Sanders on authoritarianism....

[pbmus]

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

1. A strong Democratic party is key. Everyone should do their best to avoid...

... smearing and attacking Democrats and the Democratic party. Strength through unity, not division and suspicion. All I'm trying to say is that we Democrats will overcome our GOP and Russian enemies by working together. Insults don't unify... they divide. Lies don't unify... they weaken. Smears don't strengthen... they create distrust. All I'm trying to say is that who try to divide us by creating resentment with name-calling and lies about Democrats and the Democratic party are only helping the GOP, not the Democrats.

[JCanete]

2. You kinda just took an authoritarian position on how we should speak about our party. Just sayn'

Criticism is valuable. Self-criticism and outside criticism. The criticism that is weak we can own, the criticism that is on point, we can learn from and adjust to. I don't fear that. Strong and right.

[NurseJackie]

3. LOL!

You kinda just took an authoritarian position

No I didn't.

Criticism is valuable. Self-criticism and outside criticism.

Smears, lies and insults are not "criticism".

[JCanete]

4. except taht you seem to characterize everything as a smear if it is negative. I'm not

sure I trust your compass on that.

[NurseJackie]

6. Oh, charming... here we go again. More insults and backhanded swipes at my intelligence.

4. except taht you seem to characterize everything as a smear if it is negative. I'm not
sure I trust your compass on that.

Oh, charming... here we go again. More insults and backhanded swipes at my intelligence. You're talking down to me.

But I will admit that it's very wise of you to not come right out and bluntly say that I'm too dumb to discern the difference between actual criticism and the typical insults, smears and lies.

[JCanete]

9. Its not an insult at your intelligence. It is an impression I get about your reaction to anything

critical of the Democratic Party. I could be wrong about that, but one thing I do not wonder about is your intelligence. You are a solid part of the DU community with a strong perspective that you articulate well. I almost always find myself on the other side of issues with you, but that is not a question of intelligence. Its a question of what lens we see the world through. I don't think its unreasonable for either of us to think the other is seeing the world through a distorted lens because we both think we have the clearer vision of it.

It would be unreasonable for us to quit challenging our own perspective, so I'll continue to do that, and you have certainly given me grist to do that over the years.

[NurseJackie]

14. Lordy.

9. Its not an insult at your intelligence. It is an impression I get about your reaction to anything
critical of the Democratic Party.

Lordy. You're making things worse, you know. But I suppose it's better than saying "I don't think you're dumb... it's just that I get the impression you're dumb." The rest is just words to disguise the doubling down of the insult ... not "criticism" so don't even try.

[JCanete]

18. Two intelligent people can't disagree on a subject?

Intelligent people can't privilege some facts over others? They can't have confirmation bias?

[NurseJackie]

25. That's not what this is about and you know it.

Two intelligent people can't disagree on a subject?

That's not what this is about and you know it. I'm tired of you talking down to me and treating me like I'm some sort of idiot. Would you talk to your own mother the way you talk to me?

[JCanete]

29. What is an exanple of me talking down to you? What you do absolutley do is charaterize me

as a cynical dishonest actor attempting to trick you into talking about certain subjects, etc. That does happen. You may not think I'm unintelligent(I'm not sure) but you certainly think that I'm not arguing in good faith and say so. I actually can believe that you're intelligent and arguing in good faith at the same time, and still find us coming to different conclusions.

[NurseJackie]

40. I'm not playing that game with you.

I'm not the only one who sees it. No gaslighting me. Sorry, not sorry.

[George II]

42. Oh my........

?w=750

[JCanete]

43. seriously? nt

[JCanete]

44. okay then...I'm glad you didn't fall for my most sinister trap....why is it I'm the one

who feels like I let myself get sucked into a vortex of pointlessness.

[NurseJackie]

55. Hmmm. That's a difficult question to answer...

why is it I'm the one
who feels like I let myself get sucked into a vortex of pointlessness.

Hmmm. That's a difficult question to answer. I think observant readers can find some clues when they take note of how quickly you who came after me with your aggressive accusations that I'm "authoritarian" and the follow-up with not-so-subtle insults that I somehow lack the intelligence to be able to differentiate between gratuitous/opportunistic insults and actual criticism, or that I'm untrustworthy. Indeed, that whole thing was pointless... but it was of your own making, not mine.

All I'm trying to say is that it really serves no good purpose to try and talk down to me... and blaming me for your own mistakes, well... that's pointless, too.

I'm glad you didn't fall for my most sinister trap

Yes. I'm sure.

[JCanete]

61. never ever said or meant or insinuated that you're not intelligent. Not sure what is talking down to

or lecturing versus having an opinion and stating it, but I don't expect that you'll clarify the difference for me here.

Again, whereas you can interpret what I've said how you like I've never said what you are inferring. Contrast that to you consistent refrain that I'm trying to trick you into one thing after the other. That my intentions have nothing to do with the content we're discussing and everything to do with...what, getting you banned? Tricking you into revealing something compromising? Getting you to buy into a timeshare?

[NurseJackie]

65. Right. Because...

Again, whereas you can interpret what I've said how you like I've never said what you are inferring.

Right. Because smears aren't actually smears if someone is merely "making a case" and arguing the possibility, blah blah blah. Because words mean different things to different people and when one person hears an insult, the speaker could have meant it as a compliment.

but I don't expect that you'll clarify the difference for me here.

I think you're smart enough that you don't need ME to explain it to you. That's a garden path I'll let you wander all by yourself.

Contrast that to you consistent refrain that I'm trying to trick you into one thing after the other.

Intentional or not, I will not be lured into forbidden or dangerous topics.

Getting you to buy into a timeshare?

Something like that. You're getting warm. And that's all I'll say about that (for obvious reasons).

[JCanete]

66. "Intentional or not, I will not be lured into forbidden or dangerous topics." I'll take that

characterization as something that very nearly edges our conversation up to a level of civil, so I thank you for that.

[NurseJackie]

67. You know perfectly well...

that very nearly edges our conversation up to a level of civil

You know perfectly well that I don't have an uncivil bone in my body. But then again... as I've been told repeatedly... identical words mean different things to different people, and besides... "what are words anyway? Little more than a string of characters and syllables that mere humans with all their frailty and fallibility have constructed and uttered in a feeble attempt to convey abstract meanings that may be understood and interpreted differently" ... or something.

[ehrnst]

70. +1000. (nt)

[George II]

41. .

[Hortensis]

57. :) Good, important statement. Sen. Sanders, however,

desperately needs to match it with actions.

In Florida, Sanders has endorsed the far weaker of our Democratic candidates, Andrew Gillum, for governor. Congressman John Lewis, whose commitment to fighting authoritarianism has never been in doubt, endorsed our stronger Democratic candidate. I'll be delighted if Gillum wins, but the Republicans' chances of replacing Gov. Rick Scott with "voters don't mon-kee this up " very hard right Ron DeSantis just got brighter.

In Florida's senate race, Sanders has NOT endorsed our Democratic candidate, Bill Nelson. I don't know if that's good or bad. If Sanders feels it might hurt our chances and tip Florida to Governor-now-Senator Rick Scott, not endorsing might well be in order.

But, judging by Sen. Sanders' refusal to support the vast majority of Democrats and some endorsements of dangerously weak candidates in the other 49 states, it's probably just indicating the continued huge dissonance between Sanders' words and his actions.

I applaud this simple statement because it's so dreadfully true. But Senator Sanders needs to put his actions where his words are.

[George II]

60. I guess Bill Nelson isn't...........

[Tiggeroshii]

77. No. He is the senior us senator from vermont.

He is not maple syrup!!

[George II]

81. Pat Leahy is the senior Senator from Vermont, Bill Nelson is the senior Senator from Florida.

[Tiggeroshii]

82. Shame on me for that. Leahy's the man. So is Nelson.

Either way neither Senator from Vermont or Florida is maple syrup.

[JCanete]

63. Dangerously weak is a silly argument. If a candidate wins the primary, and that includes Clinton,

then there's a better chance that the base will get out for that candidate, and that's what wins elections. I don't care about the speculations or the head-to-head matchups...it might be an interesting intellectual endeavor to wonder whether Sanders for instance, would have beaten Trump, but the reality is Clinton took the bulk of the votes and that's the best indicator we have. A weak candidate doesn't simply win. A weak candidate beats another candidate in the primary. So even if that candidate is weak as you proclaim, I'm not sure what that says about his or her opponent.

[Cary]

34. Nor should you

You ought to have objective research to show that your "criticism" doesn't aid and abet "conservative" disinformation. I haven't seen any, myself. Since "conservatives" spend billions of dollars to sow discord and discontent I have to assume that it helps elect Republicans.

I would never help to elect Republicans.

How about you? Would you help to elect Republicans?

[JCanete]

45. We simply have very different ideas about what helps or hurts Repbulicans. Republicans

have been winning too many different ways for too long. And that isn't on the count of Sanders mean words.

[Cary]

48. In other words you have no objective evidence and you are willing to ...

... aid and abet Republicans, if that is the case.

The difference is that I am not willing to aid and abet Republicans. Even if I did not deem that probable, I would not be so willing. Republicans are fascists. We have a Nazi in the White House. I resist them with every fiber in my body.

You should resist them with every fiber in your body too.

[StuckInTexas]

56. Nice use

Of a straw man to minimize a fellow Democrat who happens to have very mild criticism. There is nothing in the poster's comments that support your vile accusation of aiding and abetting the nazi gop.

[Cary]

58. How is it a straw man and how did I "minimize a fellow Democrat?"

The subject is criticizing Democrats. The premise is that criticizing Democrats results in fewer votes. I asked for objective evidence to refute the premise and was given none. I stated that I am not willing to engage in this criticism because, assuming the premise is true, I will not aid and abet Republicans.

While the premise may be untrue (I am certain that it is true) I don't wish to take that risk.

To that I have no response. Now please be so good as to present a reasonably objective argument to support your two accusations, or else be good enough to apologize.

[George II]

59. When at a loss for words, pull out the ol' "straw man" argument.

[Cary]

62. You are more generous than I, George

I sense malice, from a "fellow Democrat."

[StuckInTexas]

68. I will probably get banned for this but

You can take your not so subtle accusation and shove it (I will leave it for you to decide where). I work 50 hours a week, and cannot reply at your whim. I also attend school at night 4 nights a week. You know what I do with the rest of my limited amount of time? I wish it was spend time with my family, but it is not. I fill those other waking hours volunteering wherever and whenever I can for democrats.

Currently I do phone banks and block walks for Beto. I do this at LEAST 12 hours a week. We're currently in the middle of a dogfight with a chance to put in one of the most promising Senate candidates in years while simultaneously taking out the vile pseudo human, Ted Cruz.

If that isn't proof of me being enough of a Democrat for you, well, my first statement will suffice. I ask you, besides being an asshole who questions the motives of other Democrats, what are you doing to fight the nazi gop?

Note: I won't be able to respond until tomorrow, as I literally will not have more than a few minutes free until the very late evening. And quite honestly, I probably won't reply at all as this doesn't do anything to help the ultimate goal of a blue fucking wave.

[Cary]

69. You accused me of two things.

I asked you to back up your own accusations and you respond with personal attacks and lame excuses.

[JCanete]

64. No, it doesn't mean that. If you want to resort to that, by all means Cary, but generally speaking,

until you feel like bringing evidence to a conversation, I'm going to abstain from having one with you. We've had too many and a lot of your words tend to be more about me than the topic at hand.

[Cha]

10. No, she didn't. You kinda just falsely accused her. Just sayin'

We're not talking about criticism here and you know.

Lobbing that "the Democratic Party is the party of the 1% and NOT of working people" is not true.

[JCanete]

15. I've seen the range of things referred to as smears here. So I disagree with you Cha.

As to whether we are the party of the 1 percent, I think that's a more complicated answer. The 1 percent HAVE gotten richer under democratic leadership and Republican leadership. They've never lost. Democrats are a lot better at tamping down outright corruption and not letting money slip away in the night, and not having the commons sold out from under us. Our party tends to be responsible stewards, that nonetheless under our watch, the wealth redistribution continues, and the power that allows the rich to wield and thus then clobber Democrats in elections, has continued.

[Cha]

20. I know you won't admit it or address the insult from BS that I posted.

[JCanete]

23. I was speaking to it in the content of my post. I disagree with him but I think he could make a case

That's different than a smear. Its a characterization.

[NurseJackie]

50. Oh, good Lord. GMAFB!

him but I think he could make a case. That's different than a smear. Its a characterization.

Oh, good Lord. GMAFB! We've heard that before, too. Didn't fly then and it's unclear why anyone would believe it could fly now.

It's like someone saying that they only "characterize" another person as being dumb. We're supposed to buy the argument that it's not really the same as making out outright declarative statement that the other person is dumb... because, instead they're just "making a case". --- What nonsense!

All I'm saying is that no matter what pretty words and euphemisms anyone uses to characterize the lies and smears and insult... they're STILL (and always will be) lies and smears an insults.

These are opportunistic and cynical lies that ONLY serve to divide and weaken and to turn new voters away from being (or supporting) Democrats.

[Power 2 the People]

78. Please be civil.

Tearing each other down will not help in November.

[NurseJackie]

79. Nobody is doing that.

[mcar]

27. There is a difference between criticism and smears

I think we all know which is which.

[Cha]

37. Yes, we Do Know the Difference.. while some try to

deny the smear. Talk about "TELLING".

It's ok for BS but when we call him out on it or anyone like him.. it's Not OK.. according to those who think it's ok for BS but not for thee.

See how that works? mcar

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. So while your house is burning down you will go out of your way to stand in the kitchen

and require your entire family stand with you and nobody leaves until you decide what color to paint it AFTER it burns to the ground?

You are EITHER doing that criticizing now or you have an entirely different reason to criticize NOW.

It has gone on too long, I no longer believe those doing this care AT ALL about a strong D party but in fact have an entirely different agenda.

[R B Garr]

39. "Criticism" isn't criticism if it just cynical

degradation for its own sake. That is just opportunistic exploitation.

[MrsCoffee]

51. You seem to fear criticism of Bernie.

As do most who pretend his criticism of the Democratic Party is noble.

[JCanete]

53. No, I dont'. That's ridicluos and isn't meted out in my posts. Sometimes I disagree with him myself.

In posts recently I took issue with the characterization or intention of something he said regarding losing southern states but still thought it was a dumb thing to say.

I disagree with, given the context in which Sanders said it, people who are angry at him for using the term "identity politics" as a knock to dems, but I appreciate the history with that term, the long seeded connotations, so I understand that grievance.

There is one article that suggests Sanders was not entirely cognizant of what powers the President has...Sanders suggested he would have the power as President to do some sort of regulating I think it was, and he did a very bad job of articulating what those powers might be. It may have been that he thought they'd be able to find the legal precedent for them or that the legal precedent he was thinking of was on shaky ground, but either way that particular piece is entirely legitimate and effective criticism of Sanders and whether or not he was the most prepared candidate on the actual workings and legal challenges of the office.

I've also said recently that I disagree with him about saying the democratic party is the party of the 1 percent, I just don't think his comment rises to the level of a smear, because I think he could make a case given the continued financial success of the rich in this country no matter which party has been in control. I don't have problem with people taking it to task though, because it is a statement absolutely worthy of push-back. The counter-argument to his is a solid one.

Nor did I have a problem with questions and criticisms regarding Sanders recent proposal to get big companies like Amazon and Walmart to pay 100 percent of government assistance, because the actual consequences of such legislation were legitimately a big question mark.

Nor am I partisan when it comes to issues that seem directly targeted at Sanders, like releasing tax returns as a prerequisite for running in the dem primary, which I'm fine with, or doing away with caucuses, which I might lament as an avenue for less heavily backed candidates but which I understand to be greatly disenfranchizing.

Criticism is fine. But inaccurate criticism should be challenged and different perspectives brought to bear.

[Cha]

75. "Noble" Schomble!

Damn Straight, MrsCoffee

[ehrnst]

71. "smearing and attacking Democrats and the Democratic party."

Clearly NJ is not talking about criticism here.

Puching away at a strawman and less than subtle gaslighting really don't indicate "strong" or "right," where debate among adults is concerned.

Neither does heaving stones while living in a glass house. When there is even the slightest doubt or dissent expressed towards Senator Sanders ideas, you are among the first to label it "smearing," or "innacurate criticism."

[guillaumeb]

5. Inadvertently demonstrating an authoritarian position?

Interesting and revealing.

[NurseJackie]

7. LOL!

5. Inadvertently demonstrating an authoritarian position?

No I'm not.

Interesting and revealing.

Oh brother! GMAFB!

[Cha]

21. NO.. there was nothing "authoritarian" in her post. ""Revealing.."

but Not "interesting" that you would think so.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. Very.

[dansolo]

47. An authoritarian position is insisting that your way is the best and only way things should be done

Just like how Bernie and Our Revolution operates. There can be authoritarians on the left, too.

[guillaumeb]

52. Agreed, there certainly can be.

And it is good to recognize the tendency.

[ehrnst]

73. Yep. (nt)

[ehrnst]

72. That was my initial thought as well.

But not to Nurse Jackie's post.

Before I read her post, actually.

[George II]

8. Brilliant observations. Thanks.

[NurseJackie]

11. Well, thank you! Apparently my words have touched sensitive nerves with some...

8. Brilliant observations. Thanks.

Well, thank you! Apparently my words have touched sensitive nerves with some who would rather find subtle ways to make ad hominem comments about me, my motives, and my intelligence rather than to refute the message.

[Cha]

13. I caught those subtle ad hominem attacks and called

them out.

[guillaumeb]

19. No, your words revealed your own mindset.

And some pointed that out to you.

[Cha]

22. No, your accusation reveals your "mindset".

[Eliot Rosewater]

31. Amazing what is going on.

If the Dems dont take back the house I am going to come here and SCREAM at certain people and I suspect even that wont matter at that point.

[peggysue2]

54. I'll be screaming with you, Elliot because . . .

this continuing smear and run campaign by some folks is beyond aggravating. Nancy's call for a strong, unified Dem party is an example of . . . authoritarianism??

Oh please! State the obvious and loyal Dems are dictators?

Maybe it's this: the country is in crisis and too many people want to pretend it's business as usual. The November elections are critical to our national survival but too many people want to pretend that the worse it gets the better future for their particular agenda, as in Susan Sarandon exclaiming that The Revolution will be forced into being by the Trumpster debacle. That theory is based on a false assumption: that the miraculous Revolution will solve all problems, even though history tells us that the vast majority of well-intentioned revolutions end in utter chaos & destruction--think French as opposed to American. It also presumes the opposition will fold up and die, be forever extinguished which is the way fairytales are read to small children, minus the darkness. They won't go away. That's why the fight is ongoing and the fight in November is so important.

We have one damn shot at stopping the madness and rerouting the train before the damage to our institutions and Rule of Law becomes irreparable. Anyone criticizing, belittling or standing in the way of that effort is not a Democrat or even a patriot. Yes, I used the word: patriot. Because our sovereignty, our national democratic identity is at stake.

We fight this together now. We argue about the color of the drapes later. Otherwise, there will be nothing left to save. Good intentions won't correct this mess. Shoulders together is the only way.

[ehrnst]

74. You seem to be missing what is right in front of you.

[Cha]

12. Well Done, Jackie! This has to brought to our Attention.

Words matter and he needs to be held accountable.

Thank You!

[ehrnst]

32. Authoritarianism isn't just for the Right.

Walking lockstep with a manifesto and ejecting any who dissent make for a very dynamic movement, but not a successful campaign.

Especially with Democrats - we just have this thing about being allies with those who have different ideas on how to get to the same goal.

[Tiggeroshii]

76. Wut

...

[NurseJackie]

80. ...

[Uncle Joe]

16. This is an excellent video analysis regarding the rise of authoritarianism and oligarchy.

Thanks for the thread pbmus.

[OilemFirchen]

17. I didn't watch the video, so I don't know what he said.

I do know, however, that it is considered inappropriate to cast any aspersions on the Senator.

I guess that's ironic, but I can't say for sure.

[Cha]

24. Oh Wow.. you just hit the Nail on the head! You Can Say

For Sure!

[OilemFirchen]

26. It's all so confusing.

[Cha]

36. Yeah, right.

lol

[ehrnst]

35. Doesn't everything do that now?

That's what I'm told.

[oberliner]

33. Great video

Thanks for sharing.

[Autumn]

38. Excellent video. So true and thanks for posting this OP.

[SkyDancer]

46. Great video!

Thanks for sharing this!

[kentuck]

49. Wow!

Authoritarianism must be recognized and challenged.