I have a question--are we allowed to criticize some of the actions of the Democratic Party?

[Akamai]

I am not criticizing major Democratic candidates, etc., but am somewhat concerned about a suggestion (I believe it, but it may not be true) that no matter what we have to support those who run the Democratic Party.

I really believe in this last election things were mishandled, that some unfairness happen, but we are where we are and we cannot relitigate the last election. I think Hillary was a fine candidate and trump was horrible. Comey was against Hillary, the press was against Hillary, and the personal attacks were more than absolutely vicious.

But even so, the Democratic Party made a variety of mistakes, I think, including: not for raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, to not installing the Glass-Steagall act once again, do not being belligerent in Syria, etc. I thought Hillary was a fine candidate and I voted for her and donated money and time to her candidacy.

On the other hand, I do not want the corporatists to take over the Democratic Party, and so the party has less empathy for those without jobs, etc.

Any thoughts on this? (No bunnies were killed in the manufacture of this message.) In

[randr]

1. As a Democrat you are entitled and expected to criticize where you see fault

We are supposed to be in the process of creating a more perfect society. We are not here to defend and protect the status quo.

[question everything]

2. And, to learn from past mistakes (nt)

[Akamai]

4. Yep. Learning from past mistakes. Hopefully we all do so, but we have to expose them times before we learn.

One of the things in this last election I was very concerned about was the lack of focus on issues. Listening to Thom Hartmann and Bernie Sanders I really agreed with them that the major candidates in the Democratic race were not focusing on issues as much as personalities, the inside-baseball approaches. I remember buying Thom Hartmann 800 bumper stickers that said, "It's the issues, stupid!"

I was concerned that if we focused on issues, Hillary would win. But we did not focus on issues much towards the end of the campaign. On podcast site, people working for the Hillary Clinton campaign acknowledged that they were more focused on Trump's deficits and insanities but that did not work out.

Indeed, as I noted earlier this evening, in Wisconsin (and I'm sure in other places as well) many voters thought that Democrats favored the rich more than the Republicans did. This is absolutely crazy talk, and would have been dispelled immediately if our candidate had focused on 10 (or so) major themes, these including income inequality, student debt, a higher hourly wage, etc.

[Hortensis]

31. Posing same old attacks in a question is not being clever.

[Akamai]

3. Thank you sir! It makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. I am better every time my wife calls me a slob, etc.

Because I am. And so I try to get better.

Thank you sir! Or Madam, the case may be.

I remember hearing recently that we are improving if our mistakes correct us. Maybe my wife told me that--but I really do try to be better over time.

If we insulate us from criticisms, going into our own echo chamber, then we do not improve.

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. we are not a party made up of authoritarians, so I would hope we would always stand for Democratic

principles.

[Akamai]

6. I hope so too. But earlier tonight people criticized Thom Hartmann and Cenk for criticizing the

Democratic Party.

Frankly, I think that both Thom and Cenk are criticizing it in the hopes of improving it. They certainly do not want it to be harmed. That is, not as far as I can tell.

I remember a terrific quote from Teddy Roosevelt in the first decade or two of the 1900s, who said that we have a duty to object to things that were unfair, even in times of war. That it was patriotic of us to do so.

[NRaleighLiberal]

8. I really admire Hartmann - but he has certainly become controversial here the last few years.

[betsuni]

14. Cenk called Hillary Clinton "the living embodiment of corruption."

This was incorrect. Many of his opinions about Democrats are based on incorrect information, he works himself up into an emotional state when Democrats are mentioned. He said after the election that progressives need to take over the Democratic Party. As if Democrats aren't progressive. I keep seeing this, people saying "Democrats and progressives need to work together." Why the insinuation that Democrats aren't progressive? Is this a way to say that Democrats are like Republicans? This is why Cenk isn't popular among Democrats. It is attack, not criticism. Now, I haven't watched his show this year, maybe he's settling down some, laying out practical ideas without the hateful rants about things that don't exist.

[Akamai]

93. Clearly Cenk's statement then was wrong. Does he still say that?

[Gothmog]

105. Cenk lied through his teeth on a post about Jane Sanders

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=449040 Cenk's claims in that video are pure lies and bullshit. Cenk is not to be trusted on any thing dealing with facts

[Squinch]

39. Cenk made it clear that he was not working for the good of the Democratic party. Hartmann

might be a nice guy but he's being funded by RT. RT is among the group that seeded the thousands of fake Hillary stories into the internet and rigged it so those stories were the first seen in a search. That makes Hartmann the useful idiot about whom we say, "Well, RT can't be all bad. They have Hartmann." He is being used to legitimize them. You know, like Scarborough legitimized trump(R). Hartmann's in bed with a dog. He has fleas.

I object to cheating in elections. That's unfair. Hartmann is a dupe of people who do that. Cenk is just an idiot who undermined the Democratic campaign at every possible opportunity and who divided Democrats every chance he got. Even now, see Betsuni's answer above. Why is Cenk insisting that Democrats are not progressive and that they need to be forcefully made to lean toward a faction that is less popular and less likely to win elections?

Constructive criticism is fine. Think of the criticisms that were levied at Kerry after his election that we accepted as legitimate. They did not call for us to blow up the Democratic party and start from scratch. They did not come from the faction that swiftboated him. The criticisms we attended to did not call him corrupt in the absence of any evidence of corruption. They were not rabid. If they were rabid or if they did come from that disgusting faction that swiftboated him, we rejected them. We knew we could not trust such people or such criticisms.

Let's apply that same standard here.

[emulatorloo]

54. Cenk employs people who spread RW conspiracies and who lie about Democrats.

Examples: Jimmy Dore and Michael Tracy of TYT.

Link to tweet

------

Link to tweet

-----

I do not know Cenk's motivations but his hires are more interested in tearing down Democrats rather than helping the Democratic Party get better thru constructive criticism.

[Gothmog]

81. Cenk hates the Democratic Party and has no interest in improving it

Cenk ceased to be interesting and helpful a long time ago

[R B Garr]

7. Your other similar thread is about RT hosts

and others who routinely criticize Democrats.

[Akamai]

9. You state several things that I do not know. Is Cenk also on RT? And frankly, I think we should be criticizing several Democrats

Especially if they do not support the democratic ideals. Such as: national healthcare, climate change legislation, educational cost reforms, etc.

As Democrats, we tend to go our own ways and not be put into lockstep with others around us.

How can I be blamed if two of the most interesting and progressive voices in national politics are on RT TV?

[Akamai]

10. About Thom Hartmann, I don't know anyone more ardent about rolling back climate change, ending voter suppression,

And helping the average family, the average worker, and pointing out racial disparities.

I really feel privileged to have listened to Thom for the last 10 years, and those that call his show regularly praise him for the information they are given.

If you have not listened to Thom Hartman, maybe it would be a good thing to do. Listen to his issues--I really think that his voice may save the country, may save the planet.

[OnDoutside]

28. By appearing on RT, he gives validation to the far left

Of the Democratic Party, and beyond. It's not about having a mental reservation, wide enough to ignore the fact that RT is part of the Putin axis of evil that stole the election from the Democrats, it's about him being a hypocrite. Then again, maybe he was happy the Democrats lost.

[Voltaire2]

35. "far left of the Democratic Party"?

I'm sorry but what exactly do you think is the "far left of the Democratic Party", and regardless of whatever this is in your mind, why should this alleged "far left" faction of the Democratic Party not be "validated"?

Oh and by the way Russia is a capitalist system with a right wing authoritarian government.

[OnDoutside]

50. You misunderstood. "By appearing on RT, he gives validation to the far left" The subject was RT, and

by Hartmann appearing on RT, he gives credence/validation to RT, reflected to his followers, NOT that his followers need to be validated. RT is no friend of the Democratic Party.

And yes, "Russia is a capitalist system with a right wing authoritarian government" and RT is Putin's overseas Russian State TV, which Hartmann is happy to appear on.

[Voltaire2]

57. I didn't misunderstand.

This is what you wrote;

"28. By appearing on RT, he gives validation to the far left
Of the Democratic Party, and beyond. "

So what exactly is this "far left of the Democratic Party"?

[OnDoutside]

70. Yes you did, because that wasn't what I was referring to.

However, to indulge you, "far left of the Democratic Party" is based on the spectrum within the Democratic Party or any party, but I suspect you know that and are just trying to make some other point.

[Voltaire2]

84. It is exactly what you wrote.

It may not have been your intention.

So can you identify prominent Democrats who belong to this category?

[OnDoutside]

85. What I wrote and what YOU have decided it meant, are clearly at odds. If you want to read

something else into it, fire away.

[Voltaire2]

90. #confused.

Your words "validate the far left of the Democratic Party ".

I asked what this meant to you and who I s an example of a far left Democrat. I didn't make up your words. Nor are they unclear or complicated it ambiguous. Perhaps you meant to write some other words?

[OnDoutside]

91. For the 2nd time, I was referring to RT. By having a show on RT, Hartmann is giving validation to

them. He is giving that validation to his followers, the majority of who would be to the "far left of the Democratic Party'.

[R B Garr]

11. There's a reason they are not on mainstream stations.

Russia TV says it all. Cenk is an ex-Republican.

Al Gore started climate change dialogue decades ago. The rest is obvious what you are implying, so obviously you know all the trendy criticisms.

[Akamai]

13. Why isn't he on the major radio shows? I mean who would be mad at him for advocating raising taxes on the richest,

Demanding attention to global climate change, infrastructure jobs, the stupidity of "trickle-down economics," etc.?

I mean who the hell could be opposed to those issues, and many others that Thom shares with most Americans.

He recalled several times a meeting he had with high people in the radio industry, and he asked whether he could be on a particular show and the head of the group he was with said "no way" (or words to that effect). He went on to say, "Why would I want you on my radio show someone who's going to raise the taxes?"

If you haven't listened to him already, you should. I'm pretty sure he would change her mind as to the progressive motivation within his radio show.

[DFW]

21. Why isn't he on more radio shows?

Take a hint from one of his titles: "An INCONVENIENT truth." One that very many would prefer not to hear.

[Akamai]

25. I don't think Thom Hartmann wrote that book -- Al Gore was the head of that movie project, though.

[lunasun]

26. Did you read the 2016 Democratic Party platform after the convention?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

[Gothmog]

82. Russia Today is acceptable on JPR but is not a good source for this site

The JPR site is full of Russia lovers pushing Russian lies and fake stories. These sources are not helpful

You do know that Russia Today and Russia used groups like JPR to push fake news. Russia is not a friend to the Democratic party

[still_one]

12. Democrats did try to raise the minimum wage. The bill was strongly supported by President

Obama and many of the Democratic Senators, but it was strongly opposed by Republicans in the Senate and House.

At the time the CBO estimated a half a million jobs would be lost if lawmakers passed the president's proposal, at the time to increase the minimum wage to 10.10/hour. The fact is they didn't have the votes to pass it.

The issues that the OP is talking about were part of Hillary's economic plan.

Hillary included plans to reintroduce the Glass-Steagall act in her economic platform, along with increases to the minimum wage. She ran on reversing Citizen's United, strengthening Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Worker's Rights, and the environment.

However, those issues were largely ignored, and Benghazi, emails, and the Clinton Foundation, took precedence

[Akamai]

15. Well, she was quite unclear about Glass-Steagall and at one point said that she would not reimpose

The home set of laws.

You say that a lot of what was important was likely good ignored due to Benghazi emails, Clinton foundation, etc.

I agree with you, but as time goes on and as we still want to empower the neediest, and the rest of us as well, we have to know how to do things correctly. A sobering reassessment probably will help.

As you open the door to some of Hillary's missteps, in terms of trade, it took her a long time to oppose the TPPA. Also, she refused to release her words from the speeches, but overall, she lost because of a "fucking lying and heartless and sold out Republican Party" and (I thjink) not ramming home her messages for the last two weeks.

But jut my two cents.

[still_one]

27. The country elected a racist, sexist, bigot. No doubt if Comey hadn't interferred in the election

Hillary probably would have pulled it out. At least that is what Nate Silver's polls show. The moment Comey sent the letter to the republicans in Congress, and paraded every republican across the television screens immediately to propagate the LIE that the email investigation was being reopened, the lead she had completely vanished. The media was a willing partner to propagate the LIE that the email investigation was reopened. The so-called "progressive" MSNBC was right in front propagating that bullshit.

The wall street speeches were bullshit, used by certain segments to divide Democrats.

The fact is that every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the Establishment, incumbent, republican, and most of those Democrats were quite progressive. The myth that Hillary didn't do as well because she was "too moderate" does NOT hold water at all.

[tonyt53]

62. Bingo!!!!! Many people on here have no idea that most Democrats are MODERATES

A person that runs on all the platforms suggested on here would be lucky to get 10% of the vote. When a person steps back and looks at the election, it is very clear that people were swayed by fake news, outright lies, worst of all, people that voted for a third party candidate because Hillary wasn't progressive enough.

[still_one]

64. I agree tony

[Akamai]

65. In addition to Comey, you had the incredible free media's gift to Trump this equivalent to

perhaps billions of dollars of free airtime. You also had the media trying to make a course race out of it, having false equivalence between the minor difficulties of Clinton (repeated endlessly by the right wing and mainstream press) and the huge glaring faults and criminal acts of Trump, with every additional bit of information on Trump showing him to be an absolutely terrible person.

It took the New York Times almost until the election itself before it stated that Trump was telling "lies." on MSNBC, you had spokespeople endlessly asking Clinton about Benghazi, about her e-mail server, etc., even after the facts of these issues were well-settled.

it certainly took the treasonous Republican party as well to elect Trump and they showed their absolute lack of bravery and empathy in their support of him. the misogynistic tendencies of the Republicans certainly was a huge reason for Clinton's defeat, as was ongoing hatred of Obama from those on the right. The Christian right played a huge role in Trump's victory as well. Another huge mistake that many people made was to assume that Hilary would win by a large amount, and so many Democrats and independents did not take this election as seriously as they should have. Etc. Etc. Etc.

[tonyt53]

67. So they voted for a third party candidate. You left that important fact off the end of your sentence

[Akamai]

69. Yup! I really do believe that many of them thought that it was so certain that Clinton would win

that they could waste their vote to make a point.

Also, the press made a big deal of the third-party candidates even though their ideas were crackpot, they had no chance of winning, and they were distracting from the major points being made by Clinton. But the press wanted to sell a horse race and they fulfilled their mission--making a hell of a lot of money for the broadcasters and newspapers.

[still_one]

71. Agreed, and no doubt the 47% who didn't even bother to vote for one reason or another made

the situation more precarious

I think trump got the republican nomination more because they had so many republican candidates in their race, that took votes away from each other, trump actually is a true representation of what the republican party stands for today

[Akamai]

73. I think the coordinated voter suppression techniques by the Republicans are apalling

but were very effective in this last election. They are without scruples and their only interest is in winning at whatever cost. Certainly they're not interested in widening the pool of voters, ensuring that voters are able to cast their ballots, etc.

[kcr]

16. It would be nice if the criticism were factual n/t

[GulfCoast66]

17. Not another one of these threads...

You do realize that in many areas of the country, areas where Trump killed us, $15 as a minimum wage is mind blowing to the population. In the small Louisiana Parishes and Arkansas Counties where my family lives it would put a huge number of the small business out of business. Hell, the owners of these business do not make $15 an hour. There is a reason FDR started small and that is because raising the minimum wage does has some negative short term consequences. Unless you overdo it and then the consequences are long term. Raise it to 9$ or 10$ dollars federally and then tie it to inflation. And of course in states with more vibrant economies let the states set their own.

And you think Glass-Steagall is an issue any of the voters we lost care about! I agree it should be reinstated, but it is a non-starter from and election standpoint.

But what I really want to let you know is that you gave me a very obvious tell. Do you care to explain what you mean by 'some unfairness happen'. If not, no problem because I am pretty sure many of us have it figured out. And before you answer, take the time to read the Democratic Party platform from last year and get back with me about that corporatist take over you seem so concerned about.

Have a nice evening.

[Akamai]

18. Are you talking to me? I will answer., assuming you do. Several things that bothered me--

but I won't engage in it here because I am not sure how much criticism is allowed here?

I don't want to step over lines -- e.g., we are not supposed to criticize Democratic leaders, but is Wasserman Schultz a democratic leader?

[bettyellen]

19. Ahh Cenk and Wikileaks bullshit too. Both outlets for Putin propaganda.

[Akamai]

20. You forgot to say, "Tovarish!" But Boris and Natasha say "Howdy! "

Explanation -- you were using a bit of telegraphic language, omitting words in your sentences so they sounded Russki-like.

And no one needs to explain Boris, Nastaha and the moose and Rocky.

[Akamai]

72. I agree with your comments in general, e.g., I liked your idea about the minimum wage

with a higher minimum wage for major metropolitan areas. I think that would've attracted a hell of a lot more voters.

The rest of what you said I agree with as well.

[pirateshipdude]

77. Actually, you two, that was Clinton's minimum wage plan. When implementing the

$15 an hour into the Democratic Platform to appease Sanders, it was again stated that $15 mattered in location and ability to pay $15.

[cwydro]

30. Yup. nt

[Demsrule86]

36. Did you read TOS before signing it?

[NCTraveler]

49. DWS was trashed here regularly. Very regularly.

DWS is an elected congressperson from FL. You decide if that makes her a party leader. Your idea that she can't be criticized here as no basis in reality. That line of yours makes things a lot more transparent.

[emulatorloo]

56. YOU CAN CONSTRUCTIVELY CRITICIZE DEMOCRATS HERE. IT IS IN THE TOS

WHAT YOU CANNOT DO IS LIE ABOUT OR SMEAR DEMOCRATS.

Sorry to yell but people keep stating this to you, and you don't seem to have heard it

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

The most relevant sentence for you:

"Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders)."

--------------------------------

For context here is the rest:


Support Democrats

Do not post support for Republicans or independent/third-party "spoiler" candidates. Do not state that you are not going to vote, or that you will write-in a candidate that is not on the ballot, or that you intend to vote for any candidate other than the official Democratic nominee in any general election where a Democrat is on the ballot. Do not post anything that smears Democrats generally, or that is intended to dissuade people from supporting the Democratic Party or its candidates. Don't argue there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Why we have this rule: Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government, and as such we expect our members to support and vote for Democrats at election time. Rare exceptions are granted at the sole discretion of the DU Administrators. (Current exceptions: None.)

Don't bash Democratic public figures

Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).

Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources

Do not post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits. Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website.

Why we have this rule: News media and the Internet are already awash with conservative propagandists attacking our candidates and our values -- we're not interested in providing them with another outlet. We understand that many of our members might hold some conservative viewpoints on isolated issues, but nobody here should be parroting hateful garbage from the RNC, the NRA, or the Family Research Council. Forum members should expect that the only time they'll have to read a right-wing smear or an article from Breitbart is when someone is pointing and laughing at it.

[Akamai]

87. You recall offhand when the terms of service said wouldn't could not attack Bernie Sanders?

I sure didn't think any such rule existed and almost certainly it was not operative for quite a few months following the election.

But thank you very much for pointing it out!

[LanternWaste]

88. Seems you're making a stronger and stronger case for simply reading the TOS.

Seems you're making a stronger and stronger case for yourself to simply reading the TOS, regardless of the sacrifice on your part that may entail, or the passive-aggressive points of yours may would prevent in the future... as clarity often does that.

[Akamai]

92. When did that change occur? I remember for months when it was open season on Bernie. Seems that

cooler heads prevailed -- I am wondering WHEN that occurred.

[mcar]

102. Perhaps you should Ask the Administrators

Or do some DU research yourself.

[Akamai]

104. So no one is able to get the information easily? You got their email addresses or can get their

attention?

"justice delayed is justice denied" and making the truth harder to get suggests people got stuff they want to hide.

[mcar]

107. Ask the Administrators - look to the groups on your left

It's right there under Community Help.

[Akamai]

108. Thanks! I was totally ignorant of that resource and did not know

there was an actual area called that -- but Ms. Road and Hekate straightened me out on that.

"Ask the Administrators" seemed so vague but now I know it's a real place.

I have been on this site for quite a few years and there is still so much to learn.

[Gothmog]

86. The terminology used in your OP is far more suited for JPR than this board

The concept of corporatists taking over the Democratic Party is amusing. It is hard to take people making this claim seriously. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a member and was a leader of the Democratic Party and many of the attacks on her offended the heck out of me. I love the fact that idiot sanders endorsed candidate (Canova) who is going to primary her is planning on making Seth Rich an issue in that race. Is the use of Seth Rich to attack DWS the type of attack that you think is appropriate?

[Gothmog]

106. Why is JPR posting videos from Infowars?

BTW, Infowars is not a good source for DU even if it is one of the few sources covering the idiot lawyers in the DNC fraud lawsuit.

[Gothmog]

111. There is a brand new infowar video on JPR

[DFW]

22. By the way

ANY post that uses "corporatist" is usually one I skip to begin with, like ones by right wingers going on about the "Democrat" Party.

[Hortensis]

32. To me an anti-Democrat dog whistle, factory-whistle volume.

[Akamai]

24. So you have proof of your assertions? Indeed one or two pieces

in mainstream progressive writing would be useful

Any supportive data?

But unsupported accusations are not facts.

[Demsrule86]

34. This is a click bait post...too.

[Akamai]

44. So, any proof for your accusations regarding Thom and Cenk?

[Demsrule86]

33. When we are out of power and trying to build our party up why would you want to?

People won't join a party where members are savaging it...when Democrats are attacked from the right and the left, we lose...we spent the 70's and 80's losing. I don't want a repeat. I doubt the progressive agenda could survive. The Democratic Party is the only vehicle to achieve policy; when you attack the party, you reduce our chances to stop the Republicans and reduce our ability to enact progressive policy. Also, read TOS and 'ask the administrators'.

[dalton99a]

38. +1

[maxrandb]

37. Once we kick the shit out of the ReTrumplicans and take back "some" Govt power

I don't give a fuck if you light the Democratic Party on fire.

Until then, there is ONE TRUE ENEMY to our country's existence

[LanternWaste]

40. If your query is sincere, it's spelled out in plain language in the TOS.

If your query is sincere, it's spelled out in plain language in the TOS. If not sincere however, you can continue arguing points throughout the thread no one but you is making...

[ProfessorGAC]

41. I'm Reading It That Way Too, LW

Especially the "no one but you" part.

[emulatorloo]

83. Note that every reference to "constructive criticism" in the TOS is ignored.

[Paladin]

42. Do what you want. Personally, I've had a belly-full of these "But even so" threads.

And I'm doing my best to forget just how ugly this site became, during the 2016 campaign.

[ismnotwasm]

43. "Allowed"?

Clearly.

[betsuni]

45. "I do not want the corporatists to take over the Democratic Party"

If anyone can tell me what the hell this means, who the corporatists are, why they would bother with Democrats when obviously Republicans are the fascists, I'll give you ten dollars and bake you a nice coffeecake.

[pirateshipdude]

66. Ya? That was my question, too. I keep asking. It must be huge because our Democrats are

continually smeared being corporatists. I have never had one explain to me just who or what a corporatist is. But then, I never offered money and baking powers. Still, I see you didn't get any more of an answer than I have ever gotten.

Maybe you need to offer that $15.

[betsuni]

79. Yes, we don't know the meaning of all the secret words of the True Progressives Dictionary!

It is vexing. They will not tell us. I made a boo-boo and didn't offer fifteen dollars, as this is obviously the magic number.

[m-lekktor]

46. Honestly, on the current DU, no you are not allowed to criticize DEMS. Try it and you will see.nt

[NCTraveler]

48. Didn't the include criticism in the op?

I have a long track record of criticizing the party without being hidden. Just looking at the first page of gd let's you know your "theory" is not correct.

[emulatorloo]

52. Honestly, that's your opinion, not fact. Constructive criticism is the backbone of DU

and it has been since the very beginning.

See the TOS under the politics heading:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[emulatorloo]

58. Terms of Service: constructive criticism welcome at DU

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

""Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders)."

[Iggo]

59. My point was, this is the current DU, and it was allowed.

[emulatorloo]

60. Got it now!

[mcar]

103. ...

[NCTraveler]

47. Seems you just did.

Asked and answered by you. All in the same op.

[emulatorloo]

51. TOS says constructive criticism good. Makes for good discussion.

How does the Democratic Party raise the minimum wage to $15 when Republicans control all three branches of government? Many of those in the Republican majority believe the minimum wage is too high. Some are mad that the minimum wage even exists.

Very interested to hear your ideas about that, what is the political roadmap? How do we make this happen.

[stonecutter357]

53. you seem very concerned !

[Akamai]

61. I sure applaud Perez's and Ellison's "50 state strategy" and believe that they are energizing many

Democratic voters who were not earlier engaged.

Both Perez and Allison seem very approachable and seem to be "of the people."

It sure seems to me that the DNC has absorbed many of the lessons that were apparent from this last election.

For the next presidential cycle, I sure hope that we have more debates and that they are in prime time. Also, candidates want to debate members from the other party, I sure would let them do that.

I think the very early commitment of the Super Delegates was not helpful, especially in terms of Democratic guidelines which said that the Super Delegates should not be counted until the end of the primaries, but instead their votes were regularly mixed in with the earlier election results.

[pirateshipdude]

63. "corporatists to take over the Democratic Party" Who and what are corporatists? EOm

[Akamai]

101. I think that progressive taxation has to be a cornerstone of success here. I'm worried that if too

many wealthy interests support the Democratic Party, they will prevent progressive taxation, will be more interested in tax loopholes, will want "business-friendly" (which means "billionaire-friendly&quot practices.

Under Clinton, for example, Glass-Steagall was rolled back and this is an example of a "business-friendly" accommodation.

Thomas Franks notes in "Listen Liberal" that the Democratic Party has too often aimed itself at professional classes rather than average working classes, and this may explain why we did not get a robust turnout in the Midwest,, in Pennsylvania, etc. Franks was also very, very interested in prosecuting the bank stirs further destruction of the economy in 2007 2008. He said that failure to do so by Obama really helped doom Clinton. Franks also stated that President Clinton's passage of NAFTA and Sec. Clinton's support for TPPA turned off voters who wanted a robust effort to return jobs should the United States. Indeed, Obama promoted the TPPA almost up until the election itself, this working against Sec. Clinton's chances of doing well in the election.

[ehrnst]

68. If you don't understand the difference between constructive criticism and bashing

I don't know that anyone can explain it to you.

[melm00se]

74. there is constructive and destructive

criticism. Constructive is good. Destructive is bad.

Unfortunately many people get very defensive regardless of the kind of criticism and here at DU that defensiveness can take the form of hitting the Alert button

[democrank]

75. What I find odd (with some DU members) is the notion that

ANY criticism of the Democratic Party or Democratic politicians is "bashing", "trashing", "attacking" or some other form of destroying.

Since I'm more interested in issues than politicians, I can't honestly state that I would never, ever vote for anyone but a Democrat.

Given the condition our party is in....way too much red on the map....I'd like to see vigorous, civil discussions of our platform, our message, our game plan. My belief is that it's time for some new leaders, new ideas, new ways of doing business, new courage, new honesty.

Every now and then a plain spoken Democrat rises up without handlers or consultants and really makes sense. No "pivot" in every other sentence, no blah-blah-blah-ing, just good old common sense mixed with common decency. Maybe someone like Iron Stache Randy Bryce who's attempting to take down Paul Ryan.

[Akamai]

94. Me, too, about interest in issues rather than politicians.

You wrote: "Given the condition our party is in....way too much red on the map....I'd like to see vigorous, civil discussions of our platform, our message, our game plan. My belief is that it's time for some new leaders, new ideas, new ways of doing business, new courage, new honesty. "

And I sure agree with you on this.

[ProfessorPlum]

98. Right there with you

[Eliot Rosewater]

76. Goodbye America, was nice knowing you.

Was good while it lasted. Well, pretty good, not perfect of course.


RIP

[democrank]

78. Putting in a plug for Howard Dean's 50-state strategy.

Go everywhere we possibly can and speak from the heart, not a script.

[Akamai]

95. Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen!

[Akamai]

96. There is the old line, "They have to know how much you care before they care how much you know!"

[Gothmog]

80. If you want to really attack the Democratic Party, then try JPR

The idiots on that site hate the Democratic party

Many of us are working hard to help the Democratic Party win. When Texas turns blue, the GOP will be in a world of hurt. Attacking the party is not a good way to accomplish these goals

[Rustyeye77]

89. No !!

[ProfessorPlum]

97. The answer is yes. Criticize away.

[ProfessorPlum]

99. Some people want the Democratic party to stay the way it is (losing)

While others of us want something different. Because the Democratic party is our only route to better government. And so they have to have better messaging and policy.

TH (policy expert) and Cenk (messaging expert) between them have decades of fighting for better government, by way of better messaging and policy.

[Akamai]

100. Prof.Plum--sure seems to me that you are correct on this. And I think both of them want what is best

for the Democratic Party.

thanks for your observations!

[VOX]

109. "Yes" to discussing (POLITELY) issues, planks, strategy, etc.

It's when folks (mea culpa, too) pitch their preferred candidate(s) that things have gotten shaky.

Something ground-rule-wise should be considered before next year's election.

[JoeStuckInOH]

110. As long as your name isn't "Bernie Sanders"...

As long as your name isn't "Bernie Sanders" you can get away with criticizing the democratic party and sometimes even specific democrats themselves. Which makes me laugh, because the moment Bernie says anything that can be taken as slightly criticizing, DU seems to freak out about some "outsider" trying to fracture or take over the democratic party... or something like that. I mean, isn't guy some sort of chairman of outreach for the party?

Anyways, to address your OP directly, yes you should be allowed to offer criticism about the party. I welcome criticism and review of all people holding liberal values (Bernie included). Honest introspection of anything is healthy and deficiencies have to be recognized before they can be addressed and improved upon.

[Akamai]

112. Yup! I agree with you and about the need for honest introspection and to spot whatever

deficiencies there may be.