United we stand, Divided we fall.

[Eko]

If us, the left of the left, the progressive of the progressive, the core of the Democratic party cant even rally behind each other why on earth do you believe the rest of the country can? We don't have to all be for Clinton or Sanders, but we could damn well support each other instead of trying to tear each other down. What an example to set for the rest of the country with our infighting and smears and attributing positions that were not taken,,, the outright insanity and stupidity displayed is appalling. We should actually be better than the republicans, not just on the right side but our actions and reasons for being so should be better. I was telling a friend that we aren't different in our methodology than the right, just that we back the better ideas. Maybe that is the way the world is, if so it is very disappointing. When you do things like call Sanders a socialist or Clinton a war monger to get your point across, you are not in my party at all.

[cantbeserious]

1. This Revolt Has Been Building For Years - The DWS, DNC, DLC, Third-Way Has Only Themselves To Blame

eom

[Eko]

2. When you can only find blame

in others, you are not looking at yourself at all.

[cantbeserious]

7. Your Opinion Only - Others See The World Differently

eom

[Eko]

10. apparently.

[lovemydog]

11. 'Ask not what your country can do for you.

Ask what your can do for your country.' - JFK

[cantbeserious]

12. Vote For Bernie

eom

[Eko]

16. Yes I will,

But there is a more nuanced position being discussed here.

[cantbeserious]

22. Progressives Are Not To Blame For Years Of Corporate Pandering By Party Leadership

eom

[Eko]

28. If you think there is a system

somewhere that does not have problems I am open. That doesnt mean we have to make them worse it means we have to make it better. I can stand policy differences but I think using smears is very unproductive.

[cantbeserious]

36. Your Opinion Only - Others See The World Differently

eom

[Eko]

40. Is this a recording?

[cantbeserious]

42. Seems The Message Is Not Being Received

eom

[Eko]

45. You are totally

correct, I in no way think that other will or may think different than I do. If you missed my sarcasm let me be frank, Sarcasam.

[cantbeserious]

48. Some Don't Do Sarcasm When The Fate Of America Is At Stake

eom

[Eko]

57. for someone

who cant be serious you are nothing but serious.

[cantbeserious]

59. Touch - On Guard

eom

[Eko]

62. Ha,,,,

touche.

[Eko]

13. Thanks!!

[bobbobbins01]

25. Your message seems to be...

Come together in peace and harmony or I will brow beat you until you do.

[Eko]

31. How am I

brow beating anyone that is in our party?

[bobbobbins01]

34. Try some introspection.

I'm sure if you think really hard, you can figure it out.

[Eko]

39. Ok.

I thought about it and you still offer nothing of substance.

[bobbobbins01]

53. The irony of your posts is what makes this thread so much fun.

You call for unity, then alienate.

You call for someone to look at themselves, yet can't seem to grasp your own shortcomings.

And after all that you say I'm the one offering nothing of substance.

[Eko]

58. I do as best as I can to find my own shortcomings

and am open to hear them from others, so go ahead I look forward to it.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

82. Oh, get over yourself.

[cali]

3. I don't care how you comport yourself. I care how the campaigns do.

[Eko]

5. sure,

end justifies the means.

[bobbobbins01]

20. So you're pro-torture?

Because that's the same justification for that.

[Eko]

32. pretty sure

I was being sarcastic.

[bobbobbins01]

4. The fish rots from the head.

Its hard to stand united when one campaign is wielding race as a weapon. individual supporters may squabble, that is expected, but it is clear that the Sanders campaign has the higher ground.

[Eko]

8. Sorry,

The guts actually rot first.

[bobbobbins01]

18. And yet the corruption is still there.

If only fixing metaphors actually solved real problems. We'd be hugging it out right now.

[Eko]

41. The guts

mean the people in the party. Metaphor.

[bobbobbins01]

55. So you're saying the supporters are the problem?

Not the leadership? Because its pretty clear that the leadership is what is making unity impossible.

[Eko]

60. Both are at fault.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

83. It is saying both sides are to blame.

Which, of course, is bullshit.

[dana_b]

6. you're right

I'm not in your party. I AM a DINO - just here for Bernie. Otherwise I'd be an independent or a Green party member.

And the poster above me is right. This is the fault of the Democratic leadership. They SUCK!!

[Eko]

9. Then,

if you are not in my party you are welcome to go away.

[bobbobbins01]

14. Its not your party.

And your call for civility and joining forces got ugly pretty quickly. I thought it was about unity, but apparently its about falling in line.

[Eko]

19. Well,

since you said it was not your party I did not think it wrong to ask you to leave.

[bobbobbins01]

23. I said no such thing. I'm defending another poster, because that is unity.

Maybe you should practice what you preach.

[dana_b]

29. Thank you!!

[Eko]

33. Sorry,

replies are coming faster than I can type. I apologize.

[dana_b]

26. I think you meant this for me

FYI - I used to be a real Dem, for about 20 years. But the stuff that party has pulled and the way that they treat the left is what turned me away. But I'm hoping that Bernie can help.

[dana_b]

15. Ahhh.. you mad??

Sorry - I choose to stay, thanks. Not until Bernie is out. If he becomes President, I'm here for good!!

[cali]

17. How foolish. There are more independents than dems in this country

You really seem remarkably clueless

[Eko]

21. Yes,

Because somewhere I said that,,,, hmm, where was that,

[cali]

27. You told an independent to go away because they are an independent

[Eko]

35. It's not

independent underground nor conservative underground.

[cali]

38. Lol.

[dana_b]

43. I'm not a conservative and there are many, many independents here

just though you should know. I'll bet that some have been Dems in the past too.

[Eko]

49. Well, Ill post something else

about bringing independents into the party, but this was about the Democratic party and if you are here in name only we can talk later.

[cali]

50. Bwahahaha. Clueless.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

84. It is craving attention.

[dana_b]

52. okay - got it.

enjoy your conversation.

[Eko]

66. I apologize,

for some reason I thought I was talking to democrats,,,,, not sure why I thought that,,,, my bad.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

85. Why do you use commas as ellipses?

[Kittycat]

88. You're getting rediculous

Have you stopped to realize that many indies stand where they are because our party has moved so far right? If the third way continues this push, we WILL be the Reagan republicans wrapped in blue. DWS is already doing a fine job supporting republicans over dems, even proving that point. So yes, many of us will be left standing without our party of we don't pull it back.

I don't take well to the pandering lies, to only have the candidate be caught saying the exact opposite, either. Forget that crap. I'm smarter than that. So yes, Bernie - or it's time that a lot of us will be looking at a serious decision of what our party is exactly.

[lovemydog]

24. That's precisely my main interest in reading

& participating here. I'm fascinated by the left (of which I'm a part) and I've worked locally to help get true leftists and progressives elected. I truly hope the energy and idealism so evident in this primary season is translated into more leftist congressional, state and local success. We need it all across the board and we need to build on these foundations. I know that some younger people will emerge and start shaping the tone and politics that are much more inclusive both socially and economically. That is happening in my area and I know it can happen in other areas when people get and stay involved (even if they also occasionally feel incredibly frustrated, and rightly so, by the establishment).

[jillan]

30. How unfortunate it is that the Dem party has

Told half of its supporters that we are racist and are going to hell. Oh yes. And told that we are retarded by the president's chief of staff.

[Eko]

37. The other half

are war mongers and corportists, this stuff is not good on either side.

[cali]

44. Hill is a neocon.

[bobbobbins01]

51. And a corporatist.

I don't see much to Unite around in her.

[bobbobbins01]

47. If only there was a candidate who didn't play dirty that we could vote for.

Maybe then the democratic base would find this unity you so desperately want. Rallying around someone unprincipled just because they're in the same party isn't wise. It stops becoming about what is best for the country and just turns into sports. If I wanted that, I could just watch football.

[Eko]

54. Well,

I never said we should rally around Clinton did I? She has her problems, but calling her a neocon or a war monger or a lackey of wall street is not good for our party unity, these things are opinion. Same as calling Sander a racist or socialist are, policy is good to debate, when you inject opinion it goes downhill fast as evidenced here.

[bobbobbins01]

61. Yours is a party pledge...rally around whoever the nominee is.

Calling her what she is is good for the party. It shows that the party actually has the backbone to stand up for what it believes. She is a neocon and owned by wall street. Sanders is not a racist and has no issues with being called a socialist. Facts are what we should unite around, blind support helps no one.

[Eko]

63. I dont believe I said that.

But I do remember where she called for cutting corporate taxes, getting rid of the estate tax, attacking Iran, enabling offshore tax havens, getting rid of any regulations on big banks. Look, all I said is we should use policy differences to debate the best candidate and not opinions and you did the exact opposite. I guess you win.

[bobbobbins01]

65. I agree...it should all be about policy.

But when one side is dishonest, its hard to find any middle ground. Especially when one side adopts whatever policy will win votes, and has no qualms about rat-fucking. You can't ask two sides to come together when one is denigrating the other and shows no signs of stopping.

[Eko]

67. Once again

you insert opinions, dishonest, no qualms, denigrating, those are opinions not policies.

[Kittycat]

90. Please tell me

You watched the 13min clip of her lying or "contradicting" herself on those issues, and read her own emails lobbying politicians to support trade deals she promised unions she would support.

And btw- Bernie is a Democratic Socialist. The word Socialist isn't a bad word. I happen to wish our education and healthcare system was half as good most developed countries. Maybe someday.

[Kittycat]

89. And there isn't anything she hasn't lied to us about that

Isn't easy caught on tape. She even lies and weasels about lying. Smh.

[That Guy 888]

46. Hillary fights dirty only against the Democratic Left; manipulative appeals for unity...

are undermined by her actions(she is ultimately the person in charge of her 90's style campaign).

Sanders says straight up that he's a Socialist. That's only an insult to centrist who live in fear of reagan.

Does Clinton tell us that she's a warmonger??? Just by her actions.

[Eko]

64. He is not a socialist

he is a democratic socialist, big difference.

[That Guy 888]

74. Not really

Only in reaganland does socialist = communist.

Why do you think Clinton giggled when she talked about the death of Quaddafy?

[Eko]

76. So

democratic socialist is not that different than socialist?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

86. There is no difference.

In fact, it's redundant. At least to anarchist (and some Marxists), socialism is inherently democratic. No need for the qualifier.

[jfern]

56. The Hillary campaign is divide and conquer politics

[oh08dem]

68. Well I can say as a Bernie supporter -- this time it's different.

I understand why Clinton governed the way he did... At the time it was important to get a democrat in the White House after years of being shut out of the executive branch, not pleasing to true progressives, but I understood.

Then came Obama. He talked the talk, but has been hit and miss on the legislative side, again I can forgive him given the circumstances. To his credit though, he has been more progressive than his democratic predecessor in tone and in policy.

Now we're tasked with voting for.... Hillary? Something doesn't add up in the, what I thought, was the forward thinking democratic party. Hillary is more of a step to the side or a step backwards, and the party seems hell bent on force feeding her to public never mind the fact that changing her public image is virtually impossible.

Her presence has stifled any growth or enthusiasm in our party because it seems pre-ordained, and it certainly has limited the number of potential candidates to chose from. If she cared at all for the party and for Obama's legacy she would've stepped aside realizing her window has closed, and it's time for the next crop of suitors with new ideas.

[Eko]

69. Wow, someone who actually wants to talk.

Thanks. I agree, it seems a side step or a backward step, maybe the party thinks that Sanders is too radical to win the GE, I think differently, I think Sanders can win. If she and the DNC think Sanders cant win then they are doing what they think is best and I don't fault them for that, any party entrenched will go for the safe win, but we need the explosive win of Sanders.

[oh08dem]

78. That's the insular culture of the current DNC

Playing not to lose isn't a sound strategy, neither is waiting with bated breath for the other party to stumble over their own feet. The DNC and Hillary are telling us essentially wait for something to happen.

Want a better wage? Wait for it to happen.
Want a less predatory financial sector? Wait for it to happen.
Want prison reform? Wait for it to happen.

Well the iron has never been hotter, at least not in the last three decades, what are we waiting for? Let's MAKE it happen.

[stone space]

70. When you equate socialism with war mongering, you turn me off, regardless of my affiliation.

When you do things like call Sanders a socialist or Clinton a war monger to get your point across, you are not in my party at all.

If I call somebody a war monger, that's an insult, pretty much on par with my calling them an ammosexual.

Not so when I call somebody a socialist.

[Eko]

72. I dont equate either

except as smears people are using against our candidates that are not true. Sanders is a Democratic socialist.

[stone space]

73. Would "war monger" be softened sufficiently by changing it to "Democratic war monger"?

Sanders is a Democratic socialist.

[Eko]

77. Thats pretty funny.

Good point, I think she is a war monger as Sanders is a socialist, which neither are but have some of the attributes.

[EdwardBernays]

71. Clinton is a hawk and has deep ties to weapons manufacturers.

and her campaign is at least partially funded by weapons manufacturers... in fact her campaign chairman owns a massive lobbying firm that represents major weapons manufacturers. And her foundation has takes millions and millions from weapons manufacturers. And her family has made millions in speaking fees from weapons manufacturers.And while SOS she GREATLY increased the amount of weapons being sold to authoritarian regimes, some of which are already being used to kill civilians.

Pretending that isn't true isn't smart.

[Eko]

75. The SOS thing is kind of funny

as she was under orders from the current president. As for the campaign chairman owns a lobbying firm that represents weapons manufactures that is them, not her, still not cool though. Foundation takes money from them? what do they use the money for? Well, she is responsible for what her family does right? SOS under orders from the president.

[EdwardBernays]

79. It's not them

She chose him and she let's him speak for her campaign in the national media.

If all she is is a puppet for Obama is being SOS any sort of "experience"? The fact is that Obama fundraises and hires the same lobbyists and has the exact same issues - which goes a long way towards explaining why the US and Saudi Arabia are committing war crimes in Yemen, with US weapons. As she says - she'll continue his legacy of pouring billions of weapons into the hands of authoritarian regimes and committing war crimes, and surrounding herself with lobbyists.

She's taken hundreds of grand from the same lobbying firm (the other co-owner of the lobbying firm is one of her top bundlers)

She called her 29 Billion dollar weapons deal to Saudi Arabia - another client of that same lobbying firm btw - a "personal priority"

That same guy was "Special Council" to Obama and Chief of Staff in the Clinton White House. All while owning that lobbying firm.

Her husband took 250,000 from Boeing around the same time as she was pitching Boeing weapons around the world.

Another lobbyist for Boeing was a well known aide to Bill Clinton. She also has run Hillary fundraisers.

The Foundation work has been called into question NUMEROUS times: google Clinton Giustra. It's not pretty.

Even a Boeing shareholder publicly complained that it looked awful, this relationship, and was putting the company at risk.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/13/clinton-facing-new-ethics-questions-on-role-in-boeing-deal.html

[Eko]

80. Yes well

If this president is a war monger then you have lost me. Also guilty before proving innocent, its not like the republicans have been pushing smears at her for decades. Maybe we should believe them.

[EdwardBernays]

81. He's not the same kind of war monger that your used to, but

Last edited Sun Feb 21, 2016, 08:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Did he not attack Libya?

Has he not increased the number of drones strikes exponentially? Including numerous bombings in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq, Libya and Syria - at the very least?

And the amount of arms deals to authoritarian regimes?

Is the US not currently involved in war crimes in Yemen?

Did the US not try and stop a UN investigation into those crimes?

Has he not allowed the CIA to arm groups in Syria?

And on and on.

It's sad that Americans see this and think, what a peaceful President... I guess we're just so desensitized to the endless killing of civilians, that unless we put 300,000 soldiers somewhere we just assume we're not fighting wars. We are fighting wars, we are killing civilians on a daily basis, and we are arming and facilitating the use of our weapons in conflicts in numerous countries.

AND

Those weapons manufacturers, and their lobbying firms, have been funding our party's campaign for years and years and years.

[barbtries]

87. amen

one of the few posts since the Nevada caucus that I won't be trashing. yet.