Bernie's endorsed HRC...nobody here supports any third-party candidates...

[Ken Burch]

There is no reason for anyone here to post any further OP's baiting and attacking the left.

Doing so hurts the party AND our nominee, Secretary Clinton.

The only way we can be sure to win in the fall is reconciliation and unity among all.

No one still posting here is the enemy.

[still_one]

1. you are right Ken

[beachbumbob]

2. Our goal is to elect HRC....take back congress....and rid ourselves of

The NRA controlling our safety.....this is the time....

[Ken Burch]

3. And the way to do that is to run an inspiring, POSITIVE campaign

on the best things we stand for.

We need to win by trying to get people to vote FOR our candidate.

[GoneOffShore]

12. Hope we do that. However, mud will be slung. Particularly in the local races.

[SCVDem]

51. Positive Vs. Republican

I could list the differences but this is DU. We know what they are.

Let's just end this with this; Donald Trump disses a sitting Supreme. At the moment he is a minnow in the scheme of things.

RGB delivered her first amendment right to freely speak.

The worst is the Turtle going insane over BLM and calling out our President. Fuck Him!

He plotted to bring down this President from day one! Him and his group of treasonous bastards.

Explain yourself douche!

[Ken Burch]

62. I didn't say don't go after Trump.

n/t.

[SCVDem]

65. Sorry! Not my intent.

Maybe

Trump just pisses me off.

[Ken Burch]

66. And rightfully so. n/t.

[msongs]

4. its a message board. people post messages. skinner is the decider on what can be posted. nt

[pnwmom]

5. How do you explain why some members here are also members of a Hillary hate site?

[sheshe2]

8. Interesting question, nt

[Raine1967]

23. I suggest Ignore.

and I really do mean it.

people are allowed to be members of other websites and still be members here at DU. I am going to put those members of a hate site on ignore.

if others do, they will have less influence here.

[nolawarlock]

55. Thank you!

[Ken Burch]

63. What people do on other sites is not our primary concern.

If they bash HRC on here, go after them.

If they openly campaign for other parties here, go after them.

We don't need to drive anyone else away.

[Squinch]

82. You really need to quit lecturing people on their comportment. And quit trying to censor discussion

here.

[GusBob]

6. Lol poster just got hidden

Sad he or she was voting for Jill Stein.

There is a reason they have the support Democrats rule

[retrowire]

7. How about....

No one is the enemy, and we're all a bunch of American citizens that need to work together?

Or you know... We could just say fuck that and fight some more.

[DanTex]

9. I don't see why criticizing Johnson or Stein is a big deal.

Particularly Stein, who's only plausible objective is to siphon votes off of Hillary in order to get Trump elected. She's every bit as crazy as Gary Johnson, but at least Johnson takes votes from Trump at least as much as from Hillary, but Stein's campaign is a pure pro-Trump effort. It's not surprising that GOP supporters have run pro-Green ads in the past and even funded efforts to get Green party candidates on ballots.

[Pharaoh]

19. How can you say her campaign is pro trump?

You brought her up, not me, but I am curious which of her positions are pro trump?

[DanTex]

22. What can her candidacy possibly accomplish except for electing Trump?

She went to Harvard and has an MD, she's not totally braindead. So she knows she can't possibly win, and she knows she's taking votes from Hillary and not Trump. And so she knows the only effect she can have is to help Trump get elected.

Her positions are totally irrelevant because everyone including her knows she will never get anywhere near elected office where she could actually implement those positions. They are just a means of propaganda that she uses in order to take votes away from Hillary for the benefit of Trump.

[TheFarseer]

26. It can get matching funds for the greens next cycle

If they get 5%. Not that I'm on board with that, just throwing it out there since you asked.

[DanTex]

28. So in addition to electing Trump, they can elect more Republicans in the future.

[TheFarseer]

32. Yes, and still not elect any Greens this year or any year. nt

[DanTex]

34. Yup. And the thing is, she knows that. You can't get a Harvard MD without being able to add 2 + 2.

[nolawarlock]

56. *snicker*

[Pharaoh]

27. pretty cynical

but it's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

[DanTex]

29. Truthful is what it is. Can she win? No. Can she help Trump win? Yes.

These aren't particularly controversial facts, nobody thinks she can win, and nobody thinks she will take as many votes from Trump as from Hillary.

[LanternWaste]

84. I imagine we often rationalize that voting based on conviction is an ethical negative

I imagine we often rationalize that voting based on conviction is an ethical negative, while voting on an efficient and utilitarian basis is an ethical good.

Truthful may be what it is... but truth A does not deny truth B, regardless of how we justify laying our convictions to side.

[DanTex]

87. The conviction of Stein and her voters is "I want Trump to be president".

Or else they are purposefully deluding themselves, which doesn't place them on higher ethical grounds than the ones that know what they are doing.

[HarmonyRockets]

44. How is that cynical?

That is just simple math. If enough people vote for her in swing states, it could help elect Trump. Even Bwenien Sanders himself agrees with this. He talked about why you shouldn't vote for a third party spoiler in a TYT interview about a month ago. Plus, it basically happened in 2000 with Ralph Nader.

[pnwmom]

30. Her attacks on Hillary are a big assist for Trump, as the #2 leading candidate.

Anything Jill does to chip away at Hillary's support helps him.

[840high]

38. None.

[LongtimeAZDem]

42. None of her positions are pro-Trump; her strategy is (nt)

[Ken Burch]

31. The point should be to make a positive case for OUR nominee...

...and the progressive platform both campaigns worked together to draft...

We can win on the merits of OUR ticket and OUR promises.

The key to victory is mobilizing a high turnout for OUR party in November-not doing threads here that are intended to sow distrust and division among Democrats and progressive. We don't need loyalty tests and left-baiting "prove you're with us" OP's.

What matters is unity and inspiration and effort.

[DanTex]

37. Can't we both support our nominee and point out the flaws in her competitors?

I hope you're not suggesting that we back off from criticizing Trump. Because he deserves to be criticized. It would be irresponsible not to criticize him.

And the same goes for the Green party. They are a tool of the GOP. In some cases literally: GOP-allied groups have run ads in the past in favor of Green candidates, hoping to pull votes away from the Democrats. In Texas, GOP allies funded petition drives to get Green candidates on ballots. Do you think they did this because they wanted to reduce carbon emissions? Of course not.

Because the Green party doesn't actually get any progressive policies passed. It has nothing to do with "left-baiting", the Green party isn't "left", all they do is help Republicans into office. And everyone knows this, it's an open secret. The GOP loves them.

[Ken Burch]

60. What I'm saying is we should FOCUS on going after Trump, rather than minor-party candidates.

Trump is the only other candidate who actually stands any chance of getting elected. If we are going to attack on qualifications, it is Trump we should be doing that to.

The response to the Green candidate should be based on pointing out that she can't win, that voting for her helps elect Trump, and that we've adopted a lot of positions in the platform that would appeal to her supporters(as well as to the majority of the electorate).

What we really need to avoid is OP's that are designed to try to bait people into making pro-Stein comments by maligning her on an excessively personal basis, AND posts that are just continued attacks on people who want our party to be more progressive. Posts that are meant as "loyalty tests", in a way.

We have no need for that kind of thing now.

With the platform we've adopted, we can win over left voters on the merits.

[DanTex]

70. The Green Party functions similarly to a GOP SuperPAC.

It's not officially associated with Trump, but it tries to help Trump win by attacking Hillary. And it has been documented that in some past cases, the Green Party's pro-GOP activities have been funded by GOP operatives. In Texas, Perry allies funded petition efforts to get Green candidates on ballots. In 2000, right-wing groups ran pro-Nader ads.

The GOP does this because it is an effective strategy. And for good reason. In 2000, it worked: Nader siphoning off votes was one factor contributing to W ascending to the presidency. Yes, there were others, the Supreme Court, the voter roll purges in Florida, etc. But there's no denying that Nader was a factor. In a close election (and with the polarization these days, all national election are pretty close), having a group willing to pose as fake allies to the progressive cause in order to reduce Democratic votes can be a powerful GOP tool.

The Green Party plays along either because they are stupid, or because they share the goal of electing Republicans. And I don't think they are quite this stupid. Like I said, Jill Stein is a graduate from Harvard Med, and you can't even get into Harvard Med if you can't do basic logic and arithmetic. Nader wasn't stupid, he knew what he was doing, and even bragged about it. Green Party surrogates also speak openly about how it is better to elect a Republican in order to "shake things up", for example Susan Sarandon's comments a month or two ago on Chris Hayes.

So, no, I'm not going to stop criticizing the Green Party, any more than I'm going to stop criticizing other Trump allies. I'm not trying to bait anyone, I'm criticizing a pro-GOP propaganda effort, the same way I would criticize Chris Christie or Rudy Giuliani. And if people think I'm trying to bait them into saying something good about Chris Christie, well, that's too bad.

[pnwmom]

40. We can do both. Make a positive case for OUR nominee and also

criticize other candidates.

[Pharaoh]

10. So lets all just fall into line

After all, that is what democracy is all about,

[pnwmom]

14. Yes, let's. We should all work together to defeat Trump. n/t

[MidwestTech]

25. In this instance yes

Do you know why the gop is always kicking our ass?
We don't know when to put aside differences towards a common goal!

Having different ideas ably how things need to be run is great, that's why we're liberals!

But we need to band together on the things we agree on and put the others aside when it's time to vote!

We can argue about the others before and after the election but during if we don't vote as a block the gop well will continue to win even though they are the literal minority patty in every way.

So yes...suck it up until November

I am, you can too!

[Ken Burch]

33. Let's work together now for the common good.

Not asking you to give anything up(Bernie didn't give anything up today). I supported Bernie in the primaries too.

And my OP wasn't aimed at trying to silene you as much as at the kind of OP's intended to bait you.

[4dsc]

11. He endorsed her but he did not concede

There is a reason behind this endorsement which will reveal itself soon enough. The Bernie folks should know.

[Ken Burch]

13. If he endorsed her, what difference does it make if he didn't "concede"?

Are you implying some nefarious plot is afoot?

[DemonGoddess]

16. K&R Ken, agreed, we gotta get to WORK

He did concede. He suspended his campaign today

[pnwmom]

17. He conceded -- definitively and without reservation. And then he endorsed her.

He conceded in his speech today, as follows:

http://time.com/4403264/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-endorsement-full-transcript/

Secretary Clinton goes into the convention with 389 more pledged delegates than we have and a lot more super-delegates.
(APPLAUSE)
Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process.
(APPLAUSE)
And I congratulate her for that.
(APPLAUSE)
She will be the Democratic nominee for president.
(APPLAUSE)
And I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States.

[Ken Burch]

35. Thanks for posting that quote.

n/t.

[pnwmom]

36. You're welcome. I appreciated the fact that he was so clear. n//t

[Her Sister]

73. Yep, sounds like conceding plus endorsing to me!

Secretary Clinton goes into the convention with 389 more pledged delegates than we have and a lot more super-delegates.
(APPLAUSE)
Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process.
(APPLAUSE)
And I congratulate her for that.
(APPLAUSE)
She will be the Democratic nominee for president.
(APPLAUSE)
And I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States.

[lovemydog]

24. What does that mean?

[bravenak]

41. Nothing.

[lovemydog]

57. lol

That's what I figured.

[nolawarlock]

58. Lol!

[calimary]

15. Thank you, Ken.

Let's remember who the REAL enemy is.

[IronLionZion]

18. So does that mean we can't feel the Johnson?

Jury: I'm for Hillary and donated already

[Ken Burch]

21. I am LITERALLY not touching that.

(at least not without dinner and a movie.)

[TheBlackAdder]

49. ^^^ This post approved by Notch Johnson , SPF-15 ^^^

.





.

[redstateblues]

52. That is freaking hilarious. He actually comes off as being very goofy

in his interviews

[IronLionZion]

53. He wears sneakers with a suit

and is a generally kooky/goofy kind of guy

[billhicks76]

20. Lets Change The World

[cosmicone]

39. I'll still continue to oppose the green party and the libertarians

especially the green party because they take votes away from democrats.

Ralph Nader was paid off by Karl Rove and so the green party only stands for shaking down republicans for money to continue their pipedreams.

[bettyellen]

43. Me too.

[eggplant]

50. They don't "take votes away from democrats."

This is one of my favorite scenes from The West Wing (http://westwingwiki.com/category/the-show/season-4/page/3/):

JOSH: He's taking the President's votes. It's as simple... He is taking the President's votes.
AMY: Listen, I'm not indifferent to the situation, but that right there, that's the crazy part of your argument.
JOSH: Why?
AMY: They're not his votes.

[TwilightZone]

88. A fictional television program is proof of your assertion?

Last edited Wed Jul 13, 2016, 05:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Sure, ok.

If third parties weren't in the race, the people who vote for them would vote for the other candidates or they would stay home. The Greens that didn't stay home in that hypothetical sure as hell wouldn't be voting for Trump unless they're idiots.

[eggplant]

96. My argument is valid on its face.

Following your logic, you could equally say "if republicans weren't in the race, we'd win for sure."

Anyone is free to run for office, with or without party affiliation. If enough people vote for them, they win. If other candidates make it so your candidate is less likely to win, that's their prerogative. If you want "their votes," then go out and convince those votes to vote for your candidate instead.

Otherwise, you are saying that those voters shouldn't have the right to vote for a candidate that more closely reflects their own beliefs, and that's not very democratic, now is it? More voters is a good thing, and more choice is also a good thing.

[IronLionZion]

59. The libertarians should draw votes from Republicans

since they are running 2 popular 2 term governors. It should make a difference in some swing states in our favor.

[Ken Burch]

64. Fine. But we don't need posts designed to bait people here into sounding disloyal

We can hold the Green vote down by running a campaign that features all of the progressive things that were added to this year's platform and by presenting ourselves as a party that welcomes activists and encourages the growth of grassroots movements for social and economic change.

If we attack the Green candidate too harshly on a personal level, it's possible we could solidify her support by making it look as though voting for our ticket is an endorsement of political bullying.

I'm not sure we should go after Johnson too hard, because it looks like he's only going to take votes away from Trump.

Obviously, no one can stop you from doing whatever you wish to do in your time away from here.

[cosmicone]

67. Why come on a democratic board

if you're supporting greens?

I don't go on red state or free republic and insist on posting pro-Hillary screeds.

[Ken Burch]

68. I don't think we have people coming on here to urge votes for minor parties from DU'ers.

What you have had is people, some of whom supported minor parties, coming on here to participate in progressive political discussion. This is not an intolerable thing.

The Democratic Party has been at its best when it endorsed policies originated either by people from independent progressive parties(which is where most of the progressive economic policies-though NOT the policy of appeasing segregationists-implemented by FDR came from)or social activists(the black freedom movement and anti-poverty leftists like Michael Harrington in the Sixties, LGBTQ activists starting in the early part of this century, Occupy to a degree during Obama's second term).

[cosmicone]

75. Are you saying democrats never came up with any of the great policies

and they were all from outsider fringe?

[seabeyond]

76. This is the language that cannot, will not stand. They are Democratic policies that Democrats

Have fought for, worked at, and progressed forward. I really am not going to revise history here, and credit goes where due.

[cosmicone]

77. Precisely. Thank you. n/t

[bonemachine]

79. and here come the responses

To tell you that it's simply impossible that the radical left has ever been the least bit responsible for any of the positive social changes if the last century.

[ThePhilosopher04]

45. Nothing like one big circle jerk with no dissenting voices. That's the American way!!! Damn right!!

[Hekate]

48. Have you been to Discussionist? You can have all the dissent your heart desires over there.

[HarmonyRockets]

46. There are people on this site supporting

third party candidates or writing in a name instead of voting for he Democrat that have posted here as recently as today. So that's not true at all. They are becoming a small group here though.

[TheBlackAdder]

47. How about supporting Mortimer Snerd? Snerd's the Werd!

.





Oops, sorry. That's Trump's running mate.


.

[klook]

69. LOL, "Celebrity Dummies"

... perfect description of Drumpf and his ilk.

[nolawarlock]

54. That's not true.

There are plenty of folks on here that are posting under the same screen names elsewhere and very much pushing third party candidates. So they are here. They just aren't doing it here.

[Ken Burch]

61. If they aren't doing it here, it's not our concern.

We don't need to be starting threads intended to "smoke them out"-or about sowing distrust of people who are here who want to keep pushing THIS party in a more progressive direction.

Let's focus on winning positively and on the merits.

[Squinch]

83. You are not the arbiter of "our concern."

[seabeyond]

71. Stein went after Clinton harshly. This is a Democratic board. I do not get why you are insisting

people are not allowed to discuss Stein. She and her party means nothing to me, seeing I am a Democrat supporting our Democratic nominee. If she says something I want to call out, I will, as I did in the primary. Why are we sheltering Stein?

[jcgoldie]

85. I agree

That BS she put up in social media on mother's day still pisses me off. Screw Stein.

[Ken Burch]

94. Not sheltering...just not wasting time.

There is nothing the Green candidate can do to us this year, if we stick to making a positive case for OUR ticket and the progressive platform we just drafted.

We can win on the merits.

The attacks should be aimed at Trump...he's the one who could impose fascism.

[seabeyond]

95. This is a board of people that like to think, and discuss. We can do all kinds of things at the

same time.

You are wasting time on it right now. You are also being consistent in posting, certain politicians must be handled with kid gloves.

I have yet to see one of these Ops directed toward Clinton though.

[seabeyond]

74. You are insulting Democrats because we get the Green Party is not our friend?

[Codeine]

78. Oh do stop lecturing.

It's wearisome.

[charlyvi]

80. Indeed it is. n/t

[Squinch]

81. You ought to quit trying to censor people making legitimate comments about opposition candidates.

WTF are you afraid of?

Why would someone posting an anti Jill Stein thread threaten your sense of unity?

Just cut it out.

[Ken Burch]

92. I don't have any problem with people making principled arguments against the Green candidate

(also, we shouldn't give her free publicity by mentioning her by name).

But, if we attack her harshly rather than focusing our attacks solely on Trump(the only other candidate who actually COULD win)we run the risk of making ourselves look like bullies and in doing so we could inadvertently shore up the Green candidate's vote.

And devoting ourselves to anathemizing the Green Party, a party that isn't electable this year, makes us look McCarthyite, which isn't attractive to voters.

It's not worth it.

And the 2000 campaign proves that that tactic just makes things worse for us.

Let's sell the country on OUR nominee and attack the person who actually poses a realistic threat to her-Trump.

The Green candidate is NOT that person. Our best tactic there is ignoring her.

[Squinch]

93. If that is your feeling, then by all means avoid it. Clearly others do not feel the same way, and

you need to stop trying to censor their opinions, as well as factual information about an opposition candidate.

You do not speak for the rest of us, you do not set the rules, and you should stop acting as if you do.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

86. attacking Jill Stein and her nonsensical comments hurts only Jill Stein

has nothing to do with Hillary or the Democratic left.

[JEB]

89. I am much more interested in issues than personalities or

horse races.

[NuclearDem]

90. Jill Stein is a spineless loon. I'll attack her if I feel like it.

[Rex]

91. I've supported both nominees since they decided to run for office.

I like them both, so it was a win-win for me no matter which one ended up the candidate. People like to 'talk', good luck getting them to stop.

[LostOne4Ever]

97. I would rather bait and attack the Republicans myself

?w=400&c=1