Stuck in a pit

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Comments

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

You were not a Bernie man, was you??

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Slightly.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Wry....

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I made it through about three minutes and realized that Bill Maher is just parroting every tired, insulting, asinine argument that all the other Clintonista yellow dog Democrats are saying about why all the good progressives should vote for Clinton.

The most insulting is probably this very strong suggestion that the second biggest flaw with U.S. politics these days - only two political parties -is some kind of wonderful virtue.

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

Well, if I may be excused for pointing out the obvious: "it" and all the rest of us may just get The Donald in November if we're not careful. The only way to avoid that is to make sure he doesn't get elected. Unless one lives in an EXTREMELY red or blue state, casting a vote for the only person who has a possibility of beating him would seem to be the most straightforward way to help keep him out of office.

If one really doesn't think it matters who gets elected, that's one thing (personally, I have a hard time understanding that one, but I'm hearing a lot of people seem make that claim). If however, one really does care whether the orange ogre attains the oval office, then I'd say there are some obvious implications to be drawn.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

....and all the rest of us may just get The Donald in November if we're not careful.

No problem. The Pit is deep enough.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

This is how I see it (as, yes, a former and current Bernie bro):

1. The DNC cheated - and by that I mean they were proven to have broken their own rules purely in an effort to subvert the will of a significant portion of their own party's wishes. I don't care if the e-mails leak was sanctioned by Russia, I don't care if their collaboration with the media didn't do a lot of damage. They cheated.

2. Not only did they cheat, but there was zero repercussion for it. Fear of a President Trump gave the DNC a free pass to give Crooked Debbie a slap on the wrist (even before she resigned she was given a cushy job on her bestie HIllary's campaign staff). Will there be any more people stepping down or being pushed out of the DNC in the coming weeks? I doubt it- Clinton is already in full "beat Trump" mode. So we get one very hollow, weak token resignation that ultimately means nothing, and a promise that "it won't happen again".

3. Really, at every turn the DNC has done nothing of any real value to make progressives feel welcome. No concessions to party policy that are in any way binding (that stuff Sanders worked out with the DNC before the convention? Totally non-binding). No liberal VP pick - I don't know why the DNC thought they had to zip up moderate Democrat support when Hillary is a Clinton Democrat in every sense of the word. I feel like they could have given us that at least. And as I've stated above, there's no real , tangible, concrete and written in stone guarantee that Clinton or the DNC will honor those parts of the party platform that Sanders worked to include in those last days of the primary season. None. Zero. Just empty words until Clinton proves otherwise- if she gets the chance.

4. It is therefore pretty obvious to me that the DNC only wants progressives for their votes; they have zero real interest in making them an integral part of the party. Sure some of Sanders' supporters are independents, but they are left-leaning independents. There is no political left in the GOP; they belong with the Democrats if nowhere else. Someone likened the current relationship between progressive Democrats and the DNC as between an abusive man and his wife: "No baby, I love you, really. I won't hurt you no more. I promise!" The sad thing about this analogy is the only defense said abuser offers is, "that other guy will beat you more!"

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Why remain in an abusive relationship when there's options?

This election is the DNC's to win or lose, plain and simple. How they (And Clinton supporters) act toward the Bernie bros is entirely up to them - and from what I'm seeing it does not look good. Unfortunately, the Clinton supporters are not doing any better than the DNC.

Pretty much on every Democrat-friendly Facebook community and political forum I read (looking at you, Daily Kos), all I see from Clinton supporters (yellow dog Democrats, really) is the same tired old arrogant, condescending, belittling attitude as before the convention. Acting like Sanders supporters owe Clinton their votes (we don't, regardless of the stakes. Deal with it), then getting even angrier when anyone suggests otherwise. Dismissing very legitimate, sincere concerns about the DNC's trustworthiness and intentions without even a modicum of sympathy or any effort to build bridges. Folks, that bridge-building is entirely up to the establishment Democrats: they're the ones who wronged us. What should be more like a quarrel between siblings in the same loving family is more like the victorious in ancient battle: we won, now rape the women and pillage the temples. It is a sad day in the party when Republicans give Sanders supporters more sympathy than their own party does. It is a sad day when Clinton supporters are already blaming Sanders supporters for losing the White House, when we haven't even seen Clinton's post-convention ratings boost. Really - is that any freaking way to treat the people you need to get there?

The correct answer is, "We understand that you have concerns about your place in the party, but give us a change to prove we want you with us" not, "Sanders lost. Get over it"

The correct answer is "We admit that the DNC didn't treat you or your candidate the way they should have, and we want to make it right" not "But Trump will win if you don't vote for Hillary!"

The correct answer is, "We understand that Hillary may be your second or even third choice. But she will be a great POTUS and she will include all of us in her policy" not "You owe Clinton your vote!"

The correct answer is, "If you feel like you must vote third party, we understand and hope that in 2020 we will have a platform that we all can be proud of" instead of, "Voting third party is stupid! You're just wasting your vote!"

The fact that both the DNC through its actions and yellow dog Democrats through their actions are choosing all the wrong answers, consistently, is why I say that at this point Trump is the President that both parties deserve.

[garote]

You've invoked the phrase "yellow dog" like that is a thing. What the heck does it mean??

[garote]

Oh never mind. Wikipedia helped me out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_dog_Democrat

Yeah, God forbid anyone would actually NOT PREFER to vote for your sainted man Bernie. They must all be empty-headed zombies; it's unbelievable that they might actually have reasons of their own...

Look, dude. Bernie is an independent who wore the DNC skin in order to get his message out. It's pretty easy to see why the DNC would resist his effort to hijack the party, If you want to believe there is a conspiracy broad enough to sway both the electoral and popular vote away from an otherwise guaranteed victory, well you can go right ahead. I find it more sensible to believe that there were, and are, a lot more Clinton supporters than the riotous, insular core of the Bernie camp ever believed there could be. And they - the Clinton supporters - don't feel like you owe them jack shit; that's just the same pollyanna attitude you've had the whole time persisting into the aftermath of your candidate's concession. Even if, as you say, the electorate is divided into "yellow dog" democrats and the beknighted Bernie faithful, then the subsequent rise of president Trump will be your own damn fault, full stop. For that, you are not being courted like the exotic royalty you think you are, you are being begrudgingly admitted to the party as payment for your self-destructive threats. Why are you expecting banners and parades, for concessions made under duress?

[phildegrave]

This!!!

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

They must all be empty-headed zombies; it's unbelievable that they might actually have reasons of their own...
It's not that; the delegate count was 13 million to 19 million. It's that Clinton- no, not even Clinton because there's no evidence that she was complicit- it's that the DNC gets a free pass just because Trump is such a monster.

Bernie is an independent who wore the DNC skin in order to get his message out. It's pretty easy to see why the DNC would resist his effort to hijack the party
Oh, my mistake. I thought the Democrats were the party of liberal, progressive, thinking voters. I didn't know that it is actually a party of moderates that are in truth terrified of actual progressives. What did the one caller say in the leaked voice mails? Something like, "He's not a Democrat; please stop this man now" ?

And (Clinton supporters) don't feel like you owe them jack shit; that's just the same pollyanna attitude you've had the whole time persisting into the aftermath of your candidate's concession.
Then why do they get so angry when a Bernie bro says they're going to vote third party? It's an all-or-nothing deal: accept progressive votes for Clinton with the understanding that means some concessions, now and in the future, or quit whining about it.

[garote]

Heh. I don't know; why would a whaling crew get upset when one of their members starts threatening everyone else on the ship with a harpoon?

"Screw your hunt for policy! Look at me, I'm making a statement!"

Are you expecting them to smile and nod? There is shit at stake.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

HRC's concession on free college (for families earning under $125K, which is *the vast majority of American families*) was a big one to me.

I mean, sure, it's just a promise right now. But given that she isn't currently an elected in a position of power, promises are what we can ask for.

That, to me, was the biggest concession made by HRC/DNC to the Bernie crowd. Free college *is* a really big deal. The student debt crisis may be on a slow burn, but it's burning alright.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

And you believe her. Didn't she lie enough yet?

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

That's exactly my concern - nothing guaranteed, only promised.

Some people may be okay accepting a promise from a career politician, I'm not - especially when there has yet to be any indications from the DNC that they intend to keep it.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

We all know - politicians, especially this one, will say and do anything to get elected. Funny, she was on FNC today, pandering to conservatives?

[garote]

Well, even that would be better than Trump, who will say anything to ... well, for no reason at all really. Just to say it. :D

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

I rather have as a leader somebody who says random things, than somebody who always acts in his own personal interest, damaging society. Matter of taste.

[phildegrave]

ROTFLMAO!!! Your blindness to the beam in your own eye never fails to amuse.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

I am not interested in opinions of mindless bullies.

[phildegrave]

Your slavish devotion to your party's nominee says otherwise.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Do you have any ability of analytical thinking? What party? Party was fighting the nominee fiercely. Party leaders still do not show solidarity with the nominee. On the other hand, that was your party that literally conspired to carry your nominee to the victory. If you said "antipathy to my party of racist Democrats" that would make some kind of sense.

[phildegrave]

And yet there you are upthread defending Trump. Isn't there some more neo-Nazi propaganda you'd rather be posting? You are a strange person indeed to be making such an argument.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Let me get to your level, you misogynist, fascist, wahhabist moron.

[phildegrave]

Oh, boo hoo hoo. You said mean things.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Was it as mean as you deserve, or should I be meaner next time?

[catlin.livejournal.com]

People believed Bernie. He had no better odds of making it happen.

[blackdwarv.livejournal.com]

It's interesting that this keeps hanging around.

Tell me. After nearly 30 years of investigations. Countless hours and millions spent investigating her. What exactly did they find that brands her a "liar" constantly?

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

If you didn't figure it out yet, no hope for you. Blind can't see!
But just in case, here is what liberals think.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-hillary-clinton-keeps-lying/493841/

[blackdwarv.livejournal.com]

The Atlantic is "liberals". Well, that at least narrows down how extremely distorted your worldview is.

...and then there is this inconvenient little chart.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

I said: "What Liberals think". For your information, Atlantic is a magazine, so it cannot think. The author of the article, Ron, is the subject of thinking.
You can go by charts created by who knows who, I go by what I see.
FBI director under the oath said 3 times in a row "She lied". She had a nerve to look in the camera and say "That's not what I heard Comie said".
Now I know, how she could do something like that - too many zombies supporting her.

[blackdwarv.livejournal.com]

"Atlantic is a magazine, so it cannot think" <-- Classic sidestep!


"You can go by charts created by who knows who, I go by what I see." <--- Definition of anecdotal evidence (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal)!
Also see: Truthiness
http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:comedycentral.com:9aa05bd0-ed00-11e0-aca6-0026b9414f30 (http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:comedycentral.com:9aa05bd0-ed00-11e0-aca6-0026b9414f30)

"FBI director under the oath said 3 times in a row "She lied". She had a nerve to look in the camera and say "That's not what I heard Comie said". "
...except, of course, that isn't what FBI Director Comey said.
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton, or her colleagues, intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," Comey said.
More, IIRC, they found something like 100 emails that were classified at the time, out of 30,000 emails reviewed. Not that it makes it any better, but still, the scale that gets bandied about the "liberal" media tends to overblow the amount.

Regardless, even if she did lie about that, the Politifact chart above came out *after* that, so even with those "lies" figured in, she's still several times more truth-telling then Trump & Co.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Sidestep? You are implying that magazine is not liberal, that's why not credible, but failing to see(or admit) that the author is a liberal.

Now, in return, politifact is liberal, so has no cedility. Plus, classic sidestep on your part - we are talking about Hillary, why you bringing up Walker?

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

"they were proven to have broken their own rules purely in an effort to subvert the will of a significant portion of their own party's wishes."

Except nothing like that was proven at all.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Does the DNC not have rules against favoring one of the primary candidates over the other? DId they not do just that in working with the media to undermine Sanders?

Okay, then. What part of that do you dispute?

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

"What part of that do you dispute? "

The fact that they favored one of the primary candidates over the other (emails from a handful of low-level bad actors does not show "the DNC" as being guilty of anything.) We'd need to see actual instances of how and where they "favored" Clinton of Sanders, what form this "favoring" took, where the "media" was "worked with" to undermine Sanders, what actual effect these supposedly biased actions had.

None of this exists. It's the same "well, someone made an insinuation so she must be guilty" nonsense that's been dogging her since the 90s. There is no actual proof of any of this.

[phildegrave]

Someone likened the current relationship between progressive Democrats and the DNC as between an abusive man and his wife: "No baby, I love you, really. I won't hurt you no more. I promise!" The sad thing about this analogy is the only defense said abuser offers is, "that other guy will beat you more!"

Ah ha! Therein lies the problem…

This is not a romance, Princess. The DNC is not our fucking husband. This is a strategic alliance. You need to stop taking shit so personally.

I am a lifelong liberal Democrat. I am old enough to remember a time when we proudly called ourselves “liberal”, not “progressive”. I am not particularly emotionally attached to the party, but I have understood for decades that it represents our best chance for getting at least some of what we want, or at the very least holding the line against the worst right wing nuttery.

I voted for Bernie in the primary, even though I knew full well his chances of actually being the nominee were slim to none. I fully expected then it would be Hillary. I fully expected then that, despite my lukewarm attitude about her, I would support Hillary over any of the clowns the Republicans were offering. Yes, Hillary is too moderate for my tastes too, but the cold hard reality is that she is the party’s nominee. This cold hard reality will not change no matter how long you hold your breath or stomp your feet.

What I find mystifying now is how you young Bernie-ites have so thoroughly bought in to the twenty-five years of resoundingly debunked right wing noise regarding Hillary’s alleged lack of trustworthiness. When I see you elsewhere in this thread nodding in agreement on this with a well-known right wing troll, one who has even posted neo-Nazi propaganda here, I have to ask where the fuck you get off lecturing us on ideological purity.

If the polls are to be believed, you Bernie hold-outs make up 10% of Sanders primary voters, or approx. 1.2 million. You have the opportunity to join us in a coalition to defeat the most vile major party nominee in our lifetime, maybe in all US history. Personally, I would hate to lose you in this fight. I mean that quite sincerely. But if your participation is going to require constant coddling, then I have to wonder if maybe our efforts would be better spent elsewhere. If you are serious about wanting a role in the party’s future, thumbing your nose at us now strikes me as a poor strategy to achieve this goal. Your willingness to cut off your nose to spite your face makes me question if you have the emotional maturity to be an effective member of this coalition.

And if I really have to explain to a self-described progressive why Trump is the greater threat to our shared values than Hillary, then you’ll just never understand.

[thedabara-cds.livejournal.com]

This is both funny and appalling, because this is how a lot of us have been feeling with the "voting for the lesser of two evils" we get pushed into every election cycle. Just once I'd like to vote based on my hopes, not my fears.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Alas, you had that, but then lost both houses, so it didn't count.

[eve_n_furter]

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

As I predicted, the blame game starts...