To the people who keep saying "get over it" about the far-left's sabotage of our nation:

[DanTex]

Sorry, that's not gonna happen. This is now twice that the far left has intentionally, and successfully, pushed a far-right president into office. With disastrous consequences.

Yes, of course, the GOP are the real villains. The GOP is like Jeffery Dahmer. And the Greens are going around saying, hey, Jeffrey Dahmer isn't so bad, you should let him babysit your kids. After all, the teenager next-door once smoked a joint so either way you are leaving your kids with a criminal, might as well go with the real criminal so we can all have a revolution.

If this had only happened once, if those idiots had learned from Nader's mistake, that would be one thing. Even then, "just move on" isn't really appropriate because the world is still reeling from the Iraq War and the financial collapse and other consequences of Nader's vanity run.

But the Greens and Bernie-or-Bust types didn't learn. They did the exact same thing again. Everyone who made the argument that there is no significant difference between the parties has their name stamped on this tax bill in boldface capital letters. And the tax bill is just one small fraction of the horrible things that Trump and the GOP are doing.

I'm wondering if any one of them -- Jill Stein, Chris Hedges, Cornel West, Jimmy Dore, Susan Sarandon, etc. -- will have the basic human decency to come forward and simply admit, they were totally and horribly wrong. I don't mean for them to just say that the tax bill is a travesty. I'm sure they're going to be all over media saying "the GOP has just sold out our nation to the top fraction of a percent," hoping that their feigned outrage will hide their complicity. The GOP did sell us out, but the did it with the direct help of the Greens, BoBs, and their sympathizers.

So go ahead, post as many snarky replies you want telling me to "just get over it." Call me "obsessed." Recommend that I seek psychological counseling. Insult me all you want. But I am not going to forget what the Greens and the far left have done here. And I'm not going to stop reminding people of it.

[genxlib]

1. Let me be the first to say

+1000

[Magoo48]

194. Golly,

between us progressive dems and those on the far right, moderate , corporate dems don't have to take responsibility for shit...how convenient....

[lapucelle]

222. The OP clearly says that the right, the GOP, BoBs, and Steiners own this.

I'll add the lazy and entitled "I only vote when inspired" group to those bear blame.

I worked in PA with many Democrats who voted for Sanders in the primary, but who traveled from out of state to canvas for Hillary and Katie McGinty. I never heard any of those fine Democrats complain about "corporate dems". They knew what was at stake.

Sorry, but history will not absolve anyone who facilitated Trump's election from approbation and blame.

[BlueMTexpat]

272. I am K&R-ing

your response!

[jmowreader]

227. Give me a break.

Do you honestly believe "corporate Dems" would have written a tax bill that will cut taxes on the people who don't need them cut and raise them on people who DEFINITELY don't need them raised? Or attempted to kick half the country off their health insurance plans?

"Hillary isn't going to give everyone free college so I'm going to do everything in my power to keep her out of the White House" is not how you get to Rock Ridge, Magoo. And now we have the Trump plan: make it so only the rich can afford to go to college.

[lillypaddle]

2. Agree 100% nt

[louis c]

3. You are 100% correct

What the fuck was Jill Stein doing at Putin's table with Mike Flynn at an invite only gala for RT?

What fucking more evidence do we need?

The Green Party is as much our enemy as are the Republicans.

[Alice11111]

154. She got paid for treason, just like flynn

[louis c]

178. All of those photos are of elected or appointed officails doing their jobs

The photo of Flynn and Jill Stein with Putin are private citizens committing treason.

I'm sure you know the difference.

As a matter of fact, in the first photo, Bill Clinton is at a summit with many countries.

What the fuck was Jill Stein representing at the table with Putin and Traitor Flynn?

Wow, you really bent over backwards to defend Trumpsters.

I am surprised and disappointed with you.

[LiberalLovinLug]

182. lol... ok sure.

So someone with almost zero power, a private citizen is...so much more influential and open to corruption than an elected official?

[louis c]

186. Name on the ballot to siphen votes

Plenty of power that changed the outcome of 2016 election. What was she doing there and who paid her way?

We'll find out during this investigation, for sure.

You think losing this last election was funny?

[louis c]

187. I see that your post was removed. Now, that's funny LOL

[Dorian Gray]

319. yeah...

this is true.

The Party maybe not. I'm sure there are "good intentioned" members of the green party. But Jill Stein is absolutely every bit as guilty as Flynn.

[rainin]

4. Speaking of Jill Stein...

Can we agree how satisfying it would be if Mueller found a dirty Putin connection with Jill Stein and her campaign?

[Gothmog]

6. A vote for Stein was a vote for Trump

[rainin]

7. And, as it turns out, a vote for Putin. n/t

[workinclasszero]

17. Yes

[workinclasszero]

16. Yes

[chwaliszewski]

96. Technically...

a vote for Stein was a vote for Stein. Kind of like a vote for Johnson was a vote for Johnson, etc. Don't worry, I voted for Hillary but I thought I'd clear this up for everyone.

[Gothmog]

122. You are wrong

[Eliot Rosewater]

153. I want to support what you said so I will just do that.

[chwaliszewski]

175. Um...no, I am not.

Using your logic, a vote for Stein was a vote for Trump. Which means, it was not a vote for Hillary. Therefore, a vote for Johnson was not a vote for Hillary which, in turn, means it was a vote for Trump. Additionally, all non-voters also did not vote for Hillary which means they were also votes for Trump.

[Matt_R]

206. Thanks

+1000

This is what they mean EVERY TIME it is mentioned.

[lapucelle]

232. That's your "logic".

If person voted for Stein then that voter helped to elect Trump.
If a voter did not help to elect Trump then that person did not vote for Stein.

Not only is the proposition logically sound, it is also empirically true in the case of MI. Sorry, but hijacking a reasonable conclusion by Gish galloping faulty assumptions doesn't work in formal logical.

People were warned not to listen to SS and repeat the same mistake that she facilitated in the 2000 election. They'll get no absolution from history.

I wonder if the Corporate Queen of Ping Pong pays her dishwashers a living wage?

https://newyork.wearespin.com/

https://wearespin.com/giving-back/

https://recruiting.myapps.paychex.com/appone/MainInfoReq.asp?R_ID=1651987&B_ID=91&fid=1&Adid=0&ssbgcolor=5B5B5B&SearchScreenID=6154&CountryID=3&LanguageID=2

[chwaliszewski]

234. You completely lost me with this post.

The point I was making was Gothmog stated earlier that a vote for Stein was a vote for Trump and I say balderdash; a vote for Stein is a vote for Stein (who I do not care for, btw). If the point is trying to be made that most (or perhaps all) of Stein voters would've voted Democrat, then it can also be assumed that most (or perhaps all) of Gary Johnson voters would've voted Republican.

Actually, I don't even know why I waste my time trying to convince others that the whole 'A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump' thing is complete nonsense and faulty logic.

Here is a picture of a cute bunny with a pancake on its head.

[lapucelle]

242. Assuming the truth of an unsupported conclusion

is another practice to be avoided if one seeks to be logical.

Here is a picture of a bust of Aristotle. He devoted an entire work to that particular flaw in reasoning. It is a wonderful starting point for anyone who is lost.

[chwaliszewski]

261. Let's get back to the original point of all of this...

Gothmog stated that 'A vote for Stein was a vote for Trump' and I disagree. A vote for Stein is a vote for Stein. Your thoughts?

[lapucelle]

278. The MI and WI tallies support Gothmog's claim.

The Narcissist Stein, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act (which was the handiwork of a Supreme Court brought to us through the efforts of another third party egotist), and the lazy, entitled "voting is such a chore, so I think I'll go BoB" revolutionaries all facilitated a Trump victory.

History will neither forget nor absolve.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308353-trump-won-by-smaller-margin-than-stein-votes-in-all-three

[emulatorloo]

286. It's a metaphor. It means Stein siphoned off potential Democratic votes which enabled Trump to win

See MI and WI totals, and Trump's narrow margins.

[chwaliszewski]

317. If that is true, then Gary Johnson siphoned off potential Repub votes from Trump

Same difference, is it not?

[progressoid]

267. +1

[paleotn]

251. You sound like the Nader supporters....

back in 2003....just as all hell was breaking loose. They made the same argument. Turns out Gore and W weren't just the same and their 3rd party vote did have a rather negative impact on future events. 5,000+ American service personnel would agree....if they could. That's not even counting the wounded and permanently scarred. I wonder how many of those Nader voters in FL are sorry for what they did...contributing to the deaths and maiming of US soldiers in a useless war, that doubtfully would have occurred if W lost FL. Probably not many. Same for Stein voters in MI and WI in 2016. Lets just hope they don't contribute to something as bad or worse by being galactically, fucking stupid at the ballot box. Just like wingnuts, some people you just can't reach.

And yes, in this day and age, voting 3rd party as some half ass protest of some kind IS galactically, fucking stupid.

[Gore1FL]

104. That assumes that the Stein voters were Democrats or would ever vote Democratic.

I have been assured by many DUers that it is OK to perpetually shun them all because they would never ever vote for a Democrat.

I always just figured a vote for Stein was a vote for Stein and that 3rd party runs for president were statistical misadventures.

[BoneyardDem]

248. your statement is of practical use if everyone who voted for Stein....

....were registered "Green". BoBers (most of whom were Dems) were syphoned off from voting Dem, to vote with the Greenies. Since there was never a chance Stein would win, the true and honest statement is that a vote for Stein was a vote that didn't go to HRC...and helped Trump. Splitting the Dems vote was always going to be a vote for Trump

[Gore1FL]

262. I would agree, personally.

But each and every time i call for civility on DU towards members of the left's coalition, I have been informed relentlessly that it is OK to attack Stein voters because they would never vote for the Democratic candidate.

[BoneyardDem]

287. I had heard this very comment from BoBers and Stein supporters

While I don't know that attacks are helpful, reminding them of their own words is not an attack, but may feel like an attack to those who rallied to the chant and later realized they have been lead by the noserings. The chants of "I will never vote for the lesser of two evils" was called endlessly and loudly. The call for purity, the call for their perfect candidate (as if such a thing realy existed) was easily heard in many a blogosphere. An attempt to portray their own "noble" cause was a factor handing the presidency to Trump.

[Gore1FL]

298. I am simply pointing out the logical fallacies of many on DU who can't seem to put 2018 in focus. nt

[not fooled]

185. Yes

and sarandon can go f*ck herself.

[ansible]

14. She was literally sitting in Putin's table

[Gothmog]

149. I was going to post this picture

[BoneyardDem]

250. Stein's job in this election was to syphone off Dem votes

The likelyhood of Reps voting for Stein was less than .006%. It didn't need to be much. Just a few thousand...and it worked well in several key states. Why else would she be sitting at Putins table if not for election shenanigans

[Alice11111]

156. That would be great!

[Progressive dog]

223. That's on my wish list,

not at the top-but close.

[Gothmog]

5. K&R

[NurseJackie]

8. Thank you for speaking the truth! And... AND...

... for being a thorn in the side of those who continue to deny the truth or who wish to rewrite history.

It's what Susan Sarandon wanted. Just LOOK at how giddy and animated she is she can barely contain her excitement at the horrors that await us. Lucky for her that she's one of the ones who BENEFITS from Trump's tax plan. She's quite comfortable (thank you) and can easily ride-out the financial crisis that looms. She can afford to pay DOUBLE the non-insured price for medical care and STILL have money left over for a private room, a private nurse and catered meals delivered to her hospital room.



Susan Sarandon can go fuck herself! (This applies to those who defend her, and to those who think like her or who make the same foolish arguments as she.)

[delisen]

27. There is no way Sarandon wants a revolution to separate her from her millions

Sarandon is like the French nobility with survival skills who began dressing down, hiding their wealth, and pretending to respect and sympathize with the peasants, when things started heating up back in the 1700s.


....."I am with you, citizens, and as soon as we get Donald Trump in office we can have Our Revolution. It will be glorious, she shouted, as she boarded her leased jet for an extended stay at the Riviera-or maybe at that new Russian resort in The Crimea.

Sarandon and Putin share a deep hatred for Hillary Clinton.

[brush]

64. She is the worst, prime example of stupidity. She was also a Naderite. What's the phrase,...

"the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

Two-times-dumb and now claiming we'd be at war if Hillary was president.

She needs to hide and never show her face.

[delisen]

113. She was a Naderite-I had forgotten

So her 3rd party gambit is a long-term approach.

So for Sarandon Al Gore and H Clinton were equivalent to G W Bush and D Trump.

Voting and being activist 3rd party does allow the super wealthy to have their cake and eat it too. One can project the image of purity and idealism and then collect the tax cuts for the wealthy.

[Gothmog]

150. Nader gave us the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act

I am scared to think what Stein and Sarandon will give us

[Texin]

124. Amen.

Her sanctimonious preaching made me ill. She is the epitome of what it means to be "a limousine liberal".

[LiberalLovinLug]

155. She was not wrong in that video

That is exactly what has happened. And I love how you use the argument that she would benefit from Trumps tax plan. Like that should be a defining reason to shut up and not fight for those more disadvantaged. What is wrong with her right? If YOU were a rich movie star you'd just sit back and enjoy your millions like most other Hollywood stars and not march with women and labor for decades now, making yourself a target, amiright?

While we're on the subject, why the hell is Bill Gates and his wife blowing all their hard earned profits on helping less advantaged? Are they crazy?

[thucythucy]

165. What is "exactly what happened?"

You mean, we had a revolution and I missed it?

How is it then that the Congress just passed the most repressive, reactionary tax "reform" in nearly a century? How is it that federal courts on all levels are being filled with right wing shills?

How is it we're increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, raising the "defense" budget, slashing social safety net spending, abandoning Puerto Ricans to massive hurricane damage, gutting the EPA, rescinding all manner of financial and ecological regulations...

Here I thought her "revolution" would mean a shift to the left. How naïve of me.

[LiberalLovinLug]

181. People are angry and mobilzing.

The revolution may still come. Especially if they manage to steal the win in 2018 and 2020. Just give it time.

Sarandon believes, right or wrong, that the US political system needs an overhall. That too many times, establishment Democrats side with the 1% over the 99%. Not on social issues, on economic issues. That they have gotten too reliant on feeding from the corporate teat themselves and lost their way. And that if the Democrats had won, with another Clinton in office, it would be a more slow chipping away with compromises with the GOP at every step. A slow march to the right rather than a dramatic quick one like this tax bill. And in some ways, it would be more dangerous to be sitting contently in a slowly warmed cauldron than one where the tempature is cranked up to 11 suddenly, and wakes everyone up.

So perhaps, with Hillary, we may have increased troops to Afghanistan...but a little less. And raised the defense budget...but a little less. Make a deal with Republicans to slash the social safety net.....but a little less. And because 'our President' is in charge, we'd be fine with it, sitting in our nice warm bath.

[thucythucy]

216. In the meantime millions more will suffer

Last edited Sat Dec 2, 2017, 10:35 PM - Edit history (1)

including many of my friends with disabilities who are going to see their medical care compromised. Including, possibly, my partner and myself.

But of course, Sarandon won't feel a thing. Neither did Nader when Bush was installed.

Must be nice to be able to sacrifice other people's lives in the service of your own pet cause. Must be grand to see what's happening (including the distinct possibility of a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula) and think it all okay cause it's in the service of a "greater cause."

I forget who said this--some British statesman/politician--but it's as true today and in America as it was back then and in Britain--
"There may only be a marginal difference between Labor and the Tories, but millions of people live inside those margins."

I find Sarandon's cavalier attitude toward the possible suffering of others disgusting. If she believes in "the revolution" she should put her own body on the line--not others. How about a hunger strike like Gandhi, until we have the health care system she wants? Friends of mine were arrested at the Capitol protesting the attempted repeal of Obamacare. My partner and I would have been there, but we're both too seriously ill to travel. It's our health care might be cut, including my partner's chemo.

You think maybe if write Susan, she'd be willing to slip us a couple of hundred thousand out of the millions she makes advertising products made in the Third World, to defray the cost of my love's chemotherapy?

No, I didn't think so.

Edited to add:

I'm old enough to remember when Reagan was elected, and various progressive friends of mine said the same thing then you're saying now. That people would mobilize. That better to get hard right policies under Reagan than middle of the road policies under Carter. That Reagan would be SO bad people would get angry and the country would shift left. Nope. The country shifted right instead.

And people here have already recounted the whole "no difference between Gore and Bush" travesty that was the Nader/Sarandon line in 2000.

Think of this: Carter was working on two main policies when he was defeated. The first was sustainable energy. He put solar panels on the White House roof, wanted to invest big time in solar, wind, geothermal. His second major priority was Mideast peace. The Camp David accord was supposed to be the first step in a comprehensive Mideast peace treaty. This was BEFORE there were significant Israeli settlements on the West Bank, BEFORE the first Intifada.

How much further would we be along now if we'd started serious investment in solar in 1980, instead of 2008? What would the world look like now if Reagan hadn't ditched Carter's peace initiative?

I hate to be the one to tell you, but there's no "revolution" coming. Or if it does come, it'll be a revolution of the far-right, and will look even worse than what we're seeing now.

[brer cat]

283. Great post!

Those with much to lose see these celebrity public preenings as the empty gestures they are. Isn't it sweet of Susan to offer someone else's lamb to go on the sacrificial altar? (surely not needed, but just in case )

I also agree with you about President Carter. His initiative in these two areas could have dramatically altered the course of history if he had served a second term.

I am sorry about you and your partner's illnesses. This must be a terribly frightening time for you, and we as Democrats need to remember that there are real people behind all those mind boggling numbers.

[thucythucy]

289. Thank you.

The last year has been very difficult for us, and nothing promises to get better..

It's good to know there are still some sympathetic people out there.

Best wishes to you and yours.

[Historic NY]

197. She's as bad as the rapture clowns.....

there is no way any democrat should even entertain her.

[BlueMTexpat]

275. + a million or so! eom

[yardwork]

9. Three times in my lifetime: Nixon, W. Bush, Trump.

The Glorious Revolution has yet to materialize. Instead, things are getting worse and worse because the babies would rather destroy the country if they can't get their exact way.

[Kind of Blue]

41. +1 n/t

[KPN]

10. 100% poppycock belief-based bias,

confirmation bias, whatever you want to call it. Bullshit.

The buck stops here. Passing accountability to others serves nothing but to assuage one's anger at the outcome. That's okay, but it serves no useful purpose.

[ejbr]

18. +1 n/t

[LongTomH]

45. Agreed!

[G_j]

47. yep

[Merlot]

48. "...serves no useful purpose." Agreed.

Susan Sarandon? really? who cares? She's a celebrity with an opinion. I think a lot of the vitrol towards her is becasue she's a woman.

And no, the "far-left" did not do this. The repubs did it, they've been doing it for years. They've rigged elections, taken money from foreign sources, and have rich corporate backers. You really think a few raggedy "far-left" can stand up to the tsunami that is the koch bros?

[brush]

74. Nah, I blame the Sarandon too. That idiot is two-times-stupid. She was a Naderite in 2000 also...

and she influenced many others to vote against the Democratic nominee in 2016 to help install trump so she doesn't get a break with me, nor does anyone else who sat home, voted for Stein or Johnson or wrote in Sanders.

Fuck them all as they contributed to the fucking we are all getting right now.

[KPN]

80. Blaming is useless.

[brush]

84. Maybe to you. Maybe it'll open some eyes so we don't get three-times stupid voters.

[KPN]

95. I don't believe blaming will have that effect. I have never seen blame do anything positive

in all of my 67 years. Blaming usually satisfies the blamer alone by letting them vent anger --- but that's about it as far as anything useful ... and the harm created by simply "blaming" often tends to outweigh that positive.

I do think people will react to Trump and be more engaged in both 2018 and 2020. But that
won't be as a result of blame.

[brush]

162. Maybe not calling it "blaming" but making people aware of "siren song" pitfalls to avoid...

in the future.

The mere fact of celebrity influences some who haven't been in the political trenches for long, like many first-election millennials.

[KPN]

172. Do you think messaging "beware of siren songs"

is going to win over voters? People are listening, reacting, deciding and voting or not voting based on the record, based on the results, as reflected in their lives, communities and circumstances.

[brush]

180. And you think that's what happened with the people who sat home, voted 3rd party of wrote in...

Sanders?

You don't think there was any chance that some listened to Sarandon and Rosario Dawson and others bash our nominee endlessly, along, btw, with the senator from the small, rural state who refuse to concede for weeks?

It was a virtual recipe for defeat — oh, look at these famous people advocating not voting for the Dem — that helped the repugs steal the election decided by only 70k votes.

[KPN]

193. Yes I do. I think far more people voted or not voted

based on their own assessments -- not based on silly things like Sarandon. I think making that case is (1) making a mountain out of a molehill, (2) ignoring key facts, (3) deflecting -- rejecting responsibility in any way, manner or shape, and (4) a waste of time -- it serves no useful purpose other than to blame and vent. Overall, it's unproductive in my view and it causes me to wonder about fundamentals.

[brush]

203. Yeah, yeah, like some people don't vote for someone because they don't like the sound of their voice

Last edited Sat Dec 2, 2017, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm sure you heard that one.

You seem to be projecting how you personally. an obviously experienced, long-time voter, decide who to vote for.

Many just getting politically active have not reached your level of decernment yet and may be easily influenced.

It didn't take many in this past presidential election to swing it, especially with all the stolen and suppressed votes not tallied to our side.

But enough. I'm leaving this alone. You have your opinion. I have mine.

[KPN]

218. Yeah that's it, I'm projecting.

Look -- my primary point in this thread has been that blame and ridicule serve no useful purpose. I get your point about the small number of votes in 3 states determined the election. But I also disagree that those were a result of gullible "far-left" taking RW and Russian bait. And saying otherwise is only divisive.

[Alice11111]

161. I call them out. It hasn't helped my social relationships,

but that's the least I can do. If they say, the usual, I'm more liberal, I voted Green. I say, oh, so you elected W and started the Iraq War. Pisses them off, but I plant the seed of reality. Half of them think 9/11 was an inside job, just like the far right.

[brush]

166. I agree, have to make them aware of past pitfalls to avoid.

[BoneyardDem]

253. It's important to recognize the shit that went wrong

The very worst think we could do is ignore those that work to syphon off Dem votes and not combat it where possible. Blaming serves a valuable discussion purpose zeroing in on the problems

[whathehell]

87. Um, yeah, but the point is, she's NOT a politician,

for God's sake, she-s just a celebrity. -- They don't carry as much WEIGHT, so they don't carry as much responsibility.

[brush]

93. I followed the campaign. She was front and center at many rallies and all over TV in many interviews

She was all up in Dolores Huerta's face in one infamous video that was tweeted all over social media.

She influenced a lot of voters.

And surely you must have seen the interview just before the election where she said, and I'm paraphrasing: "trump's election will help bring the revolution."

What sick effin' sh_t.

She isn't just a celebrity, used her celebrity in a counter productive way.

Again, she does not get a break with me.

[whathehell]

108. I followed it too, and I stand by my statement. That said, if

you're going to blame "celebrities who-should - know - better", why

limit it to Sarandon? How' about Omorosa?..How about Don King?
.

[brush]

114. You're exactly right on those two. And I'll use an old phrase...they are uncle toms.

[Alice11111]

171. Not a good phrase. Harriet Beacher Stow's, Uncle Tom's

Cabin, is one of the greatest books ever written. Uncle Tom, the character in the novel, was nothing like the disparaging label. The book has great historical significance. It changed people's views when it was published, bit by bit. When I read it the first time in 3rd grade, it brought home the reality of slavery. The librarian in elementary school approved the first time I checked it out,as no one had checked it out in years. I would wait several weeks and check it out again. After three or four times,she berated me in front of the class and hit me with the book. Enough, she said.

A friend of mine did her PhD thesis at Yale on the book; it's not just for children.

[brush]

184. We know about the book. Guess you're not aware that the phrase is from the AA activist community...

from back in the day to describe opportunists and sellouts who abandon their own for selfish gain.

Yeah, we know all about the book and the co-opting of the phrase was not intended as a putdown of the book.

[Alice11111]

202. I know what it means these days, but it was adopted from UTC,

wrongly, IMO. Yeah, familiar w AA, but it doesn't make it a good phrase.

I wasn't trying to put anyone down, but many AA find it offensive.

[brush]

204. I'm AA and it is meant to offend those who it is directed towards. And they know who they are.

You mentioned two of them.

[whathehell]

207. Okay, I get you..

I'm no fan of Susan Sarandon's -- I think she may be a few clowns short of a circus, honestly, and I do recognize that she and the others most likely did some harm, I just don't think they played as big a role as, say, Jill Stein...People are free to disagree, of course.
.. I

[brush]

243. Agreed, but she drove some to Stein, just as she drove some to Nader in 2000.

Who knows why some just go against the grain even if it isn't in their best interests—maybe it's just contrarianism to be "different and noticed".

[whathehell]

247. She may well have done so..

and you're right...It's very hard to figure out people's motives, especially from a distance.

[KPN]

79. All good points.

[radical noodle]

102. The far-left bought the lies about Hillary

from the far-right and the Russians. That's indisputable. Then they spread it everywhere, on Facebook, here and other places. That's something we cannot let happen again. In looking toward 2018, 2020, 2022 and onward we must be ready to fight that stuff forcefully. We vote for Democrats who are ALWAYS better than any Republican.

[KPN]

135. Stop with the "far-left" bullshit. Talk about

buying the lies of the far-right and the Russians. Hillary lost because of the electoral college, voter suppression, Russia and maybe even vote tampering by the GOP/Russia. That is what's indisputable.

Moreover, if people who sat out, voted Green or --worse -- voted Trump in 2016 decide to vote D in 2018 and 2020, it will be despite all of this bullshit blame crap that serves no positive purpose whatsoever ... not because of it; it will because of the GOP and Trump record not whining about and blaming them (falsely) for how they fucked everything up.

Nothing has greater impact on votes than record and results ... and that runs both ways.

[radical noodle]

209. I saw them celebrating Trump's election

that's all I need to know. They sure seemed to think they had a hand in it.

[KPN]

219. Who's them?

[radical noodle]

240. I'm sure you know who

Another discussion board that shall remain unnamed.

[LiberalLovinLug]

146. You are wrong, the far left did not fall for Russian iies. They had their own reasons

Maybe your definition of "the far left" is different than mine. When I was growing up the far left was Mao tse tung and Karl Marx. For them Stein and Sanders are both way too capitalistic.
There is no 'far left' force left in this country if they ever existed. Here Republicans and obviously some Democrats even, define "the far left" as those wanting to move more towards a Swedish style mix of capitalist/socialist, where government, through taxation, takes care of funding all the social needs, and private industry is free to work on every other consumer need.

And some are so sick of how long it is taking to join the rest of the planet for things like some form of single payer health care that they get frustrated and turn to third parties. These are not 'far left' these are progressives. But now, if you simply want to join the rest of the human race, so that your country can move forward and have those benefits as well, you are some kind of radical far leftie.

Its easy, and lazy, to lump everyone that didn't vote for Hillary into one big boat and simply say they all "bought the lies about Hillary". That would be disingenuous. The right fell for lies, about her emails being such a big deal, or the Clinton Foundation scooping money illiegally, or even things like they murdered Seth Rich, or she ran a child prostitution ring from a pizza parlor.

The 'far left' as you call them had different issues against her. It wasn't about lies, it was about her history. She was establishment, helped start the DLC made up of CEOs. Her and her husband helped veer the party right in a failed attempt to win over conservative voters and has generally catered to Wall Street, her Iraq war vote, her transparent, opportunist flip flopping on issues like the TPP, or gay marriage, or the $15 wage. It wasn't her personally, it was what, and who's interests, she represented.

I obviously, in here, must add that while I think these things are true, the Dotard was much more dangerous to have in power. But I wanted to spell it out for you that whomever you think of as "the far left" dismissed, as Bernie did, things like the fake email scandal, Benghazi, murder and child prostitution. That was what the deplorables fell for. Progressives on the left side of the scale, had and have much more practical concerns.

[KPN]

164. Well said!

This should be an OP in itself. But I'm sure it would get immediately alerted numerous times.

[LiberalLovinLug]

183. Thanks KPN

[Alice11111]

176. Not just the far left. I know a lot of Dems who bought the

wholeClinton conspiracy BS. They held their noses and voted for Hillary, but they believed Whitewater and Benghazi. I have damaged relationships by disagreeing politely, I thought...just pointing out some facts.

This election has cost me friends and damaged family relationships. The differences were always there, but the extremes of opinions magnified them.

[radical noodle]

210. Yes... I've lost friends too.

It makes things even worse.

[Alice11111]

215. It does. I agree.

[SMC22307]

246. Guess one Susan Sarandon was more powerful than Hillary's army of celebrities... who knew?

Hear me roar, indeed. Democrats need to lay off the glitz/Hollywood and focus on those of us living in the real world. I imagine the vast majority of voters in PA, WI or MI couldn't give a shit about Hillary-supporting Lena Dunham or Bernie-supporting Susan Sarandon. That's all we needed -- PA, WI and MI -- like we've won for decades.

[mountain grammy]

49. Yes

[chwaliszewski]

94. +1

[OrwellwasRight]

121. +infinity

It's ignorant and hateful statements like this that drive true liberals away from the Democratic Party. The OP wouldn't recognized the far-left if it bought her a pinot grigio. To those more committed to defending supply side economics than social justice, peddle that shit elsewhere and quit trying to take DU with you.

[Arazi]

137. Thank you. Agreed 1000% eom

[BzaDem]

157. You may not like the purpose, but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose.

There are plenty of people who do not follow politics very much, and might be susceptible to propaganda from a friend or relative. They could be convinced that Jill Stein/etc are something other than agents and enablers of the Republican party. Their true nature needs to be shouted from the rooftops, to minimize the number of people who are conned.

[KPN]

169. Shouted to who?

It doesn't need to be shouted here when it also includes name calling, ridicule, belittling, etc. Who are you shouting at?

Sorry, but I fully disagree. It serves no useful purpose here at DU. In fact, it has the opposite effect in my view; it served a dysfunctional purpose. It comes across as shut up and get in line -- to those who ironically happen to question the value of the current line. It's plainly and clearly divisive.

[BzaDem]

179. To those who might not be aware of their true natures.

"It's plainly and clearly divisive."

It is only as divisive as calling out Republicans. Yet this site is called "Democratic Underground" for a reason. Republicans are name-called, ridiculed, and belittled all the time. If there are people who are squeamish about exposing Republicans and Republican enablers, there are plenty of other places they can congregate without having to hear such views.

[KPN]

188. No idea what you are talking about.

Republican enablers?

[BzaDem]

198. From the OP: "Jill Stein, Chris Hedges, Cornel West, Jimmy Dore, Susan Sarandon"

and those that defend them.

[KPN]

214. Look ... I have a basic disagreement

with the notion that Trump won because of them. The whole premise is they are to blame. To me, that's an irresponsible and indefensible position. We didn't lose because of them or so-called "far- left" liberals. There were lots of reasons why we lost.

[BzaDem]

226. You can disagree with basic logic and the dictionary, but that would make you wrong.

You have the right to be wrong, of course, and even a right to continue to proclaim your incorrect conclusions. But you do not have the right to get others to pretend this is a matter of opinion, or that your point has any validity. The correctness of objective facts do not depend on personal matters of opinion. The vote totals in question are publicly available to anyone who desires to look. Jill Stein voters could have prevented Trump's inauguration, and the tax bill from passing last night. They knowingly and willingly chose not to. No one pointed a gun to their head and ordered them to take actions that would elect Trump. They did so of their own free will.

Bringing in "lots of reasons blah blah blah" might be a noble and valiant effort at changing the subject to a topic that is less inconvenient to your point of view, but it is not even attempting to contest the point in question.

[Ferrets are Cool]

212. Thank you

[SMC22307]

252. Yep. "The buck stops here" is a concept lost on too many. (n/t)

[HerbChestnut]

11. Disagree with this

There were no more 3rd Party votes in 2016 than in other elections. And it's already been stated multiple times that a greater percentage of Bernie voters voted for Hillary in 2016 than Hillary voters voted for Obama in 2008. The only people to blame here are the ones that actually voted Republican.

[ejbr]

19. Or sat out the election n/t

[HerbChestnut]

22. Yes, those folks too

Nothing bothers me more than apathy, and it's a sad state of affairs when only 60% of eligible voters turn out for a Presidential election.

[KPN]

75. For some, not voting is a vote

of no confidence in either party.

We should be trying to understand as opposed to ridiculing and demeaning those who choose that. It's not always about being lazy or apathetic.

[chwaliszewski]

97. Truth!

[DanTex]

23. There were more Green votes than in 2004, 2008, and 2012.

Everyone who voted Green, obviously, shares blame for this. But I am willing to forgive impressionable 19-year-olds who fell for the Green Party rhetoric.

But not the people who led the anti-Democratic-Party movement from the far left. They convinced gullible fools that there is no difference in the parties, and frequently argued that Hillary was worse than Trump. This resulted not just in Green votes, but also people on the "left" either not voting for President or even voting for Trump. And, of course, none of the leaders of the far-left are going to suffer any of the consequences of their actions.

Just imagine for a moment, what things would be like if, instead of working as hard as they can to get Republicans elected, the far left instead worked just as hard trying to get Democrats elected.

Remember, this is now the second time this has happened. Ignoring the threat from the far left is sheer foolishness.

[BumRushDaShow]

40. THIS

It was somewhat remarkable given that those past elections that you mention, you would find the share of "3rd party" votes here in Philly usually ran from ~5000 - 9000 total (out of ~500,000 - 600,000 votes cast) at best. Yet in 2016, the total of Green + Libertarian + Constitution Party + Write-In reached > 15,000.

2016 General PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

District Wide Results

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
HILLARY CLINTON DEMOCRATIC 584,025 82.3%
DONALD J TRUMP REPUBLICAN 108,748 15.32%
GARY JOHNSON LIBERTARIAN 7,115 1%
JILL STEIN GREEN 6,679 0.94%
Write In 1,987 0.28%
DARRELL L CASTLE CONSTITUTION PARTY 1,064 0.15%

https://www.philadelphiavotes.com/en/resources-a-data/ballot-box-app

Hillary lost to Drumpf here in PA by 44,292. Stein got 49,941 and Gary Johnson got 146,715 statewide.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

44. Thank you. I keep on pointing out that votes for Gary Johnson

made more of a difference than votes for Jill Stein, and people here still bash her and totally overlook him.

There are other things I'd like to say, but aren't allowed here.

[BumRushDaShow]

83. Gary Johnson

appealed to the anti-Drumpf GOPers, however he has run before. For example here in Philly -

2012 General PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

District Wide Results

Candidate Party Votes Percentage
BARACK OBAMA DEMOCRATIC 588,806 85.24%
MITT ROMNEY REPUBLICAN 96,467 13.97%
GARY JOHNSON LIBERTARIAN 2,892 0.42%
JILL STEIN GREEN 2,162 0.31%
Write In 449 0.06%

https://www.philadelphiavotes.com/en/resources-a-data/ballot-box-app

Bob Barr ran on the Libertarian ticket in 2008 (I actually watched the Libertarian convention at that time for shits and grins) -

2008 General PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

District Wide Results
Candidate Party Votes Percentage
BARACK OBAMA DEMOCRATIC 595,980 83%
JOHN MCCAIN REPUBLICAN 117,221 16.33%
RALPH NADER INDEPENDENT 3,071 0.43%
BOB BARR LIBERTARIAN 1,057 0.15%
Write In 696 0.1%

https://www.philadelphiavotes.com/en/resources-a-data/ballot-box-app

This past election was literally a perfect storm. Russian meddling, voter suppression (and I expect vote tampering), a significant pick-up 3rd party votes, and quite a few who sat out since "Obama was not on the ballot".

[KPN]

111. It's delusional to think that everyone who voted Green Party is gullible ...

and gullible fools no less.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding (i.e., being able to hear, grasp and -- heaven forbid I say this -- tolerate the root cause of) their thinking on this?

When I question people who make the "no difference between the two parties" statement, I try to ask for specifics. After drilling down, the perception I come away with is: in many cases they believe the parties are identical in every way, manner or shape. They tend to think that in regard to one over-riding issue that is important to them and it tends to be based on their assessment of the record -- results -- and how they perceive their personal life and future affected. NOTE that I said in many cases ... as you would expect, in some cases I come away from that discussion that the person is totally uninformed, a "low-information" voter/non-voter. But when it comes to Green Party supporters, I don't think I've run into one of those types. They are usually pretty bright people ... and amply informed.

Anyway, it seems to me there's some pretty powerful stuff full of all kinds of opportunity for the Democratic Party when you drill down into that statement if it chooses to be receptive to it.

[DanTex]

128. I'm sure there are one or two who aren't total imbeciles.

But for the most part, yeah, they are gullible fools.

Some of them are "amply informed" in the same sense that Alex Jones fans are "amply informed."

[KPN]

140. Well, that strikes me as a rather arrogant and irresponsible view.

Have the last word man.

[DoctorRobert]

117. This is not the second time

Remember Carter was relegated to being a one term POTUS thanks to having his own party primary him. That was also the far-left trying to get Ted Kennedy in instead of the incumbent President. The left helped usher in Reagan and the financial downfall of this country.

[JHB]

320. **cough**Iran hostage crisis**oil shocks**Ed Koch**cough**

At the time the Kennedy fan club kinda creeped me out, but I gotta balk at the mythos that developed that solely blames him and ignores at least a half dozen other more readily identifiable factors.

Especially the biggest on: the neverending hostage crisis. Carter and Reagan had been polling very close through most of the race, with a big shift to Reagan in the week before the election. Republicans love to crow and attribute it to the "there you go again" debate, but it also marked the end of October, and it becoming clear that Carter did not have any "October Surprise" bringing the hostages home. It looked just go on and on, which led a lot of voters to decide a change was needed.

[Alice11111]

205. Agree.

[GaryCnf]

270. Hillary received 60,000

fewer votes in Wayne County Michigan than Obama in 2012. That is 10,000 less votes than Stein got in the entire state. Were they just "impressionable" or do you have some other word to cast the blame on those voters too?

[Nay]

25. Thank you. I don't know why this is so hard for people to process.

Fewer Hillary voters voted for Obama in 2008 than Bernie voters who voted for Hillary in 2016.

So, Bernie voters did their job in 2016, and Hillary voters did NOT do their job in 2008. Let's stop blaming Bernie voters for something they are not responsible for.

[chwaliszewski]

100. +1

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

254. +1000

[BlueMTexpat]

276. Please provide a link

for your assertion! I've seen others pick up on it with no proof.

[Sunlei]

35. The few thousand who voted for spoilers, in state "counties" like in Pa.,aided Republican party ONLY

election would have ended up differently if those spoiler voters just stayed at home.

[delisen]

36. No evidence for your claim that I can find.

percentages Sanders to Clinton voters vs Clinton to Obama voters.

I note that you only claimed that its been "stated" multiple times so I don't know whether there is hard or definitive evidence.

I finally turned to wikipedia which cited exit polls but does not relate to Sanders:

According to exit polls on Election Day, McCain won the votes of only 10% of Democrats nationwide, the same percentage of Democrats' votes that George W. Bush won in 2004.[5]


If you have some evidence can you post it?

[pandr32]

103. Thanks for posting this.

"Multiple times" claims prove nothing without substantiation. At best they are rumors and at worse that is how propaganda works.

[.99center]

126. How does this compare to other elections?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?utm_term=.7974b8b74fae

How does this compare to other elections?

It’s a perennial question whether supporters of losing primary candidates will vote for their party’s nominee in the general election. So let’s compare the Democratic primary with the Republican primary. In the VOTER Survey, only 3 percent of those supporting Texas Sen. Ted Cruz reported voting for Hillary Clinton, as did 10 percent of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s supporters and 32 percent of Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s supporters. So Sanders supporters were about as likely to vote for Trump as Rubio’s supporters were to vote for Clinton, and far less likely than Kasich supporters were to vote for Clinton.

Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.

An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)

Thus, the 6 percent or 12 percent of Sanders supporters who may have supported Trump does not look especially large in comparison with these other examples.

[LongTomH]

46. +1000

[KPN]

78. Yup. And even in that case

we should be looking at and trying to understand why. In some cases, we may be able to switch those votes to D in future elections.

[SMC22307]

245. Yep. If a transgender woman can win in a conservative Virginia county,

then hell yes, "deplorable" votes can be switched to D. (God, how I hate that term... it was a STUPID STUPID STUPID thing for Hillary to campaign on.)

There's no "looking at and trying to understand why" by too many in the Democratic Party. All we needed were PA, MI and WI. The warning signs were there, but did those running the show listen? No!

[chwaliszewski]

98. +1

[leftofcool]

138. 16% of Bernie voters in PA voted for Trump

9% in Wisconsin and 8% in MI. But, elections have consequences and I believe they have arrived.

[Tom Rinaldo]

144. What makes you assume those voters were nominal Democrats, or even left of center to begin with?

It's was well documented during the primaries that a number of people who were completely disillusioned with "the establishment" were drawn to both Trump and Sanders as potential anti-Establishment candidates. It got a lot of coverage at the time. Both Trump and Sanders were seen by a slice of the electorate not reliably Democratic or Republican as protest/change candidates. Those types were no more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton than they were for Jeb Bush, who in some non activist circles were both believed to personify the establishment that had failed them.

Hillary lost a small minority of the people who might have voted for Sanders on the Democratic ticket, and no doubt the same would have been true the other way around for possibly different reasons.

[BlueMTexpat]

274. The OP is clearly NOT

talking about Bernie voters who voted for Hillary in the GE.

Please provide a link to your assertion that a greater percentage of Bernie voters voted for Hillary than Hillary voters voted for Prez O in 2008.

As a Hillary primary voter in 2008, I enthusiastically supported Barack Obama in the GE - as did every thinking person I know. In 2012, I enthusiastically supported him in BOTH the primary and the GE.

[KTM]

288. Maybe scroll up....

Post 126, posted well before this query of yours, seems to back up that assertion.

[nini]

12. I wont get over something that will destroy every safety net i have.

The ability to retire just got trashed for a lot of people. We're gojng to end up in a full blown Depression. My granson will grow up with a very bleak future etc

This purity bullshit just helped kill this country. There is no getting over rhat.

[NCTraveler]

13. Many claim their whole game is changing the economy...

The reality is they enable the Republican economic agenda.

[HughBeaumont]

15. Schtroumpf is not solely the fault of "TEH EXTREME LEFT".

Trump is the fault of

Trump voters.
Non voters.
The complicit media who gave that fuck normalization and free passes every step of the way.

62 million people vastly outweigh a small percentage of misguided "both parties are the same" idiots.

62 million people are the ones that thought this was a great idea.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that we need to improve campaign tactics and messaging.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that we need to battle their small-state strategy.

There are always going to be splinter groups.

When we "blame the left for Trump", we're playing into their narrative. We need to stop encouraging the "Party of Personal Responsibility" to never take any.

Schtroumpf voters made stupid in their pants all by themselves.

[ancianita]

30. Totally agree with this. Moreover, right depends on sociopathic doubling down to force this kind

of finger pointing among its opponents in between elections.

There is no way to stand up to the Koch/Right machine than to actually act as if we stand up. Every damn Day.

That's how we'll attract voters in 2018 -- by continuing to speak out, block, stop all takaway legislation; promote a clear vision which, apparently, most voters can only "see" when they've had something taken away from them.

Centrists who've been willing to do bipartisan compromise, have been called "weak," "losers," "too soft" and "spineless appeasers" for too long. Go back to centrist politics and confusion will set in as the black/white propaganda of the right wing conflates all good judgment and nuance as weakness from the left.

[NastyRiffraff]

71. Strawman

Nobody said it was ONLY the far left's fault. But it can't be denied they were a factor, and a significant one. Yes, there were other factors: the media, the wacko Hillary hatred (hello, Andrea Mitchell), Comey, the gross stupidity of those who fell for Dump's lies and hatred that ultimately hurt them (hello, tax bill), and of course Russian interference and the Republican complicity.

But the OP is right; the far left repeated their mistakes, and will do so again. Because Revolution.

[Willie Pep]

20. It is true.

The "both parties are the same" stuff is being shown for the nonsense that it is. Unfortunately it has to take a disastrous Republican administration to do it.

[Hekate]

65. Unfortunately the morons who say those kinds of things don't learn. They don't learn. nt

[SidDithers]

21. DU rec...

Sid

[greatauntoftriplets]

55. Sid!

[Hekate]

77. Hey, you!

Long time, no see.

[ismnotwasm]

91. Whoa

I post laughing emojis in honor of you every chance I get—well not every chance, some days that would be all I would do...

[mcar]

152. Good to see you here Sid

[Skidmore]

195. Hi, Sid.

Good to see you. Be well.

[heaven05]

24. GREAT POST

so true and I am one now on the "death panels" list for scheduled destruction that those in your post helped allow.

[UCmeNdc]

26. As long as you remind people what the right and far right are doing. The far left is small potatoes

compared to the right and far right.

[lark]

28. Stein isn't far left, she's a Russian troll masquerading as a progressive!

[MFM008]

29. When they unplug

My mom's Healthcare ....excuse me for saying
Drop dead bitches.

[JHan]

31. massive k&r

and they will never learn.

[Lil Missy]

32. I've often thought THEY should "get over it".

Hopefully the D Party won't have a 3rd Party hitching his/her wagon to the Dem ticket in 2020.

[sheshe2]

33. Huge K&R, Dan.

[Mountain Mule]

34. K&R

[CrispyQ]

37. I can't believe you people are still harping about these assholes. Really?

You know who you should be concerned about? The non-political people who voted for HRC, & were all fired up after the Con's inauguration, & went to marches, & sent postcards to their reps for the first time ever, but are now suffering from outrage fatigue, & can't even bother to make a phone call about health care or tax reform. They are disengaging. That's who you should be worried about.

[Sunlei]

39. yes, and its so EASY to make a phone call, instead of 24/7 'fighting on 'social medias'

https://www.callmycongress.com/

[Sunlei]

38. remember Steins "stunt" when she spray painted a bulldozer at XM pipeline protest? Republicans pushe

pushed that stunt in their medias a lot to drain votes from Clinton.

RW even sent a team of their 'pro-protesters' to create a more violent image of those protests. Nighttime 'fight' with fires on the only road bridge, IMO was quite planned & staged by RW.

[treestar]

42. Indeed

Kick

[Dem2]

43. Humans as a species tend to learn things the hard way

Idealism and optimism can be blinding, and now we are suffering the consequences

[LongTomH]

50. "Far Left??" I wonder if FDR and JFK would be dismissed as "Far Left" now??

The Democratic Party once prided itself on being a 'big tent' party with room for people across the spectrum, and yes, John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt were part of the left.

The party was advised again and again: "You must move right to get votes;" that tactic lost us the US House and Senate, and about 900 state house seats across the nation, not to mention a majority of governor's mansions.

May I remind my dear colleagues that Progressive candidates won big this year and we're organizing for 2018, that includes the Our Revolution group that comes in for so much vitriol here.

[emulatorloo]

52. Strawman n/t

[LongTomH]

56. Strawman? Facts, Young Progressives are winning and old conservatives aren't getting any younger.

[emulatorloo]

61. That's not the strawman part. Your bullshit claim that DU'ers label JFK and FDR "far left"

You are surrounded by left-liberals and progressives at DU. We're all excited about the young progressives getting elected.

OP refers to Bernie or Busters. There are no Bernie or Busters at DU.

[Locrian]

54. probably would be considered "far left" - SMDH

Bernie Sanders is THE most popular politician in the US. But that's far left I guess....
SMDH

[emulatorloo]

59. Bernie fought hard to elect a Democratic president in 2016. This thread isn't about

Senator Sanders.

[LongTomH]

67. It's 'Democratic' president, not 'Democrat'

'Democratic' is the adjective, 'Democrat' is a noun. The right has been working for years to change the labeling of the Democratic Party to Democrat party. Let's not do it to ourselves.

I spent several minutes in 2004 arguing with a wingnut outside a polling place where I was handing out literature.....He'd say "the Democrat Party," I'd come back with "It's the Democratic Party."

...........He'd come back with 'Democrat Party,' I'd come back with 'Democratic Party.'

...................then, he'd say 'Democrat Party'.........and so on and so on and so forth and scooby, dooby, dooby.

[emulatorloo]

70. AFAIK I corrected the term prior to your post. Saw my error. Thanks though

However, this thread is still not about Bernie, I don't care for insinuations that it is.

It is about Bernie or Busters.

[maddiemom]

125. I've been harping on this for years...

but more and more Democrats (proper noun) seem to be falling for it.

[DanTex]

62. Since you mention it, the far left did try to sabotage FDR as well.

Fortunately, they didn't succeed.

I agree that Democrats did very well in this year's election. That is good news. But it doesn't undo the damage that the far left did by throwing the presidential election to Trump.

[Hekate]

109. Strawman

[moriah]

189. The current "far left" are sabotaging those goals, not helping achieve them.

Obama, who many of these "purist Dems" attacked, got DOMA and DADT repealed, and gays can marry now thanks to his Court nominee picks.

He did his best to get the most vulnerable people affordable care, and even if the ACA may eventually be repealed, it should only be in the way DADT was.

As people who remember the hate against gays, particularly among soldiers in the early '90s, knows... DADT was considered by Conservatives to be a sign of the Apocalypse. Gays could serve! They couldn't bully out servicemembers who were disliked by accusing them of it! The world was coming to an end!

It wasn't a perfect law, and neither is the ACA. The real good thing in the legislation is for states to figure out state-level single payer, which states that can make it work should work on 2018 ballot initiatives for. When those prove viable we can then repeal the ACA and replace it with proven single payer.

I have yet to see the current "far left" advocate for civil rights for maligned groups -- what FDR and JFK did. (Edit to add: FDR had racial issues and his Social Security program ended up discriminating against many AA groups, but his New Deal did address both rural and urban poverty and knew they'd have to be dealt with differently. Urban at that time didn't mean "black.)

They ONLY are advocating for economic justice, not social justice as well. And economic justice is about as effective for "trickle down" to social justice as "trickle-down economics" is. We can, and must, advocate for both.

[thucythucy]

291. Actually, the far left hated FDR.

For instance, many on the far left called him a "capitalist war monger" for wanting to reinstitute the draft in 1940, after the German defeat of France. This didn't change until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941 at which point "the party line" did a 180 degree turn.

FDR was also condemned for going slow (agonizingly slow) on civil rights. Even Eleanor called him out on this. And then too, there was that item about imprisoning tens of thousands of American citizens (Japanese Americans) in concentration camps during WWII. I seem to recall reading that there was quite a lot of criticism (all from the left) for that particular policy, and rightfully so.

And JFK was condemned by the far left for being a Joe McCarthy supporting Cold Warrior who also dragged his feet on civil rights. In fact, the leaders of SNCC wanted to denounce JFK from the podium during the March on Washington in August 1963, and were convinced not to do it only at the very last minute.

Somehow I doubt that the policies of FDR or JFK would have won the approval of "Our Revolution" back then. Not from my reading of the history, anyway.

[aikoaiko]

51. Well, many party folks told them we didn't need them and they should eff off.

Remember those days of hubris, Dan?

Turns out we did need them and will need them.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

260. Yes indeed!

[melman]

264. Oh yes

And the OP was very firmly in that camp. I remember it well even if they don't.

[OrwellwasRight]

127. that and not giving a shit about

What neolib tax, trade, welfare, and bank deregulation policies did to working people of any color, orientation, or identity. When bad policies harm people, there is little that robocalls and YouTube ads and Facebook memos can do to gain voter trust back. Plus the overemphasis on data that didn't work so well. But, yes let's go back to blaming Bernie supporters so we don't have to change a damn thing.

By the way, every single Bernie supporter I know (save 2 in Cali), and I know dozens and dozens, voted for HRC, so centrists can lay off the blame game.

[jalan48]

57. 90 million eligible voters didn't vote in 2016 while Jill Stein got 1.2 million votes.

Why are we so afraid to look at the reasons more people didn't vote for us and instead chose to stay home and vote for no one? Why the need for blame instead of introspection and analysis?

[chwaliszewski]

105. Preach it!

[SMC22307]

256. Because blame and lack of introspection and analysis are soooo much easier!

Last edited Sun Dec 3, 2017, 01:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Especially for those who think name-calling on social media amounts to "activism."

[PDittie]

268. +100

[Jakes Progress]

58. Not really the second time it has happened.

Another was the 1968 election that gave us Richard Nixon. Purity snobs protested Humphrey because their darling, poet McCarthy, didn't get the nomination. I was in college and knew many who said Humphrey and Nixon were the same thing and sat out the election.

For another, we have Maine. Their trump-lite governor has won twice because the far left ran candidates to split the liberal vote. Rachel warned everyone about this happening nationally before the 2016 election.

We think it's cute when the tea-party wrecks the republicans, but don't seem to see it when it happens to us.

[BlueMTexpat]

279. And as we have since learned,

Nixon also committed treason, which was one of the reasons that he was such a paranoid President.

“This is treason”: Nixon, Vietnam and the “sordid story” of the Chennault Affair

https://www.salon.com/2017/09/23/this-is-treason-nixon-vietnam-and-the-sordid-story-of-the-chennault-affair/

The Republican nominee colluded with a foreign government to win the presidential election. The nominee was Richard Nixon, the foreign government was South Vietnam, and the election was 1968. This “sordid story,” as then-President Lyndon B. Johnson described it to Nixon (in a telephone conversation LBJ secretly tape-recorded), is one of the many narrative threads masterfully woven by directors Ken Burns and Lynn Novick into episode seven of "The Vietnam War," titled “The Veneer of Civilization (June 1968–May 1969).” LBJ did not exaggerate. “Sordid” is a mild way to describe the ruthlessness with which Nixon put his political interests above all else, including the law, the truth and the lives of American soldiers.

For most of 1968, Nixon was the presidential race’s clear front-runner. In a year of violence — the Tet offensive, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy, the riots in Chicago and so many other American cities — Nixon’s candidacy hearkened back to the tranquil years of the Eisenhower administration, when Nixon had been Vice President. Candidate Nixon promised to restore law and order at home (a theme that played on racist fears as well as a real rise in the crime rate) and to achieve peace with honor abroad. He saddled his Democratic opponent, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, with all of the baggage of the 1960s — crime, disorder, Vietnam. By September of 1968, Nixon led Humphrey in the Gallup poll by 15 points.

But Nixon ran scared. He realized that President Johnson had it in his power to do one thing that could make Nixon lose. In March, Johnson’s popularity had skyrocketed when he announced that he was placing nearly 90 percent of North Vietnam off limits to aerial and naval bombardment. At that time, Johnson offered to stop the bombing completely if the North agreed to prompt, serious peace talks. This was Nixon’s nightmare: that Johnson would announce the end of the bombing and the start of peace talks before Election Day, causing the president’s standing in the polls to rise — and lifting Vice President Humphrey’s with it. Nixon was not going to let that happen if he could help it.

....

There's lots more at the link.

Remember also St. Ronnie Raygun who convinced Iran that he would give them a better deal, all the while the Carter Administration was negotiating for the release of the hostages.

How Republican Candidate Ronald Reagan Colluded with a Foreign Government to Manipulate the 1980 Presidential Election

https://sandiegofreepress.org/2017/04/ronald-reagan-colluded-with-a-foreign-government/

Lots at this link too.

Republicans have had a LONG history of treason from 1968 on.

[whathehell]

60. Huh?....

What "far left"?

To the extent that the supposed "far left" was even on the ballot (Stein) it garnered a miniscule number of votes...FYI: Libertarians l(Johnson) lean RIght, not Left.

[ismnotwasm]

63. Well said, and they arent going to admit THAT

Wasn’t there a theory how letting a political bonfire happen usher in the revolution through revolt? The people will rise and all that shit?

I bet they still think that. What’s going to happen, best case scenario, is we eventually get enough political power to ameliorate some of the damage, revive the ACA, reverse some of the more destructive aspects of the tax bill. This regaining of political power is not necassarily going to be in 2018, but we can hope. In the meantime, there is still debate to be had and house and senate versions need reconciliation, I’m sure some of it will end up in court.


The more IMMEDIATE best case scenario is, something I read in an article, that since this tax bill is something republicans believe in and wanted, they no longer needs Trump and will stop enabling his crazy ass.

In the meantime these same kind of assholes you are talking about are fucking protesting Hillary at book signings, saying it’s all her fault because of course they are.

[Fiendish Thingy]

66. Let's hope the Democratic Party doesn't adopt your projection as a formal strategy

What's needed now is more, not less, introspection and problem solving, not a reliance on denial and blaming.

Lots of external factors to be certain, but plenty of internal problem solving is needed at the DNC as well.

[DanTex]

68. LOL. "Projection". Nice one!

[marcopolo63]

69. Puhlease...

Glad to see so much dissent to this hateful screed of a post. If we continue eating our own like this - we’ll never defeat the scourge that is this Republican hegemony!

Jill Stein - really? Susan Sarandon - righhhht! I believe the real threat to American democracy is the way we’ve allowed Republicans to subvert the electoral process - voter suppression, voter ID laws, electronic vote tabulation fraud, etc.

Get out of here with blaming the far left! Why is this post even being written, let alone featured? Has DU been trolled?

[DanTex]

72. Did you really just refer Jill Stein as "our own"? LOL.

[ismnotwasm]

82. A large segment of the Democratic Party base

Are roundly rejecting these third party types Thank. God. I am not inferring this as much as following trends in articles and statements. African American activists for instance, are pissed.

Jill Stein is another spoiler, as is the Green Party—which saddens me. I have a daughter who tends to vote Republican on local matters—-she lives rurally, but is more concerned with her carbon footprint than anyone else I’ve ever met. If the Greens were the least bit viable, they would attract people like her. She thinks they’re crazy in method and presentation.

[marcopolo63]

89. Check that...

OK maybe she’s not a true Dem, but where do you really think she falls on the political spectrum?

[DanTex]

123. She falls on the horseshoe part. From her part of the spectrum, Trump is preferable

to Hillary. Is there anything else that needs to be said?

[LongTomH]

73. The sad thing is, we're doing it to ourselves!

That 'far left' still in the party, the young progressives, are the ones who are working and the ones who won this year.

[marcopolo63]

92. I agree LongTomH

We will never move on from the 2016 election debacle by blaming the future leaders of our party for not believing...

[mindfulNJ]

76. PREACH

Agree 1000%

[leftstreet]

81. Sigh. There is no 'far left' in the US n/t

[DangerousUrNot]

85. Even if all of Jills

Votes went to Hillary, she still wouldn’t have won. I’m a progressive, I guess far left , but there is tons of blame to go around. I hate how Jimmy Dore and Kyle K were bashing Hillary throughout the election but the DNC and Hillary deserve blame too. There is no one to be absolutely blamed for the country electing Trump.

There was a huge rise in nationalism, the right didn’t know trump was as delusional as he truly is, Russia inference, both Trump and Hilary were two of the most disliked candidates ever, far left Bernie or busts voters, the dnc conspiring against Bernie making people angry. I can go on and on. I mean hell, she got three million more votes than he did but it didn’t matter thanks to the electoral vote.

And this was not intended to be a “snarky” remark, I’m trying to objective and honest.

[Honeycombe8]

90. Do you have a citation for that?

A cite showing how many third party supporters voted in the three states that made the difference, and who they voted for?

There were several factors, but I believe it's undeniable that the third party voters were one of them. Maybe not the main one, but one of them.

We have to be vigilant to recognize when we hear talk by celebrities and other nationally known people...recognize that when they speak of not voting for the only one left of center who has a chance of winning, it's the same thing as recommending not to vote for the Dem candidate, regardless who says it or for what reason. It was the same thing, after all, that Trump supporters were saying, that Trump was saying. The fact that it was third party supporters saying it should make no difference. The result is the same.

[DangerousUrNot]

107. I dont have a citation but

I just read the article again. It’s from ‘The Hill’ from 2016 by Jack Jeffries, I found it with a google search. He basically points out that Stein’s new voters from 2012 to 2016 would only flip two states. If you don’t believe me that’s fine but my whole point was to convey that the far left wasn’t the sole purpose for Hillary losing.

This past election was a freak show, an anomaly compared to past elections. I’m not saying that far left purists didn’t have anything to do with her election results but I am skeptical of the absolute blame they are receiving from those on the left who aren’t as progressive.

It’s a valid discussion and hashing out these problems on the left helps to prevent it from happening again.

[MikeydaDog]

86. I won't forget either. I agree with you. nt

[alarimer]

88. There is no fucking "far-left" sabotage.

I'm so fucking tired of these LIES.
STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gore1FL]

99. +1

One year later and people are still looking for targets for the pointing of their fingers.

[Ken Burch]

131. Even if there were, focusing on denouncing that doesn't help us gain votes.

n/t.

[bettyellen]

101. I was not nearly vocal enough last year, although I did point out they were spreading garbage from

Russia. They didn't seem to care. Next time they open their yaps with the "both sides" thing, they going to be schooled.

[Blue_true]

106. Bravo. Dead on. nt

[Vinca]

110. While I appreciate everything you are saying,the longer we stew in these juices the less of a chance

we will have in 2018 and 2020 and both of those elections are more important than just about any election in the history of the country. If we keep spinning our wheels on woulda, coulda, shoulda we'll have no chance of saving the country. It's going to be pretty bad as it is with so many appointed-for-life judges already installed. I'm especially concerned about the desire by so many of the younger generations to have a third party. Our form of government isn't set up for that. We don't have a parliamentary system. A third party will most likely split the Democratic vote and we'll be stuck with Republicans (aka nutcakes) forever.

[world wide wally]

112. Yep

[NRaleighLiberal]

115. The election was stolen. Your premise is bullshit. period.

But feel free to keep sowing division. Well done.

[Muneravenmn]

116. What Does This Accomplish?

I supported Bernie, but when he was out I voted for Hillary. But I didn’t like it. And I understand those who were angry about being expected to vote for a candidate who they saw as part of a corrupt system. Hillary-supporters were not willing to make it easy join their team, and their bad behavior hurt Clinton by driving Bernie supporters away.

I voted for Hillary, but people like you made it very difficult. I endured crowing and taunting from pro-Hillary “friends.” I didn’t un-friend a single Hillary supporter on Facebook, but I was ignored and Un-friended simply for objecting to continuing insults and slurs directed at Bernie supporters. I wasn’t nasty, I only asked that the winners be gracious. They would not be.

Your candidate won the nomination. Once that happens it is ON YOU to be gracious. Those supporting the other candidate are understandably angry and hurt and disappointed. It is ON YOU to welcome them in, even coax them in.

And yet still I see topics like this, hating on current and potential Democratic voters to the left.

The Democratic Party lost the election. Hillary lost. Her supporters lost. The mood of the country was completely misread and the campaign was poorly run. Blaming those who did not vote for Clinton is laughable. The Democrats job was to convince those voters to support her. They failed. You failed. And, frankly, posts like this one just makes me wonder why I voted for Hillary myself because it reminds me of the nasty, divisive crap that went on among Democrats.

In short: You lost. She lost. Blaming others won’t change that, and, in fact, makes it more likely that Democrats will lose again.

[moriah]

139. Welcome to DU! Enjoy your stay....

I do hope you understand, though, that the OP isn't talking about you.

You supported your favored candidate in the primary, and worked hard for him. Your work made the platform get his stamp -- his high support gave him quite a bit more power than most people not the nominee or VP would usually have in helping craft it.

But after working your best during the primary to influence the party in the direction you preferred -- and despite not getting as much success as you wanted in that, still voted for the Democratic nominee.

You, therefore, aren't a "Bernie or Bust" person. You didn't write him in, or vote for Stein.

---

I do have to say I've been in your shoes, though I'd chosen Hillary over Obama because I thought she had more vicarious experience on the national stage about the Presidency, I didn't have any fears that Obama wouldn't know what to do with a 3 AM phone call (terrible ad in a sucky primary). My vote for Obama was easy in the General, I didn't have to be won over or coaxed. Even if McCain wasn't the worst Republican in the world. And the people that didn't rally around the Democratic nominee were rightly castigated.

In this election, even though you had far more mixed emotions about the Democratic nominee than I did in 2008, you also recognized Trump/Pence was, for good reason, being joked about being what John the Revelator was being warned about with the word "trumpets".

Until we get IRV, the best we can do is what you did. Fight for getting the nominee and the platform issues you want, then vote Democratic in the General.

I'm certain the poster can confirm s/he wasn't talking about people, like you, who are intelligent enough to realize this no matter how terrible a primary battle we have.

[caraher]

118. Sabotage implies intent

While I do know a minuscule number of people who believe electing the worst candidates will help usher in some kind of revolution, for the most part the Greens and Bernie-or-Bust people (as well as 2000 Nader voters) simply have an idealistic view of politics (particularly in the context of US winner-take-all elections) that is too frequently at odds with political reality. Calling their outrage over Trump's depredations "feigned" is not merely insulting, it is dead wrong.

The way forward is to help those who will listen realize that politics is frequently about pragmatism and compromise, and let go of the grievance against those who cannot or will not agree with us. The purists willing to shoot themselves in the foot exist on the right as well as the left, and are not the ones to spend our energies on. The people worth that effort are the previously disengaged, who vastly outnumber the likes of Sarandon and who should become a receptive audience as the horrors of the Trump era continue to multiply and affect their daily lives.

[DanTex]

134. Yes it does.

And the leaders of the Green movement have that intent. Nader stated explicitly that he would prefer to see Bush win, and Stein stated explicitly that she thought Hillary was worse that Trump. And then there's Susan Sarandon's "revolution" thing.

You're right that many Green voters don't have that intent, they are just gullible imbeciles. You can call them "idealistic" in the same sense that people who join ISIS might be called "idealistic". That might fly as an excuse for 19-year olds who think it's cool to "take down the system, dude!".

But adults are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions, and, very obviously, for anyone with a prominent voice to be advocating or endorsing the Green Party in an election like the one we had can have one and only one possible effect, which is helping the GOP win.

Take, for example, Chris Hedges, who to my knowledge never actually said he wanted Trump to win. But he made the "no difference" argument over and over and advocated voting for Jill Stein, going so far as to attack Bernie when he endorsed Hillary. He's not an idiot, he knew that the only people who might be affected by his writings an speeches are people on the fence between Dems and Greens. And he also knew that pushing those people towards the Greens made Trump more likely to win. So to give him a moral pass based on lack of explicit "intent" is getting awful close to saying "I knew the gun was loaded and pointed at the victim, and I knew pulling the trigger would kill the victim, but I didn't mean to kill anyone."

[Hekate]

196. +1

[moriah]

174. It implies intent, but can happen accidentally (or the intent be from outsider influence).

I admit that I'm not up on every thing good Sarandon works for outside of politics, so I don't know what her intent is.

Also, I don't think most of the people who voted for Stein necessarily had bad intent in doing so. Some were in solid states, like Sarandon herself or the hippies I know in Arkansas.

But the intent of those saying "both parties are the same, so instead of voting for the lesser of two evils vote for a candidate who will never win" can only be to discourage votes for the "not pure enough" candidate (and while it'd be nice if the real Jesus ran for President, His followers who don't recognize him might crucify Him again, and the rest of us are all human so trying to suggest "purity" is the goal is probably not correct).

[moriah]

119. Until instant runoff is available at the Presidential level...

... and I honestly would like to see IRV in both party primaries and then in the General between the party nominees...

It really is a lesser of two evils decision. "Voting your conscience" is admirable, but if your conscience can stand one vote for people antithetical to everything you believe in not being countered, if you claim to be left, then I wonder about your conscience.

[agincourt]

120. I'm a democratic communist

so I am far to the left of the Democratic party, still it makes my head explode when I see false lefties and socialists say both parties are exactly the same or that the Democratic party is worse. They seem like tea-baggers with different props to use in the agenda. I often wonder how much of the so-called left is taking from the piggybanks of the repig party. I don't however hammer a lot on voters because I do believe the last election was rigged in the "firewall" states. When Hil came out for 15.00 per hour and labor union power towards the end of campaign, I think a lot of dirty dealing and rigging went on, the Comey "might be pertinent" bs being a part of that as well.

[Ken Burch]

133. I spent a lot of time on social media, when I wasn't canvassing(doorbelling-they're the same thing)

for Hillary-as I did most days), arguing that there was no good reason for progressives to vote Green presidentially. I agree that it was a mistake, especially in the battle ground states, to votes Green presidentially.

But, while all of us share the anger about the theft bill that was passed last night, threads like this DONT HELP US.

They don't gain us votes.

They don't create a program that can unite and elect.

They don't do anything to help us avoid repeating the 2016 result.

It simply doesn't ever work to scream "you have to! You Have To! You HAVE To! vote for our ticket" at people. 2000 and 2016 proved that approach never works.

[NurseJackie]

148. LOL

[musette_sf]

129. K&R

[Ken Burch]

130. I'm not going to dispute your argument about the consequences.

But what is the point of demanding that people admit they were wrong, when demanding that people admit they were wrong is never an effective way to get them to change?

[DanTex]

136. Jill Stein is not going to change.

When I point out that she hasn't admitted being wrong, I am doing for the same reason I point out that, say, Trump hasn't admitted being wrong about birtherism (or anything else).

It's not really a demand that Stein or Trump admit anything. It's just driving home how despicably dishonest they are.

[Ken Burch]

142. And all of us here agree with you...so what's the point?

Demanding that the people who voted for Stein, or didn't vote, admit THEY were wrong(rather than figuring out some way to win at least some of their votes away from Stein, or get some of them to start voting if they didn't vote) is pretty much a waste of time.

We can't win by turn politics in to an Inquisition, trying to increase votes by demanding people recant their heresies.

How does that help us win the extra voters we need in 2018 and 2020?

I ask that because no question is more important than that in the next three years.

[DanTex]

143. Again, it's the same point as criticizing Trump or the GOP.

Let me ask you this. When you find posts criticizing Paul Ryan or Trump or whoever else here on DU, do you go around scolding people about how pointless it is to talk about Republicans on a Democratic website, because everyone here already agrees about them?

I don't think you do. So what is it about Jill Stein that causes you to do this?

[Ken Burch]

147. I don't give a damn about Jill Stein...personally, I think she's a "fucking moron".

It's not about protecting her. It's about what we should put most of our energies towards.

To me, the best approach is always to try to find ways to gain more votes, which can only be done by making our party's program more relevant to more people, rather than to spend time lashing out at things and people we can't change.

I also think we're more likely to cut into Stein's vote-which we're going to have to do in some way-by refraining from reactions that inspire a tribal, defensive response from Stein's voters.

That's also the reason that, while I agree with everyone who says that Bernie should not run again, that I think it's a bad strategy to demonize him. Bernie is a grown man and can take care of himself, but we need those of his supporters who did not vote for us, at least the ones who simply became non-voters because they felt the party told them to go to Hell in Philly, to engage with us. Our future lies, in my view, in blending in at least some of his ideas on economic issues and the need to challenge corporate power with our existing social justice agenda-an agenda that was never, despite the canards, in conflict with what Sanders advocated on economics. We can win if we can create some sort of alliance with that movement-I don't think we can win by totally snubbing it and then demanding that those in that movement vote for us anyway-and while I'll be pleading with them to do so even if we try that, I have to speak up now to point out that it's not the most effective approach for us.

None of what I post is loyalty to Stein or to her party's strategy or running pointless presidential campaigns.

I just think positive, enthusiasm-based campaign works for us-it's what elected Obama-while negative campaigning and demands that people vote for us don't.

[DanTex]

249. I'm not running a campaign here.

If you want someone to knock on the doors of Stein/Trump voters and treat them unlike the imbeciles they are, then I'm the wrong person. If you want to try to reason with them, be my guest. What I'm going to do is point out how destructive and insane the far left in this country continues to be.

Also, I don't see that specific policy issues make much difference to the outcome of campaigns. There are studies to back this, basically for most voters it's about things like tribalism and charisma. Even though far lefties like to pretend that it's about policy, this is just an illusion. I remember talking to Green types here on DU who would insist that the difference between 12 and 15 is enormous, but there's really not much difference between 12 and 0. We're not talking about rational human beings.

Truthfully, the difference between the parties on economic issues is already enormous, so it's just not credible to argue that the key to winning more votes is making that difference even more enormous. If differentiating the Dems from the GOP were what mattered, we would be winning in landslides.

[zentrum]

141. This is so bogus.

Wish this could stop.

[liberalnarb]

145. As annoying, opportunistic and disingenuous as Stein was

She’s not the reason trump is in the wh. She sure didn’t help, but she doesn’t have enough sway to have changed the outcome. Nader had a massive following, Stein does not.

[Alice11111]

151. I didn't know that Cornell West refused to vote for Hillary,

and I think your statement implies this. Did he?

[ucrdem]

160. Cornel West: Why I Endorse Green Partys Jill Stein Over Neoliberal Disaster Hillary Clinton

Cornel West is heading to Philadelphia next, where he will serve on the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee, but he has announced he won’t be backing the party’s presumptive nominee. West talks about why he is backing the Green Party’s Jill Stein over Hillary Clinton.

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/18/why_a_member_of_the_democratic

[Alice11111]

163. Thks for info. He just went to my shit list.

[ucrdem]

263. Imagine if all those months of Clinton-bashing had gone toward voter rights or election reform.

We might be in a different place.

[Alice11111]

313. So many ways we could have gotten to a different place,

so very, very close, but yet now so very, very far in an unimaginable place.

[KG]

158. I lulz'd

[davidmp]

167. I WAS BERNIE ALL THE WAY BUT...............

When the choice was Hillary or the idiot of course I voted for her!

[moriah]

201. Welcome to DU!

Until we have instant runoff voting, "voting your conscience" (for a person wanting a clear conscience) is ensuring at least one vote for the worst evil is cancelled out.

I support IRV because our founding fathers didn't want to see a two-party system. Even with ideological switches, we're overdue for another party system. It'd be nice if it could be one where people could rank preferences, and so those elected would have been ranked highly by a true majority of voters. And I don't think a strong Green party at the local, state, and then congressional levels, which is how you build parties, will hurt things if they won that true majority. It would allow other parties to attempt to build themselves.

I think even 2-3 liberal parties and 2-3 Conservative parties would still quickly form coalitions, but I do think since we're more used to compromise we can form a very effective left coalition. Conservatives arw already seeing their electorate is far more fractured than ours was -- the arguments amongst the many different groups under the "Conservative" umbrella suggest they really don't know how.

[Puzzledtraveller]

168. We do have a schism

but we do not want to address it.

[JustAnotherGen]

173. Rec'd earlier - commenting now

We can't forget this.

[4now]

177. Then we will continue to lose

Time to grow up.

[betsuni]

190. K&R

[McCamy Taylor]

191. I call them "Faux-Left"

[brer cat]

192. K&R x 1000

[Politicub]

199. Sarandon stands to profit handsomely from the tax bill

Her net worth is estimated to be $50,000,000. It’s in her self interest to do whatever she can to help the GOP.

Cornell West strikes me as more of an anarchist.

It’s anyone’s guess what Jill Stein’s deal is. Pathological narcissism perhaps?

[redixdoragon]

200. Blame the far-left, Bernie supporters, socialists, etc etc

And then after all your blame, all your finger pointing, who is going to be left to vote for your cause?!

[Dennis Donovan]

208. "Far-left" shaming is nonsense...

[Ferrets are Cool]

211. So? You are unwilling to admit that this election was stolen? And if it was stolen, how is it

ANY left's fault that we are in the state we are in?

[sadiegirl]

213. Oh, it was stolen, alright. But there was more than one thief.

And they know who they are.

[BlueWI]

217. Dividing Democrats

The time-tested and effective strategy of Russian bots and this OP.

This site needs a move on.org redux.

[Kimchijeon]

220. LOL "far left sabotage"

Keep thinking that, silly peasants! Yes, yes, bicker amongst yourselves.

Meanwhile the corporate oligarchy shall continue to merrily dismantle and sell off the assets of the USA, just like any old corporate hostile takover, just like the Chinese/Russian oligarchs love to do,

Yeah, suuuuure, blame some of the other peasants! Keep it up!

I guess it is fascinating, as a study in human behavior anyway. By the time people are really hurting to the level that they are ready to actually revolt (the poor/working class), the system is already in place to lock 'em up in corporate profit-prisons as 'terrorists'.

I can understand the human emotional tendency to engage in this kind of behavior, and also I realize that it's past the point of no return - as far as the dismantling/oligarchy ownership and control of the USA, we're fucked. It makes us feel better to blame easier targets because the ultimate realization of the horrible truth is just to much to bear.

It's not like we can easily solve this whole mess, most of us are just going to have to continue to scrape & scrap & keep our heads down, and just survive personally. Keep our friends and family safe, those that can afford or manage it, escape to a first world country.

Also hate to burst anyone's bubble but this shit has been fomenting for decades, Trump being installed just was a perfect storm to enable the dismantling/goodie grabs by the corporate shitbags. The head in the sand mentality helped 'em out.

I know it's not what you want to hear (the stuff the far left tends to say) but the truth hurts, doesn't it? It's much more comfy to pretend that "lets just GOTV, let's just play nice, let's just wait, no no don't protest, oh don't worry about that D candidates corporate donors, they are really wholesome and I trust 'em"... Yeah, that kind of roll over weak-ass mentality enabled the takeover, not the whistleblowers on the far left. They were just screaming some uncomfortable truths.

Bottom line is, the corporate oligarchy wanted to advance this shit, the current admin is the perfect distraction for their purposes. It's really too late to do much beyond emigrate or some horrific natural disaster we have to rebuild from. The shitbags at the helm aren't going to change the corrupt election system as it benefits them too well.

I just hope all of us can somehow survive long enough to see through this, just be educated about what is going on so we can work around it. Do what we can on a personal and local level, raise awareness at the least.

I totally understand the temptation, to want to attack and hate easier targets... and for saying "get over it," well personally I am more of the DGAF (Don't Give A Fuck) kinda Zen-esque mentality. Focusing your personal emotional energy on others who are also hurt in the whole dismantling of the USA and selling off its assets? Big Picture-wise, I feel it's a waste of my energy.

Kinda therapeutic to vent online though, so I totally am behind that. In real life I am very laid back and don't let this kinda shit mess me up. So for all here I just wanna say, I get it, I vent on here too.

At any rate, since I know I was babbling and probably hurt some one or another's fee fees, here is a Happy Santa Persian to soothe your grumpies LOL ?

[link:|

[diane in sf]

221. Thanks, couldn't say it better myself. I'm far more worried by oligarchs than leftists.

[DanTex]

237. It's great that you are well-off enough to be able to DGAF.

You and Susan Sarandon have that privilege in common. But for millions of people, that's not the case, and for them so the damage caused by the far left is real.

[Kimchijeon]

241. Far from it, lol

I am used to being skint, and scrapin' by. Having that mindset of zen-esque carryin' on and etc knows no income range. No use wasting my energy on negative and misdirected anger - I'm not one to be attacking fellow peasants.

We're all fucked, to some varying degree. This affects all of us.

[philly_bob]

224. Echo chamber hate thread.

[Progressive dog]

225. The far-left only supports the far-left.

They and the far-right are anti-democratic and in favor of rule by elite. That's why Putin and his ilk are popular with both.

[guillaumeb]

228. Any focus on the mythical "far left" misses the massive problem of

gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Russian influence on the GOP side, and the influence of money on both sides, and ineffective messaging and tactics on the part of the Democrats.

One cannot blame Susan Sarandon for the loss of over 1000 Democratic seats on a state level during the Obama Presidency.

One cannot blame Jill Stein for a focus on the mythical working class voter when 48% of voters were not inspired to even vote in 2016.

[snowy owl]

231. Well informed and well said. Thank you.

[guillaumeb]

233. Thank YOU.

It inspired me to post this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029917978

[democratisphere]

229. Agreed. We are where we are because of it.

Apparently he plans a repeat performance in 2020. Some just can't get enough of that campaign rally adoration. It must be intoxicating for them.

[snowy owl]

230. Amazing...

this post completely ignores the fact that many of those rust-belt state voters and southern voters would have voted Sanders over Trump but did not want another Clinton. Had an honest appraisal of two candidates running as Democrats happened instead of "personality politics" we might have a President Sanders today. I think we need to lose this sports mentality and get back to an honest intellectual assessment of candidates who can win. Perhaps some from the left-center should apologize for demeaning a Democrat at the time who had a viable chance at winning the Presidency and thus avoiding the debacle we see today.

[PDittie]

269. +1

[Baconator]

235. If you're waiting for everyone to shut up, get in line and quit being so goddamn disorderly...

I think you'll be waiting a long time.

Get a better message
Get a better candidate
Grow a healthier generation to take over (though God knows when that will happen)... Preferably no one who had a parent who was President
Don't vote for people who are so old they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions...
Vote out people who have been there so long as to meet the above category
Move forward and quit trying to fight the fight from 3 or 4 electoral cycles ago

That's how you win and grow

[DanTex]

236. LOL. "Being disorderly" is a peculiar euphemism for intentionally putting Trump into office.

[snowy owl]

257. Well said. :)

[YOHABLO]

238. So you are trying to find someone to blame?

Try directing your grievances towards those who were eligible to vote and didn't. Perhaps now they won't take what little we have left of what we call a ''democracy'' for granted. People in this country get what they vote for. Or in this case, what they used as an excuse to NOT vote

[jimlup]

239. I disagree

I think you picked the wrong boogie man.

Yes, the right is completely and totally unacceptable. Since the Republfucks can't govern we are going to have to learn to. Eventually it means building a consensus majority big enough to fully defeat and discredit them. On that day we will need the far left. "How can we bring them to our side?" is the question we should be asking IMO. Obama was able to do it - Hillary and Gore were not. (Though Gore was somewhat more successful than Hillary.) There was a reason for that. Sorry if it makes you feel bad but it is the truth. We are going to have to get over our devastating defeat in 2016 and pull it together. The nation depends on it.

It is wrong to single out the far left. I think some think we should have "had their votes" but I'm not sure we ever did regardless of candidate. If we had had an Obama maybe but someone like that only comes around once in 100 years or so.

[KPN]

258. I agree 100%. The last thing you or I and others should do in response to OPs like this

one is be quiet. That's exactly what the poster wants ... and will only lead to more of the same -- defeat in the future. I believe we WILL come back and take back the majority in the House and/or the Senate in 2018, and possibly the WH and Congress in its entirety in 2020, but it won't be because of posts like this one or those in the party who wish to muffle those who they see pejoratively as the "far left" and "populists". It will be because most Americans are rational and want a rational, mature and respectable government. But we damn well better get results that the American people by and large want or we'll be back here again shortly after. It's about responding to and supporting the needs of the working class with meaningful and lasting results.

[jimlup]

266. Bingo!

Very well said.

[seta1950]

244. Bravo

Very well said , it’s how I feel exactly.

[GaryCnf]

255. I don't recommend

therapy. I recommend reality recognition training. It wasn't leftist it was self-proclaimed "liberals" who gave us Iraq and Afghanistan and Citizens United by saddling Gore with centrist slaps in the face of important constituencies like the 1996 Crime Bill, NAFTA, and no major civil rights initiative in the prior 8 years and a Republican to be running mate.

[KPN]

259. Bravo!

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

265. Over? I think not!

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

271. I would not frame it as far vs. moderate left- many of us "far lefties" are also coalition builders

voting for Bernie in primary and then enthusiastically going on to support HRC.

How about simple-minded binary thinker vs. pragmatic.

Im old enough to remember Reagan vs Carter - another instance of left abandoning the nominee in a big way. Some were saying the same thing "itll get so bad the people will rise up and revolt."

Yeah right. History is full of examples of people so beaten down and subjugated that it takes many generations to recover - thats the more likely scenario.

[MountCleaners]

277. Thank you!

I happen to agree with the Green Party's positions on nearly EVERYTHING, but strongly disagree with their strategy. I'm a progressive Democrat and don't vote third party. To me, the "far left" are people who hold far left POSITIONS - i.e., extreme Marxist groups. There are Democrats in Congress who could be characterized as "far left" if we're calling Stein "far left". The problem is that these people don't have the balls to work within the Democratic Party. Calling people "far left" smacks of McCarthyism.

[honest.abe]

284. "simple-minded binary thinker vs. pragmatic"

Exactly.

[INdemo]

273. The corporate Dems drink and eat from the same trough as the Republicans

On Corporate paydays they stand in line with Republicans with their hands held out for the money and their marching orders
I have always referred to these Corporate Democrats as the Republican Lites..

As President Truman once said..to the effect "when Democrats act like Republicans the people will vote for the Republican every time"

A Democratic candidate cannot mingle with Republicans,give speeches for $200,000+ speaking fees and go around the block and tell the Union Workers that they are on their side.
People that are not ashamed be be called progressive will get the votes and the Candidate that is proud to be liberal will win elections.


I get so tired of hearing a Democrat must run from the center or center right in order to win......WRONG
For those candidates why not run as a Republican in the first place.

It will be interesting in 2020 when/if Elizabeth Warrens runs for President to see how those Republican Lites will act toward her and just how the Corporate Media will treat her..I suspect the same way they treated Bernie Sanders.

As a Progressive I am not ashamed to stand up to the damn Right Wing Radicals.
But what we have today in Congress are not Republicans but Fascists who would not give a damn if this Country moved toward a Dictatorship as long as it allowed them to keep their wealth or even gain more wealth.
It will take a Progressive Candidate and Progressives to rid Congress of these Fascists.

[honest.abe]

282. So I assume you defined Hillary as being "corporate" and refused to support her.

Thanks for helping give us the nightmare we are now in.

[INdemo]

292. I would not call her a progressive

Yes I would label Hillary Clinton a Corporatist but I did vote for her and contributed to her campaign.
So dont accuse me of giving us this nightmare.
You are so quick to Judge. With that attitude you can Thank Joe Biden for giving us Trump because he did not run largely because they, meaning the DNC and perhaps President Obama, might have discouraged him from running because it was "Hillary's turn."
Republicans had 30 years to plan their strategy against Hillary and Hillary actually said she made many mistakes in her campaign, She hired her advisers and Managers largely in part for their loyalty and not necessarily because of their expertise,which was as we know now was questionable.
Hillary didn't lose the election it was stolen.
Dont accuse me of contributing to this nightmare

President Obama won by such a huge margine Republicans had no chance of election theft.(2012) and he also had one of the best Camapign organizations in the History of Presidential Election.

Hillary raised millions and much of that came from corporations/Wall street..oh yes she got the individual contributions,but here are just a few of her top Corporate Contributors:
Top Contributors, federal election data for Hillary Clinton, 2016 cycle

This page shows a partial list of contributions grouped by contributor to the candidate's campaign committee plus any super PACs or hybrid PACs working on his or her behalf
Display: Federal data
Select source of funds: Campaign + Outside Groups
Contributor Total
Paloma Partners $21,613,800
Pritzker Group $16,626,207
Renaissance Technologies $14,040,200
Saban Capital Group $12,283,375
Newsweb Corp $11,016,642
Soros Fund Management $10,554,093
S Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace $6,008,215
Asana $6,005,556
Lone Pine Capital $5,015,300

Here is Bernie Sanders:
Sen. Bernie Sanders - Vermont • OpenSecrets
www.opensecrets.org › Politicians & Elections › Congress
21 rows · Sen. Bernie Sanders - Vermont. Share on Twitter; ... grand total of contributions Bernie …
•
RANK CONTRIBUTOR TOTAL INDIVIDUALS
1 American Postal Workers Union $15,000 $0
1 UNITE HERE $15,000 $0
3 Communications Workers of America $13,500 $0
4 National League of Postmasters $12,500 $0



http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/32165-comparing-hillary-clinton-s-top-donors-to-bernie-sanders-top-donors

[honest.abe]

296. In comparison to Trump she is a raging progressive.

That was the choice. Why any Democrat would have any doubts or second thoughts supporting her over Trump simply boggels the mind. Good you voted for her and donated.. but did you stop bad mouthing her and calling her a corporatist once she was our candidate?

[INdemo]

299. Well no one on nothing compares to Donald Trump except ________________ fill in the blank

Yes I did stop calling her a corporatist once she was a candidate. i voted for her and contributed to her campaign as I said..but did you notice she adapted many of Sanders Progressive issues after the primaries...in order to win over many of the Sanders supporters...
She did and she was very vocal about single payer healthcare even though she incorporated it with her proposals.
She adapted to raising the min. wage and several other progressive issues..

I thought she (well her campaign ) made a huge mistake by not going to the Rust belt in Ohio and PA and even Northwest Indiana
Union workers and blue collar workers were anxious to here her views but she did not show up
It was the Rust Belt that she lost and made those states (excluding Indiana) close enough they were able to steal the election

[INdemo]

293. I disagree. No the Bernie Supporters do no hate Elizabeth Warren

just ask me..I will be one of the first on her Bandwagon !!

And just how credible is that right wing leaning magazine you referenced. ...Not

[emulatorloo]

297. Paste magazine is not "right wing". Author of the article is a self-avowed progressive

I supported Bernie in the primary as well, but I remember Warren being smeared by a very loud contingent of Bernie or Busters.

The author is also a contributor to Salon and Huffintonpost.

[DanTex]

290. That is exactly the great lie paraded by Trump supporters dressed up as "progressives".

It's staggering that anyone still believes that after this latest vote on the tax bill, but alas some people still do.

You can use whatever silly words you want to insult Democrats, but your terminology doesn't matter. What matters is the actual policies that come out of congress. The Democrats you are insulting all voted against this tax bill. So the idea that Democrats "act like Republicans" is just plainly idiotic.

It's notable that in your tirade you didn't list any actual policies. Because the people pushing right-to-work, and destroying unions, are Republicans, not Democrats.

[Jakes Progress]

316. This is what the koch's and putin want to you think.

They are very grateful that their hard stolen money has been spent wisely. Propaganda works. The koch's grandpappy started playing with molding public mindset with carefully crafted lies at the turn of the last century.

What it takes to win elections is a group of activists who are aware of history - both recent and distant. If someone knows history, they will know that Democrats were losing elections steadily - indeed most of the political chatter was about the death of the Democratic party because they were so out of touch with Americans because of their socialist leanings - until Clinton and the third way. So if bush sr had won that election, do you really think we would be better off now? If mccain had beaten his third way opponent, would we be better off? Making progress means you have to get things done. Wishing won't get it.

You can toss out all the "gotta be radical left to win" crap that you want. History does not support your wishes.

[honest.abe]

280. Totally agree and its troubling that many still are unwilling to admit their mistake.

They were dead wrong about Hillary and now we are all paying the price for their ignorance.

[Eliot Rosewater]

322. Yeppers

[still_one]

281. that is the issue Dan, many of those that refused to vote for the Democratic nominee against

Last edited Sun Dec 3, 2017, 02:07 PM - Edit history (1)

trump, even after seeing what it has resulted in, proudly say they would do the same thing again

Of course the reason why it is so difficult for those who did vote for the Democratic nominee to NOT "move on", is because they are constantly reminded what a disaster this is, not only by the almost daily draconian agenda pushed by trump and the republicans, but by the Stein's and Sarandon's continued comments on the LIE that there is no difference between republicans and Democrats.

As you alluded to in your OP, 2000 was where they impacted the results, and expressed no remorse then. The stakes were much higher in 2016, because of the Supreme Court, and those that refused to vote for the Democratic nominee are responsible for Gorsuch being in there.

The reality is that the Sarandon's and Stein's will never change, because for them it is all or nothing, no matter who gets hurt.

It is probably not productive to waste any more energy trying to convince them otherwise.

Noam Chomsky said it best:

Noam Chomsky: Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a ‘bad mistake’

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

[Willie Pep]

295. Thank you for posting that link to the Chomsky interview.

Sadly people like Susan Sarandon cannot be reasoned with no matter if Chomsky or some other distinguished left-winger explains this to them. Adolph Reed, another left-wing critic of Clinton, made similar points before the election but it was a big waste of time since the people he was trying to convince don't look at voting rationally or strategically. For them voting is all about stroking their ego. A candidate must agree with them on everything before they will vote for them. Does anything else in life work like this? Everything in life from work to interpersonal relationships requires compromise at times.

[still_one]

303. exactly Willie

[yurbud]

294. When in human history has insulting people won their vote?

[yurbud]

300. Do centrist Democrats take this approach with their big donors too?

[emulatorloo]

301. AFAIK you never recc'd up Putin propaganda or advocated Bernie or Bust or voting for Trump

So this thread isn't about you. Or about any DU'er for that matter. I don't understand the freak out over criticism of Bernie or Busters.

Additionally keep in mind DanTex is just another anonymous messageboard poster, just like you and me. That is he doesn't speak for the Democratic Party. He speaks for himself.

Do you believe BOBs and folks with similar mindsets can be persuaded to vote Democratic? If so, how?

I am not sure but would like to think so. What are your ideas?

[yurbud]

302. by offering more progressive candidates with progressive track records.

things have stagnated for the middle class, and Democrats don't do enough to fix it when they have the opportunity even in deep blue states like California.

Case in point: our legislature passed single payer twice when Arnold was governor, but now that we have a Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor, they make excuses for not doing it.

That makes it seem like their past failed progressive actions were token efforts to win our votes rather than real attempts to change things.

[emulatorloo]

304. Thanks. More progressive candidates is the right thing for the country

However I lurk at Reddit and read the Bernie or Bust dominated subs, and they find fault with anyone who a) isn't Bernie b) didn't endorse Bernie in 2016. I see the same thing on Twitter. They still peddle CT theory about Democrats. I hate to think they are a lost cause, but they may well be.

[yurbud]

305. it's not a conspiracy theory to look at politicians' track records and donors

[emulatorloo]

307. What part of Pizzagate and DNC killed Seth Rich are "politicians track records and donors".

You know what Conspiracy theories are.

That you would insinuate I think examining politicians voting records is CT is ridiculous.

[yurbud]

310. ah! I didn't think there were any Democrats who believed that.

[yurbud]

306. What would count as "Putin propaganda"?

He's the leader of a country whose interests sometimes conflict with those of our financial elite.

Whether he has a good record on human rights or democracy is immaterial to our foreign policy, or we wouldn't be allies with Saudi Arabia and other countries worse than Russia.

It looks like there is some evidence Trump sought their help in the election and probably stronger evidence of them giving him financial incentives for him to remove sanctions.

I hope we remove Trump.

But I am almost as concerned about what our foreign policy will be once he is gone.

If Pence is on the same page as the financial elite on foreign policy, we could snap right back to the darkest days of the Bush administration.

If Russia did help him, we need a cold-eyed look at why they would do so, and not just scare-mongering.

We have the largest military in the world, and the means to burn any country off the map with nukes. For a country with a much smaller military and economy to mess with our internal affairs, they must have what they think is a very compelling reason. If there are ways to accommodate Russia without jeopardizing our security, we should do so.

Letting the neocons run wild in Central Asia, Central Europe, and the Middle East doesn't help and it cost us a lot of money that would be better spent at home.

[emulatorloo]

308. Anti-Democratic shit from Russia Today. Posted up and rec'd up.

Please, you are not that naive.

[yurbud]

309. so Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, and Lee Camp are Russian dupes?

In the case of Schultz, why would a guy who was fired from an American network for telling the truth, buckle under if a foreign network, probably paying much less, tried to make him spew propaganda.

[emulatorloo]

311. Stop putting words in my mouth. I did not refer to Hartman, Camp, or Shultz nor did I have them in

mind. I am a Hartmann fan, and Hartmann is in no way shape or form a Bernie or Buster or purveyor of conspiracy theory.

You never struck me as someone who argues in bad faith or resorts to cheap rhetorical tactics. I'm just going to assume someone hijacked your account today.

[snowy owl]

312. Hartmann was and is a fan of Sanders.

[yurbud]

314. Sorry, I'm trying to figure out exactly what you mean. Those are most

of the people from that network I listen to, and some have attacked them for even working there.

[Kentonio]

321. I have a theory on part of that

If Russia did help him, we need a cold-eyed look at why they would do so, and not just scare-mongering.

We have the largest military in the world, and the means to burn any country off the map with nukes. For a country with a much smaller military and economy to mess with our internal affairs, they must have what they think is a very compelling reason. If there are ways to accommodate Russia without jeopardizing our security, we should do so.

Years ago Putin gave a speech where he talked about Russias inability to match the US on nuclear advances/military spending. He clearly remembered why they lost the cold war. He said that instead of fighting a battle they couldn't win, they'd instead look for different ways to fight those battles. I believe that what we're seeing now with the electoral interference and cyber warfare is exactly what he was referring to back then.

[LeftyMom]

315. The only developed democracies with less of a "far left" than our tiny one are tilting hard right.

You're afraid of the wrong people.

[OrwellwasRight]

323. +1

[JHan]

318. Not a chance of them admitting to it.

I don't mean for them to just say that the tax bill is a travesty. I'm sure they're going to be all over media saying "the GOP has just sold out our nation to the top fraction of a percent," hoping that their feigned outrage will hide their complicity. The GOP did sell us out, but the did it with the direct help of the Greens, BoBs, and their sympathizers.

No chance of them doing this because RIGHT NOW on Twitter these idiots are blaming Democrats for the tax bill or cynically spinning the position of certain Democrats. Case in point:

Maggie Hassan tweeted this:

Link to tweet

In a sweet bit of misdirection, The Intercept's Jon Schwarz? pretends Senator Hassan only tweeted about the deficit.

Link to tweet

If only he were the only one. Variations of this type of thinking is all over Rose twitter where insane people think Democrats could have changed the quorum by osmosis. You'd think 51-49 meant 51 Democrats voted for the tax bill.

They're either unaware or don't care that Republicans used special rules to prevent Democrats using the filibuster - No surprises since of many of them are unaware of basic parliamentary procedures in the senate.