works.

MA voter Registration 2017:

Dem:
1,526,870

Repub
479,237

Unenrolled: (no party affiliation)
2,424,979

More people in MA have been registered unenrolled than either of the 2 major parties since 1990.

[tammywammy]

92. In addition, people not registered to a party still tend to vote one party or the other

They aren't registered by party but will identify as one or the other. The majority of independents aren't switching between the parties.

[seaglass]

135. Correct. I am registered unenrolled and ALWAYS vote D. There are many reasons people don't

become a member of a party.

There are only about 10% of unenrolled (independent etc.) voters who do not vote along party lines.

[tonyt53]

150. I tend to think they do not "belong" to a party for other reasons.

They don't want to take responsibility for their vote. If they use the excuse that they vote "for the person", then that means to me anyway, that they are a very uninformed voter and that they vote on what they heard two days prior to the election.

[RandySF]

107. NPP is increasing because of automatic registration at the DMV

[brush]

109. Isn't the definition of independent mean one who isn't tied to a party?

[Garrett78]

147. The vast majority of so-called independents are highly partisan.

They just like referring to themselves as "independent." This has been confirmed by numerous studies. As one article I read stated, most of today's independents are more partisan than your average party-affiliated voter was back in the '70s.

[Blue_Tires]

180. There already is a goddamn third party

it's called the Greens and Jane is more than welcome to go annoy them instead...

Why isn't she running the DNC, she knows so damn much?

[sprinkleeninow]

6. What thee ever lovin' frick.... eom

[msongs]

8. her chance to be first you know what is slipping away lol nt

[Hekate]

10. In his own way, Trump was a 3rd party candidate, a phony populist & not a Republican

Chew on that, Jane.

[shanny]

24. Disagree.

tRump is the quintessential Republican. Only difference is he says what they think out loud.

[Gothmog]

153. The GOP has relied on racism since Nixon's southern strategy

Trump simply took Nixon's southern strategy to a whole new level. Racism was always part of the GOP message but now trump has taken over and given the GOP racism the freedom to be part of the mainstream of the pary

[shanny]

193. That's what I said.

tRump says out loud what the party has believed and taught for effing ever. At the most it is a difference of degree but not kind.

[dembotoz]

11. Or just as the gop ignore the libertarian folks and now deal with a libertarian party

Dems should not ignore the lefties or suffer the same fate.
If they don't find a home here they will go elsewhere...it could be a new party or the more democratic way.. they stay home at election.
Turn out is based on turn on to paraphrase the great Jim hightower

[KitSileya]

14. If someone is willing to sacrifice the lives of others because they won't vote Dem

I'm not much interested in their support. If they are willing to throw away the Republic, and usher in a dictatorship because they won't vote Dem, why should we placate them? What would satisfy them? What would be pure enough, progressive enough? The Democratic platform is built on working for people who are disadvantaged, who are the underdogs in society. It is built on ensuring civil rights of everyone, because we know that if we don't all have civil rights, it doesn't matter how rich you are - you are one racist/sexist/homophobic incident away from losing your life or livelihood. I'm sorry, but discarding the base of our party, the base that has shown that unlike white voters they understand the realities of politics better than anyone, in favor of voters we cannot trust, is insanity.

[JI7]

16. and usually i find it's women or some minorities rights they want to give up

there is a reason why most who support third parties, ron/rand paul and similar types tend to be hetero white males .

[dembotoz]

37. arrogance like this helps us snatch defeat from the jaws of victory time after time

if neither party address your needs why bother
its what they think...don't give a tinkers damn about what you think is best for them.

[KitSileya]

40. Should we sacrifice someone's rights, lives or safety to appeal to a privileged group?

What rights are you willing to give up to appeal to voters who have no problems letting the GOP kill people, tear children from their mother's arms, imprison minorities, and start wars just because the opponents of the GOP won't promise to work for your non-fatal issues when the very life of the Republic is at stake? Should we work for $15 minimum wage instead of trying to save the civil rights of women? Should we focus on free college instead of protecting the rights of LGBT+ people? What rights would you be willing to sacrifice to appease these voters?

[dembotoz]

45. such melodrama

first, i have never voted gop and i do not intend to.
we can babble about our values but at the end of the day it is up to the candidates who run and get elected that carry the water.
if that candidate follows the platform or not is really up to the candidate. prime example? the shit head known as trump....like the folks who wrote the gop platform control him?????????????????????

so you do this wonderful platform and then field a bunch of gop lite candidates and wonder why folks don't run to the polls?
what the dem party claims and what the dem party is may not be the same in reality.

you say vote dem and i agree and always do, but please remember some of our candidates and officials are worthy only of a mr yuk sticker. And these clowns damage our brand and become a reason why folks stay home.
example???? congressman lipinski is chicago, sheriff david clarke in milwaukee.....

[lunamagica]

61. Tearing children from their mother's arms is melodrama?

OK...

[dembotoz]

62. Becomes melodrama if it results in no action

[Demsrule86]

63. It needs action and by talking about it ...we can get action. Otherwise we are no different from the

Germans who claimed not to know of the atrocities of the Nazis. We are in crimes against humanity territory.

[disillusioned73]

91. Yeah, remember all the DACA outrage??..

what happened with that one?... oh, thats right - they folded like a cheap tent.. minorities have become a pawn for politicians that feign outrage for votes..

[Demsrule86]

95. Ah, I am glad you asked ...first of all there is a court order helping at the moment and some in

the house trying to get a vote...GOP types....may not worked, but by keeping the issue at the front it helps...DACA was stabbed in the back when some refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 16 and gave the GOP Congress as well. However...what aboutism does not work here...Children's lives are at stake...so I suggest we all vote Dem in 18 and beyond as if our lives and the lives of children depend on it because they do. A third party run would be a disaster ...I can't believe we are being threatened by one of our so called allies...craziness. And with Trump in office, I just don' get it.

[disillusioned73]

104. Didn't ask anything.. made a statement

The polling was in their favor, and yet they couldn't hold on a slam dunk issue like this.. but now this is being used as a primary issue?? It should never have become a primary issue, that was my point - PAWNS.. Agreed, childrens lives are & were at stake during the shutdown.. yet they could not hold the line.. but now it's time to score some political points on those same childrens lives - convenient no?..

[lunamagica]

46. + a million!

[brer cat]

60. +++

They are "me first." It is always someone else's rights they are willing to toss so that they get their milk and cookies.

[Demsrule86]

36. Dems should absolutely ignore those folks whose ideas will cause us to lose multiple elections

and who voted for anyone but Hillary Clinton in 16 or who didn't vote at all. These are not progressives but left left Green Party/third party/ our revolution riffraff and I for one don't give a damn what they say or have any interest in Jane Sanders and her comments which I perceive as threatening. I don't understand why anyone would care what she says. We will have to win without them as they can't be counted on and are likely to take their ball and go home. In a close election they can spoil as they have done before, but what they can never do is win elections.

[Raysawesome34]

191. Wait,

We haven't lost multiple elections? Seeing as how the Republicans control everything. Might be time to consider where we went wrong.

[Demsrule86]

197. Yeah and why did we lose...who whined and cried about not getting single payer and stabbed Pres.

Obama in the back? Hmmm, the greens left left riffraff. We lost the house and because the punishment extended to all Dems we lost governors and legislatures so now had a gerrymander...that message voting is so so helpful. We would have had the house back in 12 if not for the Gerrymander...and the usual suspects did the same thing in 14...sob sob Obama was such a disappointment they were so heartbroken they couldn't go to the poll and vote so we got Gorsuch...these are the folks that think a 'real' progressive can win in West Virginia statewide and ran a candidate that could never carry the state in a primary...And if we listen to one single word, we will lose McCarthy style This is a center left country...look at the Senate and tell me how we reach a majority without those 'hated' centrists. We don't. Of course they truly outdid themselves in 16 when their disappointment in emails led them to refuse to vote for the Democratic candidate and any other Democrat down ballot. Yeah glorious just glorius! The Greens, left left folks have been screwing Democrats since 2000 and before that McGovern. I am not in the mood to listen to what I consider bad advice. There is too much at stake. Babies are living in cages now thanks to 16, I truly don't know how some of these folks sleep at night.

[Raysawesome34]

207. That's a lot to unpack.

Thanks for the telling reply!
You have a wonderful day!

[jmowreader]

89. The Libertarian Party is a nonentity

As I’ve said before, a Libertarian is a Republican with a bag of weed in the glovebox. Very few Libertarians stray from the GOP ticket in national-level and state-level races. They know the GOP will give them half a loaf, which is half a loaf more than they get by splitting the ticket and allowing the Democrat to win.

Sanders is a different story. She appears, at least to me, to be saying “if you don’t remake the party in Bernie’s image, we will turn this country Republican.

[kcr]

100. And that's hurting them so badly

It's an empty threat from someone frustrated the Our Revolution org is failing spectacularly.

[pnwmom]

15. Progressives believe in transparency. Candidates who don't release tax returns don't.

So I don't know why they think they can lecture progressives.

[calimary]

17. Very good point.

[Blue_true]

110. I don't think that Bernie gets away with the tax returns release dance this time around.

As a matter of fact, I see tax returns being an albatross around his neck. If he make one attempt to dodge on releasing his tax returns, every single thing he claims to represent lose value.

[brush]

111. And from the way JS ran that college into the ground why would anyone follow her...

judgment on anything?

[Sherman A1]

18. I believe she is correct

The Democratic Party does need to make adjustments. That said, each party will be doing so and we are at a historical time for them to be making those changes within. Parties just like everything else tend to operate in cycles and it will be slow, many will disagree both from a point of traditions and from those seeking change, but change will happen as society changes so must the political parties and the way things work.

It is going to happen, it's a matter of finding the balance between a variety of viewpoints, personalities and what is possible.

[Demsrule86]

38. What adjustments...we have the most progressive platform in our history and it does no

good without winning elections. The country is center left. In order to hold the Senate we need to run moderate candidates in purple or red districts so Ms. Sanders is just plain wrong. The OR candidates which are what she is talking about have mostly lost across the board.

[Sherman A1]

43. Perhaps we need to run more progressive candidates

And appeal to the voters with a stronger progressive message for the things such as Medicare for all which has a great appeal. Not every election will be won and it takes time but the party will change just as it always has. Truman referred to something about the choice between a real Democrat or one pretending to be one and the choice that voters will make given the two.

[Demsrule86]

53. A strong progressive message will not have appeal in red districts and the idea that

if we lose while we 'rebrand/rebuild our party is fine perhaps inevitable...completely wrong. The house is on fire...we need to win as many elections as possible so as to stop Trump and the GOP and save our Republic...already we see Gorsuch's impact. Voters will not choose a 'real Democrat' ( disagree with your assessment) in West Virginia, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia (purple),Tennessee, Alabama, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas...the list is endless. You need to face facts...start at the grass roots level and build a progressive movement if you can ...but that will take years we don't have the time. We will not have congress without a big tent. Particularly in the Senate.

[Sherman A1]

66. We are not going to agree on this topic

I believe that you can indeed sell a strong progressive message in a red district by addressing the issues and not the hyperbole. The issues being basic self entlightened interests of the voters.

Your opinion differs and I respect that, however I completely disagree with your take on the issues.

[Demsrule86]

70. That is why we lose. This idea that a 'real' progressive can win everywhere including red states is

simply not true in my opinion. What evidence have you seen where a progressive candidate can win a red state in a statewide election? And agreeing to disagree is fine by me...just trying to understand why you believe this in the face of (my opinion) overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[treestar]

203. Try it in a red district then

It can easily be proven. A true progressive runs in a very red district at not much risk because the Democrats will never win it. If they beat the Republican, you will have proven your point.

You can find local districts where the Democrats don't even waste money running a candidate. Perfect place for a true Progressive to beat a Republican and prove this point.

[Blue_true]

114. So, you appeal to people with a message that they are prone to reject.

A lot of voters want tangible evidence, not airy promises. Medicare for All looks more like an option today because Obamacare was passed and mostly worked for people for six plus years. People see the contrast between what was and what Obamacare provided and they see Trump trying to take back their gains.

Why can't Bernie and his ilk build on what is right that is in place? History has shown repeatedly that is the only way progress takes place.

[Sherman A1]

138. I'm one of his "ilk"

Actually I find him too conservative, but he’s about as good as I see out there right now.

Yes, voters want something tangible and others want other things and others want something else. The Affordable Care Act was a start but needs much more in the way of cost controls and less meddling by big pharma and insurance companies. It has worked for some and is burdensome for others I’m sure you can find anecdotal information from both points of view.

As far as airy promises vs tangible evidence we need only look North of the border.

[brush]

112. You mean the way she ran that college into the ground you trust her judgment?

She's not to one to lead on this.

[NCTraveler]

19. Didn't she get a tax preparer of the year award?

Get lost you power hungry freak.

Just another “leftist” pissed off at how progressive Clinton’s and the Party’s platform is/was.

Go do an interview with Bro #1 HA Goodman.

Say hi to the FBI as they look into your fraud that brought about the closing of a college. Burlington College was no Trump U. Jane gave it the same death sentence.

Sounds to me like she is sick of playing dress up FLOTUS every night and now just wants to be a spoiler. Her husband is starting to be vetted and she knows that’s the end of their political aspirations. A whole career accomplishing nothing in order to look clean running for President. To bad Jane, there is little clean about you two. Your husband is going to revert back to his thirties and his next book is going to read more like Fifty Shades of Grey.

[Demsrule86]

39. Hahah...+1000

[lunamagica]

47. Oh, what a beautiful post!

[Wwcd]

159. Haaahaa..Best Post Award goes to this 😉

Ha!

[Cha]

170. Yes, that's what JS should be doing.. Right NOW

working on the full tax returns instead of lecturing the Democratic Party, that has been Winning, and has an Excellent Party Platform, on what to do.

[JCanete]

194. now that is a silly ass assesment...but have at it." pissed off at how progressive the party's

platform was...." seems totally pulled out of your ass, especially given that Sanders would know that her husband had no small part in that platform being what it was.

Wow you just went for any low hanging fruit you could find too. Maybe wait for an actual indictment? Not your style?

[NCTraveler]

195. No doubt it's low hanging fruit. Great point.

Nothing silly about it.

Sanders didn’t write Clinton’s platform. There is nothing you won’t give him credit for.

[Mike Nelson]

20. I'd like to urge...

… progressives join the Democrats and make the party more Progressive from within! We'd love that... also, let's focus on winning Congress in 2018 and the Presidency in 2020 instead of taking our balls off the playground and leaving in a huff....

[The Polack MSgt]

21. Nice Party ya got here. Be a shame if something were ta happen to it

FFS.

[justhanginon]

48. Exactly the quote I was thinking about when I read her crap.

Most people do not respond well to threats and this has been going on too long. I wish the Sanders would just pack it in and go away before they screw up the mid-terms.

[True Blue American]

22. I do hope this is not

Against the rules but they are not Democrats. I am not inclined to go along with someone under indictment. This is why I am tired of the Media giving them voice as a, “ Democratic Message.”

I want Democrats to speak for me. And most are Progrssive.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-fbi-investigation-for-bank-fraud-hire-lawyers/

[shanny]

25. +1

[George II]

26. What are Jane Sanders' political "credentials"? What has she done politically that would convince..

...us that she knows what she's talking about?

Damn, I'm only local in a town of 20,000 people and I've held public office (elected and appointed) more than her. I would never presume to tell the Democratic Party, of which I've been a supporter and member for 50 years, how they "must change".

[progressoid]

54. You've also held public office more than Michelle Obama.

So, using your criterion, you also dismiss anything she says.

[George II]

67. I may have missed it, but Michelle Obama has never railed about reforming a political party....

....of which she wasn't a member. If she did, I probably would dismiss that.

Now, with respect to Jane Sanders, did I ever "dismiss anything she says"?

[progressoid]

72. You may have missed it.

Michelle Obama criticizes lack of diversity in politics: one side is 'all white, all men'

or

Michelle Obama: 'Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice'

So, while these comments of Michelle's are accurate, we should dismiss them because they are about a party she wasn't a member of. OK.

[George II]

73. Now you're punking us.

[progressoid]

87. Nope.

You decided that we should dismiss her comments about reforming a political party of which she wasn't a member. As fair minded Democrats, it seems only right that we should apply that to all people, including the former First Lady.

[George II]

90. So which party does Michelle Obama propose to reform? Or was she just pointing out...

...the difference between HER Party and the republican party? Did she ever "threaten" to form a third party if they didn't?

And there is one HUGE difference between Michelle Obama and Jane Sanders:

Her husband was nominated by the Democratic Party to be President (twice) and then he was elected President (twice)

[progressoid]

97. So, you didn't actually listen to Jane's comments did you.

She didn't threaten to form a third party. In fact, she even encouraged independent voters to register as Democrats.

[NurseJackie]

76. Ha!! :-D

So, while these comments of Michelle's are accurate, we should dismiss them because they are about a party she wasn't a member of. OK.

[progressoid]

82. IKR?

George II says we should dismiss her comments about reforming a political party of which she wasn't a member. That's too bad because I really like Michelle and her comments about the GOP (even though she's not a member of that party).

But thems the rules I guess.

[NurseJackie]

84. Whoosh!

[progressoid]

88. Indeed.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/irony

[NurseJackie]

105. Nice try. Jane's meaning was clear. She was making THREATS.

88. Indeed.

Nice try. Jane's meaning was clear. She was making THREATS.

It was the equivalent of "Nice political party you've got there, pal. It sure would be a shame if anything happened to it."

She wasn't being sarcastic. She wasn't being ironic. It wasn't an "intervention" and she wasn't "trying to help". She was attacking the Democratic party, she was making demands and making threats. There are no two ways about it.

All I'm trying to say is that Jane Sanders is unqualified on ANY level to be making demands of, or delivering threats to, the Democratic party. And I'm smart enough to know that NOTHING she says was un-vetted or unapproved. These aren't her thoughts alone.

[R B Garr]

175. +1, totally agree. No way was she out there unscripted.

Anyone not indoctrinated could see their end game. The prolonged attacks on Democrats was for a self-serving payoff. At least now they are honest about it.

[NurseJackie]

69. It's a safe bet that Mrs. Obama wouldn't start spouting-off about things she knows nothing about.

54. You've also held public office more than Michelle Obama. So, using your criterion, you also dismiss anything she says.

It's a safe bet that Mrs. Obama wouldn't start spouting-off about things she knows nothing about. Michelle Obama has enough savvy and enough class to know that it's in poor form to smear and attack Democrats and the Democratic party. Michelle Obama is a loyal Democrat who uses her position to strengthen the Democratic party, not to threaten it.

All I'm trying to say here is that in the exceedingly unlikely event that Michelle Obama decided to shoot-off-her-mouth and if she began making threats... you can rest assured that loyal and experienced Democrats would also "dismiss anything she says" that denigrates and divides and weakens the Democratic party.

[progressoid]

78. It's a safe bet that you didn't actually listen to Mrs. Sanders comments.

There was no threat. It was simply a "heads up". Democrats need to address the growing number of people who identify as independents. Also not addressed in the tweet was that she actually encouraged Independents to register to vote as Democrats. Gosh, we wouldn't want more people voting for Democrats would we?

Sadly these kinds of ideas don't go over well here at Democratic Underground anymore. Instead of a "big tent", we've become the website of "get off my lawn!"

[NurseJackie]

81. LOL! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

There was no threat.

LOL!

It was simply a "heads up".

LOL!

Yeah... along the lines of the classic Mob-movie bad guy who says "Nice little house and family ya got there, pal. It's sure be a shame if anything happened to it." Technically not a threat... but the meaning is understood.

All I'm saying is that I'm not as stupid as you seem to think I am. I can read. I know her history. I know EXACTLY what she's saying and what she means.

Sadly these kinds of ideas don't go over well here at Democratic Underground anymore. Instead of a "big tent", we've become the website of "get off my lawn!"

Aw.

[progressoid]

83. Ah, the derisive laughter response again.

OK, I know when you've reached you limit.

[NurseJackie]

98. Jane's threat was clear. Easily understood. Your denials don't change anything.

83. Ah, the derisive laughter response again.

Jane's threat was clear. Easily understood. The denials and lame defense of Jane don't change anything. Comparing Jane to Michelle, and trying to elevate her to the stature and level of respect held by an ACTUAL FLOTUS is insulting. It's undignified.

I'll be honest: This strategy serves no good purpose. It doesn't reflect very well on anyone who tries to drag Michelle Obama down and try to equate the former FLOTUS' comments with the level of contempt that Jane consistently demonstrates for Democrats. I think it's best to rethink that approach.

OK, I know when you've reached you limit.

Oh good god! "Reached my limit?" GMAFB! Nice try to evade and dodge with a personal attack.

Jane is smearing and attacking and THREATENING the Democratic party. It's as plain as day. I've told you before, I'm much smarter than you're giving me credit for. I know exactly what Jane is doing and her attacks and smears and threats are disgusting. It amazes me that anyone would want to defend her.

[progressoid]

117. Oh, you're back.

And without animated gifs. Great.

Ok, let's leave FLOTUS out of it and try former DNC chairman Howard Dean:

Howard Dean on young voters: ‘These people are not Democrats’

..."Cape up" turns to Howard Dean, former Vermont governor and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee who ran for the party’s presidential nomination in 2004, to talk about the future of the Democratic Party. “They see in Trump the destruction of the United States as they have been taught that it was going to exist,” he told me. “The Trump election was essentially a negation of every value that young people have.” Dean believes “those kids” are the “core base now” of the Democratic Party. “The most reliable demographic of our voters are the young people across the board, across racial and ethnic lines,” he said. There’s just one big problem.

“These people are not Democrats.”

“They’re very independent-minded. They don’t like politics. And they mistrust institutions,” Dean said in his characteristically matter-of-fact style. “I think our problem as Democrats is, we’re the head of the oldest party in the West, and this party is an institution that looks incredibly unattractive; not because of our ideology, ’cause that is attractive, and that is why they always vote for Democrats. But the Democratic Party means nothing to them because it’s an institution built by people like me who’s 40 years older than them.”

...

Listen to the podcast to hear Dean talk more about the respective problems of both political parties and what the Democrats need to do to be attractive to young voters. And he counsels folks like me driven crazy by the incessant demands of a certain someone (cough, Bernie!) who doesn’t see fit to join the Democratic Party.

“Who cares if he’s in the Democratic Party or not?” Dean said. “Bernie can call himself whatever he wants, but functionally, he is a Democrat.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/09/12/howard-dean-on-young-voters-these-people-are-not-democrats/?utm_term=.f4b8e61496fb

OR...Howard Dean: Democratic Leadership Is 'Old And Creaky'

I mean, how dare he say things like that! Who does he think he is!! He's not even an elected official...oh...wait...He's not even a Democrat...ummm....well he just shouldn't say bad things about the party. It's divisive and serves no good purpose.

[NurseJackie]

124. "Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout!" --- LOL!

"Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout!"

Oh brother! GMAFB!

And without animated gifs. Great.

Aw.

“Who cares if he’s in the Democratic Party or not?” Dean said.

I care.

“Bernie can call himself whatever he wants, but functionally, he is a Democrat.”

No he's not.

It's divisive and serves no good purpose.

Agreed! Bernie and Jane don't hold a monopoly on that... but they certainly are leading the charge, the attacks, the smears, the denigrating and divisive comments and not-so-veiled threats, such as: "Nice party ya got there, pal. Sure would be a shame if anything happened to it, eh?"

[progressoid]

139. Yay, the dismissive gifs are back!

Bernie and Jane don't hold a monopoly on that... but they certainly are leading the charge,

They're only leading the charge within the minds of a handful of people. I wonder how many people have Google alerts set to inform them every time Sanders is in the news so they can scour it for a perceived slight.

Ever wonder why DU has so many less members than it did a year ago? At a time when this site should be teeming with activity and mobilizing for the mid-terms, this place is quiet. People are tired if this exhausting crap.

And the general electorate that I met during a GOTV event this weekend; they certainly don't give a shit about it.

Now it's time to get back to work on the fliers we're making for a candidate who will hopefully flip a seat for state house. Does he have criticisms of the Democratic Party? Yes, a few. That's fine. Was he a Bernie or Hillary supporter in 2016? I don't know and I don't care. And with that, I will sign off and get back to work.

[NurseJackie]

168. "Google alerts" --- HA! :rofl:

Yay, the dismissive gifs are back!

I wonder how many people have Google alerts set to inform them every time Sanders is in the news so they can scour it for a perceived slight.

HA! I wouldn't know about that. But I do know that "scouring" is the last thing that one needs to do. The contempt for Democrats and the Democratic party are well-known and the attacks and smears always intentional and very easy to spot.

I think you underestimate the intelligence of people here who are loyal to the Democratic party. You don't give us enough credit for being able to recognize the lies and smears on our own, without needing a pop-up "Google alert" to tell us what to do. I haven't attacked you personally, why do you want to insult me? I've done nothing to you to deserve to be treated that way.

Ever wonder why DU has so many less members than it did a year ago?

I wouldn't know one way or another if that's true or not. Is it? How do you know?

And if it IS true, I can think of an entirely DIFFERENT reason than the one you postulate.

People are tired if this exhausting crap.

I know one thing they're tired of. They're certainly tired of the nonstop attacks and smears and denigrating of Democrats and the Democratic party. Now that's what I call "exhausting crap".

Does he have criticisms of the Democratic Party?

"Criticisms?" Calling Democrats and the Democratic party "feeble" and "corrupt" and "ideologically bankrupt" is a smear, not a "criticism"... GMAGDFB!

Yes, a few.

"A few?" Stop it! You're killing me here!

[progressoid]

183. Sorry, didn't mean to kill you.

I think you underestimate the intelligence of people here who are loyal to the Democratic party. You don't give us enough credit for being able to recognize the lies and smears on our own, without needing a pop-up "Google alert" to tell us what to do.

I don't underestimate the intelligence of the loyal Democrats here. Nor did I say you need a Google alert to tell you what to do. I said I wonder how many people have Google alerts 'set to inform them every time Sanders is in the news so they can scour it for a perceived slight'. It seems anything Sanders related puts a burr in a lot of DUer's britches.

No one seemed to get as upset when Joe Biden said, "some people in my party don't get blue collar voters." Or when Hillary complained that she got nothing from the DNC and that the DNC's data was, "was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong." Or when Obama blamed African Americans, Latinos, and young people for mid-term losses. Or, as I posted above, when Howard Dean calls the leadership "old and creaky."

I mostly agree with their criticisms and I think they should be voiced so we can rectify the problems. Imagine if any of those things were said by Bernie. Heads would explode. Apparently criticisms from him aren't welcome because...I dunno...is the hair?

Ever wonder why DU has so many less members than it did a year ago?
I wouldn't know one way or another if that's true or not. Is it? How do you know?

How do I know? Well, I've been here for 14 years. Also, there's this thing call Alexa.

I know one thing they're tired of. They're certainly tired of the nonstop attacks and smears and denigrating of Democrats and the Democratic party. Now that's what I call "exhausting crap".

That's the funny thing. Do you hear anything about this in the real world? I don't. I go to political meetings and events almost weekly. I don't think I've heard anyone talk about non-stop attacks, smears, and denigrating of Democrats by Sanders. I hang around both Sanders and non-Sanders people. We talk about Trump, Republicans in general, health care, the environment, reproductive rights, the mid-terms, etc. But nobody is grinding their teeth about Bernie and Jane. It's a non-issue.

Does he have criticisms of the Democratic Party? Yes, a few.

I guess I should have been more specific. Here I was talking about the views of a local pipe-fitter who is running for our state house. Another local Dem and I are helping him with his campaign. I'm working on some graphics for him.

Regardless, what I said can be applied to him, Bernie, Hillary, Barack, Joe, Howard et. al. Do they have criticisms of the Democratic Party? Yes, a few. That's fine. I'm not so proud that I can't accept some criticism of my party.

[NurseJackie]

188. GMAFB! Lies and smears are destructive, not "criticism".

"non issue"

[Cha]

173. NOBODY in the Democratic Party needs a "heads up"

from JS.

[NurseJackie]

55. She has none whatsoever. She's making self-serving threats. By denigrating the Democratic party...

26. What are Jane Sanders' political "credentials"?

She has none whatsoever. She's making self-serving threats. By denigrating the Democratic party, she weakens and divides the party... and as a result, she benefits the GOP.

All I'm saying is that we should look beyond her threats ... examine what her motivation is... see WHO benefits, and it becomes clearer what's going on. (Hint: It's certainly NOT Democrats nor the Democratic party that benefit.)

[Cha]

174. Exactly, Jackie.. "self-serving" threats.

Yeah, who benefits from her bashing the Democratic Party? I wonder.

[NurseJackie]

176. This was NOT some rogue action. It was NOT a spontaneous attack and threat.

Yeah, who benefits from her bashing the Democratic Party? I wonder.

This was NOT some rogue action. It was NOT a spontaneous attack and threat. I can pretty much guarantee you that NOTHING passes from her lips that wasn't first cleared with (or planned by) the Bernie 2020 "undeclared" campaign. If Jane says it, it's because that's the message that the "campaign" wants to put out there. This wasn't random or accidental. It was planned and intentional.

All I'm trying to say is that a divided and distrustful Democratic party benefits the GOP and one other. Heaven help us.

[Cha]

177. Too True, Jackie. This is

a campaign strategy that benefits the gop and guess who?

We don't need lectures on how to do things from JS.

[NurseJackie]

181. Agreed. After all, she's the one who tweeted...

We don't need lectures on how to do things from JS.

Agreed. After all, she's the one who tweeted that it's more important to vote (ie: "not who you vote for" was the obvious underlying message). She was, in that instance, basically giving permission (or encouraging people) to vote for Jill Stein. That also was no "accident" or hastily worded tweet. It was entirely planned and intentional.

All I'm trying to say is that Jane Sanders has always struck me as a spiteful woman who couldn't bring herself to openly and enthusiastically support the Democratic nominee.

[mcar]

185. She is a failed College president

under criminal investigation. I can't help but think about how some here insisted, during the GE, that the Clintons had to close down their life saving foundation because... Something.

[brush]

113. Right. She's not the one. She should stick to running colleges. Oh, wait...

[NurseJackie]

126. Oh you're bad! And that's gooood! :rofl:

She should stick to running colleges.

Oh you're bad! And that's gooood!

[George II]

161. I hear she applied for a job as a loan officer at People's Bank!

[lunamagica]

171. You mean "ruining colleges"

[betsuni]

27. Wut.

[beachbum bob]

28. democratic party is the big tent party, america is NOT a left-center country, but a centter-left

and extremist views from either the left or right are out of touch with america...and the failure of democrats can mostly blamed on apathy and the far-left

[Fullduplexxx]

30. There, their and theyre......

[KitSileya]

33. You should take that to twitter and tell Carol Leonard,

As she is the one who wrote the original tweet to which I link. While I cannot guarantee that my own language is faultless, I do try to avoid errors concerning homonyms, the more so because I teach English as a Foreign Language in high school in the country where I live. English is a mandatory subject here, and the students start learning it in first grade.

[Fullduplexxx]

50. I was in no way pointing that at you

[Snotcicles]

51. It should have been their's. nt

[Me.]

129. And To Think She Ran A College

Of course, she destroyed it. Progressively...dollar by dollar.

[oasis]

44. theyre

[brush]

120. Apostrophe pls.

[oasis]

128. pls. See #30.

[brush]

132. #30 also needs an apostrophe.

[oasis]

134. I subtly pointed that out to #30.

Maybe it was two subtle.

[Fullduplexxx]

154. better not read e.e. cummings youll be smacking yourself silly

[yardwork]

31. Where are your tax returns, Jane?

[ProudLib72]

35. Let's see here, we have babies in cages, students being killed, and a lunatic riling up his base

But JS wants to bitch and moan about the Dems. FUCK YOU JANE!

Reminds me of another third party person with the same initials from the 2016 election.

[Demsrule86]

41. What a great post. I don't like being threatened...and what kind of a person doesn't even

mention babies being ripped from their mothers arms and kept in it seems cages.

[Hortensis]

42. Extremely well expressed! But deep breath. :)

America's gotten a better look at Sanders through his actions and more understand the dishonorable role his own actions played in 2016. In addition, as the Russia investigation report findings become part of everyday discussion, those who accepted Russia's support, knowing full well it was given to elect Trump and other Republicans, are not going to come off well at all.

[NurseJackie]

56. Yes it is. Yes we have. Yes we do. Yes it will. Yes they did. Yes they did. No it won't.

America's gotten a better look at Sanders through his actions and more understand the dishonorable role his own actions played in 2016. In addition, as the Russia investigation report findings become part of everyday discussion, those who accepted Russia's support, knowing full well it was given to elect Trump and other Republicans, are not going to come off well at all.

Yes it is. Yes we have. Yes we do. Yes it will. Yes they did. Yes they did. No it won't.

[ProudLib72]

184. It seems there are still a lot of diehard supporters even on DU

I don't know what that means in terms of real world numbers of supporters. Moreover, I don't know what that means in terms of the primaries. We went through a major pissing match after the last election. I wish people would be more realistic about the very real danger that we are facing rather than being sold on pipe dreams (yes, I said it) of what could be.

[lunamagica]

49. Jane, how progressive was your golden parachute?

[WhiteTara]

52. I'm sorry to say this but their actions

make me think of trolls demanding a fee for us to cross the bridge.

[zipplewrath]

57. Doesn't really match with history

The political shifts over time don't really work like this. The closest was probably the Dixiecrats. But really, you have to go back to the Whigs and Republicans to find this kind of shift. In the modern world, there is just to much inertia in a party structure to be ignored or replaced.

As the GOP moved further right over the last 50 years, the result was candidates moving into the democratic party. Sure you had Perot make a run at things, and it led in some ways to Nader's attempt. But neither went anywhere. The two party system creates a reality where it is easier to "take over" or co-opt a party than try to replace it. It's why Sanders made his run in the democratic party to begin with.

The biggest reason for the apparent shifts that are coming is because the GOP has gone so far right, and so off the rails, that everyone is trying to figure out where to go. The democratic party is getting stretched across the political spectrum because the GOP is shrinking and becoming the crazy party. My suspicion is that ultimately the far right of the democratic party will move back to the GOP to take it back over. They'll push out the Birchers and Tea Party crowd and it will be left predominately to the fiscal conservatives with some social conservatism thrown in.

[Blue_true]

123. I have said for a long time.

The best way for moderate and even conservative republicans to get their party back is to vote for democrats until democrats have eliminated the modern Republican Party, at that point, they can spilt off and provide a counterweight (but a rational one) to our policies that they don't agree with.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

64. What the hell?

The Democrats ARE progressive!


I guess that she means that we need to crown Bernie as King of the Democratic Party- even though he's not a Democrat himself?

[Gothmog]

68. Threats will not be effective

[Wounded Bear]

71. The Dem party is already becoming more progressive...

It's happening all over the damn country.

This is propaganda reminiscent of the Trump campaign, where apparently he inherited an economy in the toilet and miraculously saved us all before he was even inaugurated.

[seaglass]

74. This is Jane on election day 2016. She's an asshole.

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

77. That's Jane's code-talk for "Go ahead and vote for Jill Stein."

How we voted not as important as that we voted. Head & heart at odds for many. Whatever result, we'll work toward a better future together.

That's Jane's code-talk for "Go ahead and vote for Jill Stein."

I can't even stand to look at her. Everything she does benefits the GOP by denigrating and dividing and weakening Democrats and the Democratic party.

[lunamagica]

80. That stupid...I can't even type what I'm thinking. That's what I call white privilege!

[NurseJackie]

118. Clearly, she wasn't speaking ONLY for herself. That was not an "un-vetted" nor "unapproved" message.

She never could bring herself to give a full-throated endorsement and give enthusiastic support to the Democratic nominee. Instead, her bitter and resentful message was essentially "it doesn't matter WHO you vote for" or "it's okay with me if you want to 'send-a-message' by voting for Jill Stein".

All I'm trying to say is that Jane didn't support the Democratic party (or Democrats) during the general election, and she clearly doesn't support the Democratic party now. Nothing has changed. It's still the same old Jane.

[Tarc]

75. Hey Jane, how's that FBI investigation into your bank fraud coming along?

[PubliusEnigma]

79. A Third Party is the only way that the GOP can remain competitive as demographics change.

They have to split the liberal vote.

[we can do it]

85. Tired of the BS

[heaven05]

86. really jane??? tell me it ain't so

[GulfCoast66]

93. To Jane there is only one criteria for qualifying as a progressive

Support her husband for president.

[jalan48]

94. I think the Party will move to the left. What's the arument against doing so?

If the Progressives are just a small, inconsequential segment (remember "We got this" ) then it shouldn't matter. If there are a significant number of Progressives who would bolt to vote third party then it does matter. It's our choice as a party which way to go.

[Demsrule86]

99. We are all progressives but the left left Green slime can spoil close elections but can't win

elections.

[jalan48]

103. It's our choice as a Party. Blaming the voters is NOT a solution.

[R B Garr]

115. California is undeniably progressive. California didn't vote for Bernie.

Et cetera...

[jalan48]

119. Then no worries. Why all the fuss?

[R B Garr]

122. Your post #94 was implying agreement with Jane Sanders where only her definition

of progressive is important. There is a whole world of progressives out there, California being a huge population, and we all figure it out just fine without Bernie.

[jalan48]

130. Like I said, no worries. Much ado about nothing.

[R B Garr]

149. We don't need Jane Sanders dividing people and

inferring only the Sanders are going to dictate who is progressive and who isn’t. At least she is making it obvious now.

[Demsrule86]

131. The voters who call themselves wrongly in my opinion progressives who didn't vote for Hillary are

for worthy of blame.

[jalan48]

133. Sorry, it's an election. What about those 90+ million eligible voters who didn't vote?

It's our job to win their votes, not theirs. That's how a democracy works. The question should be what do we need to do to get the votes, not blame them if they don't vote for us, or vote at all for that matter.

[Demsrule86]

141. Absolutely to blame....

I don't give a damn what Jane Sanders says. I have a close family member who went to Club Fed for lying on mortgage documents... I am sick of seeing rich people get away with stuff that ordinary folks don't. If she did what is claimed than there should be accountability.

[jalan48]

142. Good luck with the blame the voters strategy.

[awesomerwb1]

136. The timing is not good

2018 is too important to blow it. This lady is already thinking 2020 obviously.

She's a divisive i***t.

A case of ME over party. And the excuse if it all goes to shit in 2020 will be:

(Insert first name) Sanders: we lost because the party didn't move to the left.

[jalan48]

137. Well, over the last few years we have lost the Presidency, Congress, State legislatures and

state governor ships to the Republicans. Is this a hold the line strategy?

[Demsrule86]

143. And that can be pinned on the left left green slimes who abandoned Obama i 10

which lead to a gerrymander and who were so so angry that the president they knee capped couldn't do what they want, they didn't bother to show up in 14 which gave us Gorsuch...same crew who lost the 2000 election and gave us Bush/United.

[jalan48]

146. Bad voters! Bad!

[awesomerwb1]

156. Meh. It's more like get back to basics and work on grassroots

and not ignore ANYONE strategy.

How much legislation has Bernie passed since he's been in congress/senate?

And I want full transparency. Can't ask for Cheeto's taxes when others *cough* haven't produced them either.

Full transparency required from anyone wanting to run for President from all parties. Common sense.

[awesomerwb1]

157. And by the way. Is your "strategy" (Sanders') to divide a party in two by creating another party?

Because the republicans would absolutely LOVE that.

[jalan48]

162. My strategy would be to stop attacking Sanders and the millions who voted for him. Let's figure

out how to bring those folks back into the fold by finding common ground and working together.

[comradebillyboy]

163. Then maybe Bernie and Jane should spend less time attacking Democrats.

[jalan48]

166. Politics is about issues. Democrat's are not 100% lockstep on the issues.

Voter's decide the direction they think the country should take by voting for those politicians who best represent their beliefs. Millions of voters have shown their like Bernie on the issues. It's OK to disagree.

[Cha]

172. It's what they do.. they're not going to change

now.

They can dish it out.. but can they take it?

[mcar]

186. Why would anyone who calls themselves liberal or progressive

not be "in the fold?" Look at where we are and who is in the WH and Congress. I truly do not understand why any liberal/progressive would need to be convinced to vote Democratic.

[jalan48]

187. Apparently millions don't think the Party is progressive enough. I hope we can come together

before 2020 and believe we will do so.

[mcar]

189. Why would anyone risk Rs keeping control of everything

because the Ds, who have the most progressive platform in decades, aren't progressive enough? Way too much purity politics. This country is in crisis, we don't have time for that.

Go Warriors!

[jalan48]

190. I agree and that's why I don't think Bernie will run a la Nader. He will continue to push us

further left which I believe is a good thing.

Go Warriors-great team basketball.

[Blue_Tires]

179. We should do it because it's the right thing to do

*NOT* because Jane Freakin' Sanders told us to...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. That's a great idea to dilute the left of center vote...

That's a great idea to dilute the left of center vote if you're a Republican.

[stonecutter357]

101. lol

[ehrnst]

102. Wish I could say I was surprised.

But she does stand by her man...

[RandySF]

108. Translation: Nominate my husband in 2020 or else.

[grantcart]

116. I would say "Don't let the door hit you on the way out" but that implies we were in the same room".

[NurseJackie]

125. She's a mouthpiece for his 2020 campaign. This was planned and appproved.

[Demsrule86]

144. I think they may learn that electioneering by threat is a bad idea.

[Gothmog]

121. The good news is that ballot access laws will apply to third party candidates

Maryland has already adopted a ballot access law that requires that a candidate provides several years of tax returns to be on the ballot. Several other blue states will be adopting these laws. These laws will apply to both the candidates of the two major parties and to third party candidates.

If sanders wants to run as a third party, he will still have to release all of his tax returns. I doubt that sanders will be doing this

[all american girl]

140. Jane needs to realize that we are no longer putting up with her stupid threats

She, her husband, and their followers need to just go start their own party. I'm getting sick and tired of them doing exactly nothing but threaten us. These are the people who want to put women, POC, LWTBQ, disabled, etc, on the back burn to appeal to white men, by calling our interest and worries "identity politics." Here's the deal, we are the identity of the people who support the Democrats. We aren't going back for a mediocre white man. If that's how they want the party to look, just follow through with the threat and leave us to get the work done.

[comradebillyboy]

164. Starting a sucessful new political party is very difficult and

requires a lot of hard work. In fact that the Democrats and Republicans are only two US parties to do it successfully in the last 150 + years.

[Garrett78]

145. I assume she means a *viable* 3rd party, as there are already numerous parties.

Without instant-runoff voting (and probably not even then), there won't be a viable 3rd party in this first-past-the-post system.

[samir.g]

152. Shut your piehole, Jane

[Wwcd]

158. Geezus Chrrrist! Demanding & desperate sound to that warning statement

Wtf is really going on with Jane ??

Straight outta the blue Jane Sanders makes such a statement??
Wtf prompted that?

What's exactly on the line for JANE, if we choose not to do as she demands?
That's the question I want answered.

[soryang]

160. How big corporate money drives US elections

"Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen’s research offers a new window into the influence of money and corporate spending on American politics. Their work suggests that the failure of social scientists to acknowledge the role of money in the political system may be helping to drive the country into a post-Democratic age."

https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/research-papers/how-money-drives-us-congressional-elections

The democratic leadership just can't cut the big money connection. That's why they are driving voters away. Bernie Sanders showed the way out but the democratic party rejected it.

[JCanete]

167. Well she lierally addresses Trump and what he's been doing in her talk, so your assessment seems

skewed in favor of making a point that the facts don't support.

[Cha]

169. Mahalo for posting this, Kit! First of all nobody the fuck

is "ignoring progressives" Does she think Dems like Heidi Heitkamp could ever stand up to her purity test in North Dakota?

JS conveniently leaves out vital reasons why we got trump.. wonder why she does that?

[Blue_Tires]

178. So... 200 days before the biggest midterms of our lives, and they pull this shit?

[MrsCoffee]

182. Of course. It's the only way they can stay relevant.

[Cha]

196. Exactly. Mrs Sanders is issuing threats..

while our Dems are Kicking

[NurseJackie]

198. "Nice party ya got there. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it!"

Threats are real classy, huh?

[Cha]

199. Is that a real

quote from her or what?!

Sorry, I couldn't stand to listen to her.

[NurseJackie]

200. No... It's just a "classic" mob style threat. But...

... her intentions are clear so she may as well have said it just like that.

[Cha]

201. Right.. notice

I wouldn't put it past her.

I read somewhere she said the Russian Investigations were a distraction. Imagine that.. Only the sanctity of our Democracy.

Can't imagine why that would be a distraction.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

192. ...

http://www.sherv.net/][IMG]

[Freethinker65]

202. Bigger things to worry about than Jane Sanders predictions

[liberal N proud]

204. This is my problem with BS and the BoBs.

They will burn the house down if they don't get their way.

[LuvLoogie]

205. Hey Jane. The party's over here...

[tirebiter]

206. In California we have a third party

They call themselves Republicans.

[OldRed2450]

208. knr