How have so many forgotten that the Democratic Party...

[MirrorAshes]

imperfect as it may be, is our last line of defense against an army seeking to destroy all the progress we've made as a country?

Frankly, it doesn't matter who our candidate is as long as they are a true dem. We are fighting an enemy bankrolled by billionaires who seek to:

-roll back social progress
-deny climate change
-destroy our economy
-turn Americans against eachother

etc etc etc. The list goes on.

Any so called "progressive" must understand what the stakes are. The republicans are not going away. I don't understand how any of these "never Hillary" people sleep at night.

[lovemydog]

1. I don't understand it either.

Regardless of what they call themselves (progressive seems the terms lately) they are anything but if they are actively seeking to depress the vote for democrats.

As you say, republicans aren't going away.

We need all the votes we can get!

[MirrorAshes]

7. Exactly... we need every vote, to lose would be catastrophic

It's as if some (and I'm not talking anyone in particular, just the mindset in general) are so focused on their pet issues they forget that we are fending off barbarians at the gate.

Before the primary season I thought the whole thing would be a breeze, because it was so clear how high the stakes were with the SCOTUS in the balance. And beyond that, climate change. Why would anyone ever risk letting a republican back into the White House when it would mean the science-deniers would win. It's only the fate of our entire species at risk.

It's baffling, and rage-inducing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. I really don't think anyone has forgotten. ...

I think it's more some got wrapped up in an emotional investment. I suspect come the Fall, people will be on board ... if for no other reason ... trump!

[Hortensis]

35. Agree. Also, the Dem Party is the FIRST line of defense.

So much is done that most of us, coming in for the denouement, or finale, really don't think about. There are no candidates to vote for, no proposed laws to support, without sometimes hundreds, even thousands of hours of work, years of preparation, that come before.

And, of course, let's remember that liberals, who formed the first iteration of the Democratic Party, were the ones who won the first, critical battle to create this nation on liberal principles, rather than conservative. Then, now, and the two centuries in between, we defend our own principles against those who do not believe in them.

[Scuba]

3. If we don't remain vigilant, those billionaires might try a leveraged buyout of our party!

[baldguy]

6. "Remaining vigilant" doesn't include attacking your allies.

[Scuba]

10. But being alert for infiltrators is part of being vigilant.

[baldguy]

14. Yet any "infiltrators" targeted always seem to be loyal Dems who've worked decades for the party.

While those doing the accusing are often newcomers who want the entire party apparatus to cater to their every whim, and are happy to promote any RW lie that comes along as long as it makes Dems look bad.

[JaneyVee]

15. Nailed it.

[Hortensis]

34. Yes, except Scuba is very committed to

this orientation. Answering ONLY strengthens Scuba's voice, otherwise changes nothing. Something to think about?

[Scuba]

16. The infiltrators are easily spotted. They're the ones promoting conservative ideas.

[baldguy]

20. Like wishing for the indictment fairy?

[Scuba]

22. Nah, party infiltrators didn't want an indictment.

[baldguy]

23. Riiiiiiight ... you go with that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. Sadly ... Spot on.

[MaggieD]

4. Meh, the professional left love a good circular firing squad

Nothing new there. It's what they do. I've seen it over and over again in my years of political activism. Who knows why they attack progressives instead of the real problem. IMO they are a constant extra obstacle to moving the agenda forward, but it is what it is.

[seabeyond]

5. What I have found over the years with Obama, is ignoring all progress forward. That is how

so many have seemed to forget. They are not interested in accomplishments. Just chaos and destruction.

[HereSince1628]

8. So we have to fight an enemy backed by big money???

Is this another post re-fighting the primary season?

The candidate that was urging rejection of big money and the billionaires didn't come in with the most delegates.

[MirrorAshes]

9. No, it's not about re-fighting anything

It's about why the Democratic Party is important. Flawed, but essential. But none of its flaws can't be fixed internally. This is inclusive of Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters. We are all part of the last line of defense against a monster that is very very real. This post is about remembering the big picture, that's all.

[HereSince1628]

11. The greedy big money enemy seems to be at the heart of your post

And your reply above is simply more confusing.

If the Party can't fix things from the inside, like it's reliance on big money, just what force outside the Party would fix that?

The argument is and has been Sanders -is- an outsider, not a true dem. He ran against the big money billionaires trying to do all those things you mention in your OP.

His candidacy was rejected by a majority of voters participating in the primary contests.

[MirrorAshes]

21. Sorry, I'm a bit sleep deprived. To clarify:

No matter how much "big money" influences our party, the republicans will always have more. The point I was actually trying to make is that those kind of reforms should absolutely happen, but, frankly, they take a back seat to winning, because we can't afford to lose.

It's not a very nuanced argument. It's just... We, the Democratic Party, are the only ones keeping the republicans at bay, and we ought never forget or take for granted the damage they will do to all of us if we don't stand together against them.

[HereSince1628]

24. Yes, I would agree your post does fit

what you identify as "not very nuanced argument".

But it is nuanced a bit. The standard us good them bad argument doesn't allow for us having flaws. Your argument isn't so simple. For you it's "us, even with our flaws, which we can't fix from inside, is better than them".

But, it seems at odds with itself, because among "our" party's flaws is the reality that billionaire's big money is still sought by democratic politicians.

To think that the big money is given with no expectations isn't so much not very nuanced as it seems naïve. Even Barney Frank thinks that's not credible.

[MirrorAshes]

25. Well, I believe it can be fixed from "inside."

It's pretty easy to tell where you're trying to take this discussion, though, and that was not the discussion I intended to start. I believe we can be introspective, be honest about our flaws and do what we can to sort them out. But I'm not going to tank the election just because it doesn't all get done immediately and exactly the way we'd like.

We must be resolute in our duty to keep republicans out of the White House. That's all this was about.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. I agree; but, those aggitating for sudden and vast change, refuse to be on the inside ...

probably because, like most organizations, change comes slowly.

[HereSince1628]

29. I'm only looking at what you wrote.

I understand that you were writing an us vs them post. It excuses the flaws in our politicians, even when they are much the same flaws we condemn in our opponents' politicians.

Your position seems to be that our limited job as democratic leaning voters is to vote against and defeat republican candidates.

Your position doesn't extend to calling for our party to watch the path it is on, or for making sure that our party is doing what is good for our nation beyond defeating republicans.

That certainly removes the need for much nuance.

[MirrorAshes]

31. Fair enough. I appreciate everything you're saying.

And yes, this particular post does lack nuance. As was intended.

Your position seems to be that our limited job as democratic leaning voters is to vote against and defeat republican candidates.

Not our only job, but job number one, yes. Because should we fail at that, none of the rest of it really matters, does it?

I'm off now, cheers.

[HereSince1628]

32. I think that's inherently flawed position based on Dems always better mythology

But I understand cheerleading is meant to effect emotion rather than cognition.

[MirrorAshes]

17. No, it's really not, but think whatever you want. Also,

I specifically mentioned the "never Hillary" crowd. Not Bernie supporters in general. This post is about the importance of the Democratic Party as a whole, not any individual candidate.

[CBHagman]

12. I'm getting ready to tell people this election season that the climate issue alone is reason...

...enough to think very, very carefully about voting strategy. We already know what the Republicans want to do there, and anything that works in their favor, including splitting voting blocs or depressing turnout, is a blow against the environment.

[baldguy]

18. The climate issue alone is reason enough to support Democrats & oppose Republicans.

The Supreme Court alone is reason enough to support Democrats & oppose Republicans.

The economy alone is reason enough to support Democrats & oppose Republicans.

The civil rights issues alone are reason enough to support Democrats & oppose Republicans.

etc

etc

etc

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. +1 ... Any issue Democrats stand for is reason enough, in my book ...

the differences are just that vast.

[MirrorAshes]

19. I've been saying that from the start

I'm not a single-issue voter, but climate change does trump (ugh, sorry) everything else. There won't be much left to argue over if the republicans get their way.

[CobaltBlue]

33. There is a lot of distrust within the party