What's with all the threads about Sanders? This is DU. He is NOT

[lunamagica]

a Democrat

[BeyondGeography]

1. Because

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/independent-bernie-sanders-democratic-leadership-231486

[MADem]

2. That was an "appointment," no one in the caucus elected him to anything.

It's an important if small point. From that link:

Sanders joins Democratic leadership, isn't officially a Democrat
He says he'll continue to identify as an independent, despite running for president as a Democrat.
By ELANA SCHOR 11/16/16 11:48 AM EST
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Bernie Sanders was just appointed to the Senate Democratic leadership team. But the Vermont senator still isn't becoming an official member of the party.

[BeyondGeography]

7. It bothers me that he's still too cool for school

with the Indy stuff, but he's a de facto Democrat. Sits with us, votes with us, just amassed 12 million votes in a Democratic primary, is part of the leadership team, etc.

[NanceGreggs]

36. Either you're a Democrat ...

... or you're not.

He's not. And by his own choice, he's NOT.

"De facto Democrat" - is that like someone who claims to be a Democrat while running on their ticket, but refuses to be a party member other than when there's something "in it" for them personally? Is that like someone who disses the Dems for decades, then becomes one of them when it serves their purposes, and then leaves the minute they didn't get what they came for?

Bernie was a Democrat-of-convenience - and that does not make him a member of the party, "de facto" or otherwise.

[democrank]

69. Saying we shouldn't listen to or consider political positions offered by

anyone who doesn't belong to our special little club is utter nonsense.

Whether you like it or not, Bernie Sanders supports more long-standing Democratic principles than some self-proclaimed Democrats. Sanders has millions of supporters, and more than a handful here on DU.

After taking a look at how many House races, Senate races and Governorships this party has lost, we'd better start listening to a few different people. Or, we can put our noses up in the air and march along with our YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED IN and WE DON'T LISTEN TO ANYONE BUT PURE DEMOCRATS signs.



We have a lot of work to do, and given the number of Democrats in the House, Senate, and Governorships (as compared to Republicans), we'd better start listening to at least a few different voices.

[dembychoice]

73. I totally agree with you.....

Voted for Bernie and still love Bernie! He has done more for the Democratic Party than most Democrats!

[Demsrule86]

100. Bernie will not help us win.

He is too critical of the Democrats and has no idea how to win.

[politicaljunkie41910]

115. The problem has never been that the Democrats were not open to different people. Quite the contrary.

We accepted everyone who wanted to be part of our party. That includes the far lefties as well as moderates. How many times did we have to appease Blue Dog Democrats by throwing them a bone to take home to their constituents, or a committee chair, because we needed their vote. What about Joe Liberman who was on the Democratic ticket as a VP nominee whose still screwing us over as a lobbyest. Sorry our problem isn't that we weren't open to different people. The problem is that when people don't get their way, (when the majority has spoken) they want to take their ball and go home like a bunch of babies.

Look at the GOP. How many times have they lost an election and we THOUGHT that they were dead and buried, only for them once again to emerge from the ashes to fight another day. But they have proven to be patient. They even make their members pass a purity test, and guess what; everyone in the party eventually falls in line no matter how batshit crazy their ideas are. The Mormons in Utah dug up someone no one ever heard of to run against Trump as a 3rd party candidate, or so we thought, because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for a pussy grabbing con artist, but in the end they all fell in line when the time came, with even Mitt Romney showing up to kiss the Donald's ring.

So spare me the bullshit that its the Democratic Party which isn't willing to accept people's differences. That's never been our problem. Our problem is that we just don't believe that if we invite someone into our home, they shouldn't try to take it over on their first visit if you don't agree with them, and they try to change everything that they don't like about it and say Fuck You, play by our rules, we're taking over, or we'll burn it down.

[BeyondGeography]

80. Well, there's a reason Barney Frank called him a pain in the ass

The problem with ignoring him now is that he has a megaphone by virtue of his primary run. Push him aside and we're divided and even weaker. I think he would be much more difficult to live with (and easier to marginalize) if we had a majority and actually had to legislate. But he serves a purpose in the opposition and as long as Warren is the only D besides Bernie who knows how to throw a punch and get coverage for our side of the story I'm glad he's there.

[MADem]

43. Here's the idea, to paraphrase LBJ....

We can have him (and his supporters) inside the tent pissing out, which is preferable to having them outside the tent pissing in.

So, he gets a little title (outreach coordinator), he gets to be close to the minority leader's throne, and his supporters get to see this and think "Ah ha--he's a big cheese now." In actual fact, the real big cheeses are the ones who stand for office within the Democratic caucus and get voted in by their peers. They're the ones who control how the sausage is made.

You keep your friends close and your enemies closer, as they say. Sanders knows that his input is welcome and he is encouraged to use his title to reach out to elements on the left, but if he strays too far from the path, should we ever regain the majority, he won't get a chairmanship with all the attendant perks (extra staff, extra budget, more clout, etc.).

[pangaia]

55. He really get under your skin. I can see that.

Why not just....let go..


😎

[SMC22307]

65. .... Om ....

[MADem]

70. The fact that you said that suggests that you're the one with the rash, not me. nt

[BeyondGeography]

74. Yes...I think Schumer and Reid before him have handled him well

and done just that.

[politicaljunkie41910]

114. Where else is he going to go with his liberal views; the GOP?

[SMC22307]

5. Sanders' Democratic leadership position....

sure isn't sitting well with some. Perhaps they'll get over it when the fight begins over SS and Medicare.

[elleng]

42. PERHAPS.

[SMC22307]

47. LOL

Wonder if some will turn against SS and Medicare just because Mr. Sanders believes in protecting it. It's *that* loony.

[elleng]

50. Oh gee, I hope it's not THAT loony,

but you may be right. Durn Brooklyn soshalist!

[SMC22307]

52. The GOP was going to bury him with oppo research...

he volunteered at a -- gasp! -- kibbutz.

[elleng]

94. RIght, one of THOSE places!

'A small room in Kibbutz Merhavia, which until recently served as a beauty clinic for kibbutz women, was once home to Israel's first woman prime minister, Golda Meir. Not long ago, cosmeticians conceded the room to historians who renovated and refurbished it in the style of the 1920s when Golda lived there. It will soon be opened to visitors seeking to learn a little about that period and the severe austerity that prevailed in the Meir household.

"Visitors will learn the story of Golda Meir's life in Merhavia," explains Dr. Doron Mor, director of the kibbutz visitors center, "and will see how the woman who became prime minister lived. It was a very modest life, in a room measuring six square meters (65 square feet) with a bed, wall hooks for hanging clothes, a table, chair, small desk lamp, and gramophone."

The gramophone, it turns out, was the Meir family's entry ticket into the kibbutz.'>>>

http://www.haaretz.com/kibbutz-to-open-golda-meir-s-first-home-in-israel-to-public-1.205666

[SMC22307]

98. Golda who?!

Interesting history... thanks for sharing.

What a contrast the GE could have been: unassuming Bernie v. blinged-out, arrogant Trump.

[elleng]

99. Oh my goodness!

Unassuming, articulate, educated, informed, and PERSUASIVE!

[SMC22307]

103. Completely agree.

We know what he'll be doing going forward in his Democratic leadership role. I wonder what role Hillary Clinton will play. Perhaps retire completely from public life and enjoy the grandkids, or do something Carter-esque like Habitat for Humanity? Targeting voter suppression and racial inequality would be tremendously beneficial.

[MADem]

105. Not ANY kibbutz. It was a Stalin-friendly one.

As you can see, this article lays out how the right felt about that:

http://forward.com/news/333020/bernie-sanders-stint-at-stalinist-kibbutz-draws-red-baiting-from-right/

Had he prevailed instead of losing by millions of votes, this would have been just the beginning.

[SMC22307]

108. He and his team wouldn't have shrinked from attacks...

explaining any given thing in simple terms: what was right, what was wrong, and what he learned. He comes across as confident and *unashamed* of his past. Americans like that.

Hell, everyone has baggage, and as we learned from Trump, even a p*ssy-grabbing Putinist personally bailed out by Wall Street can win the White House.

[MADem]

109. And he would have been mocked and eaten alive.

And he DID shrink from the kibbutz business--he flat out lied...pretended he didn't remember the name of it, refused to answer questions about it. Some wise-ass reporter in Israel dug up a reasonably recent interview to an Israeli publication where he named the place and waxed eloquent about it.

Now, he's either a liar, or he's too forgetful to be POTUS. That should have been something he confronted but he ran like hell from it--for reasons we really don't know, because no one followed up. HRC wasn't going to go LOW...I doubt Trump would have pulled punches. He would have been fucked.

Larry David was friendly and loving in his imitation, and he crucified him, pardon the mixed metaphor.

He came across as flaky, elitist, sexist, and out of touch to many. Talking like a whining granola cruncher, living like a corporate bigwig. The wife with the golden parachute who destroyed an alternative college wasn't even mentioned in the mainstream media. It would have been. Her children getting rich off that school, milking it for all it was worth before it fell to ruin, would have been highlighted and offered up as a demonstration of cronyism, theft, nepotism, you-name-it.

They'd point out that Jane served as his chief of staff, and he put her on the payroll as "ad buyer" during his campaigns. He also put his kids on the payroll.

I realize that does not comport with your view of him or how the right attacks, but that's just the truth. They would make it look like the crime of the century, just like they made it look like the crime of the century when HRC gave a pep talk to some Wall Street assholes, then took the cash, and gave it to a foundation that gives out AIDS drugs and provides clean drinking water for little kids.


These are the people that called Michelle Obama a brazen whore for wearing a sleeveless dress in her official portrait. What would they have done with Out-of-Wedlock Bernie, comporting with his now-wife while she was still married to the hapless Mr. Driscoll, in the context of his sexy past writings? It would have been a field day. And I will BET they had Swiftboaters all lined up, too.

Yes, you can bring up Melania's naked pictures, but politics is a team sport. The right would say "She's the better looking first lady."

They would have made a meal of him. Toast. And all his stuff is "new." HRC's was "asked and answered."

Not sure how you think that someone who LOST by millions of votes to HRC would magically beat her--hell, there are plenty of Trump supporters who now admit they were just trolling the left to Keep Bernie Alive, to sow dissent and hatred. They never had any intention of voting for him. It was a divide and conquer game. It worked. The Paulbots, especially, were dedicated to these tactics.


Look, get him started on that stump speech, and I can finish the sentences. He never answered questions, he just gave that same damn speech, over and over again. He was like a quirky, garrulous robot. It was cute the first dozen times, then it got old.

You seriously think they wouldn't have hacked the vote "Because Bernie?" I have a bridge....

[pangaia]

56. Wouldn't surprise me.

[SMC22307]

59. Me, neither. But before SS and Medicare...

we gotta get through what Rethuglicans have in store for the ACA. Yikes.

[dembychoice]

118. K&R

[SMC22307]

3. Well, since Hillary isn't in office, it's good to keep up...

with someone who is. Especially when it comes time for Bernie to lead the charge against Trump's cuts to SS and Medicare.

[sheshe2]

9. I am pretty sure Warren and the rest of the Dems can handle that.

I never knew Sanders was the only Senator there.

[SMC22307]

10. The more voices the merrier. Especially with Hillary no longer in public office.

No one is prohibited from posting about Warren, et al. Since Sanders has been appointed to a leadership position by Senate Democrats, they believe he deserves to be heard. And heard he will be.

[sheshe2]

11. Leadership position.

K

Lol.

It is a figurehead position. Hey run with what you want.

[SMC22307]

13. Goodness, just how sour are those grapes? (n/t)

[MadDAsHell]

16. It won't matter how beneficial he is in fighting Trump b/c many believe he cost someone her crown.

And these folks are PISSED about it. And humiliated.

[SMC22307]

18. Well, they better get over it quick...

because Inauguration Day will be here before we know it. And ask anyone who lived through the NC GOP's slash-and-burn, it's coming... NATIONWIDE. Better to be united.

[R B Garr]

26. Were you PISSED and humiliated when Bernie lost the primary?

It almost sounds like projection on your part, but I could be wrong.

[JSup]

32. 'Crown', huh?

I see we're still doing that garbage.

[sheshe2]

17. Goodness!

That is all I will say with out a hide.

[JudyM]

87. He and his supporters are the convenient scapegoat.

[SMC22307]

101. Yep. One of many scapegoats.

Russians, emails, Comey, the media, the bogeyman under the bed... but never the candidate.

[R B Garr]

25. Let's hope he does a better job than in the primary. He lost that contest and in the process

was outmaneuvered and insulted by Trump who said he wouldn't debate Bernie because Bernie's a loser (Trump's words). Bernie was No. 2 in the primary voting and Trump said he doesn't deal with losers.

Let's hope that Sanders caters his rote talking points to actual events instead of adoring audiences who like the abstract repetitions.

[SMC22307]

29. Trump says a lot of things. Why do you believe him?

Bernie did a fantastic job in the primary against "the most qualified candidate for President ever." Seriously, that an *old white Democratic Socialist independent male that no one's ever heard of* did so well against the chosen DNC candidate is quite impressive. Voters in my fairly large circle went with Hillary because they thought she'd have a better chance at beating Trump. That didn't work out so well, eh? We all voted for her but it wasn't enough.

[R B Garr]

40. See, this is a perfect example of how out of touch you sound.

The reality is that embittered Sanders supporters went to Trump, if that's what you're trying to imply. But who needs to believe Trump to hear that he insults people. And he definitely got the better of Bernie. He's a put-down artist.

And it didn't work out for Bernie either, eh? He couldn't even get enough Democrats to vote for him. So it didn't work out for him. He lost the primary.

And of course anyone who can speak freely without being accountable for anything they say will perform well. That's how it was well-documented that he had a cakewalk.

So going forward...let's hope that Bernie focuses on actual events instead of falling into repetitive clichés.

[SMC22307]

44. How many "embittered Sanders supporters went to Trump"?

No one I know. What data do you have to back up your assertion? I haven't seen any numbers.

Bernie did lose the primary, but that he did so well against the DNC's chosen candidate is truly impressive.

[R B Garr]

48. The primary lasted almost a year. Did you catch any of it? Any news?

Anything? Again, this makes you sound out of touch. There were gaggles of Bernie folks who were going the Nader route with Sanders.

And the people chose Hillary, mostly because they knew her so well. Too bad that Bernie decided to sit out 11 prior national elections and then get paranoid that people were out to get him.

[SMC22307]

51. People say a lot of things. Neither of us know what they actually did.

Show me the data. "Gaggles of Bernie folks" doesn't cut it.

Bernie, true to his word, didn't run third party, so there's no Nader route. If you're referring to Johnson, he urged his supporters to vote for Hillary instead.

[R B Garr]

54. Sigh. More out of touch denials from you. There is a Bernie Sanders group here.

Have you seen it? Have you read it? Did you read here during the Primaries? Ever heard of Bernie or Bust? Ever heard of Bern it Down. I see your bird. So you heard of the bird... If you heard of the bird, you probably are just giving me a run-around that we all saw for over a year here.

So anyway...back to reality.

Third party/Sanders votes made up large enough margins in the battleground states to swing the election to Trump. It was an organized effort to protest Clinton and really show the world how dissatisfied those voters were with the candidate. The same thing happened with Gore. So it's a pattern.

[SMC22307]

57. It's tragic that 300,000+ Florida Democrats voted for Bush rather than Gore.

They're the issue -- not the 24,000 who voted for Nader.

I don't put a lot of stock in message board rants, threats, etc. Maybe you do, but until I see some hard data about the Bernie supporters that swung certain states, I'll remain skeptical.

[R B Garr]

60. You can't spell Sanders without Nader.

Apparently Gore wasn't perfect enough, either. So we lived with Bush. Now we have Trump. It's a pattern. Very tragic indeed. But seriously. The bird gives you away. If a little birdie gets you that excited, then you know all the details about the Clinton protest votes.

Back to the original comment, I do hope that Sanders does better than in the primary. I just don't want to see him get blindsided by this con artist, and he looks a bit weak when he leans on those repitiitious cliches too much.

[SMC22307]

62. Speaking of Florida, why did Hillary lose a state that Obama carried twice?

I know what's the matter with Kansas, but what's the matter with Florida?

Excited over an avatar? LOL If you say so. Think I'll change it to something Christmas-y soon and get really stoked...

[R B Garr]

85. Speaking of losing. Why did Bernie lose California, a state Hillary carried twice?

You would think a big blue state like California would be elated at a lifelong establishment New England senator from a very small state telling us about the perfectness of socialism. Maybe it's because Bernie didn't even get single-payer passed in his own home state that made people like the practical and realistic nature of Clinton. Maybe it's because people saw that Bernie unfairly maligned and attacked her by saying she was against single-payer when her true statement is that she realized that it would be hard to pass, so she thought it better to focus on more realistic policy.

Maybe people in other states and other voting blocs that Bernie irresponsibly stoked with nasty smears about Clinton bought what he was saying. Maybe that's what happened in Florida. This election turned on about 75,000 people spread over several states. If the people who gave protest votes to Sanders and Stein voted for Hillary instead, we wouldn't have Trump in office. So those people knowingly contributed to his presence there, and they obviously preferred it that way.

And about the avatar, I was saying that if you are that aware of the intricacies of that symbol, then it's highly likely that you were attuned to other nuances of his campaign. And the Bernie or Bust movement was far from nuance. It was an in-your-face strategy to defeat Clinton. It was the same thinking that was used to show that Gore wasn't perfect. Then we got Bush's war instead of Al Gore's environmental policies and a responsible use of Bill Clinton's surplus.

Your Christmas icon sounds great! I might join you in that. Cheers.

[SMC22307]

106. Advantages, not "perfectness," of Scandinavian democratic socialism.

Hell, even a Trump-voting family member who has spent time working in Denmark said he'd move there in heartbeat. Germany, too.

You see smears; I see constructive criticism re: policy differences. Bernie also defended Hillary re: *the damn e-mails*, so he can't be scapegoated for that.

Back to Florida:

2008
Obama: 51.03%
McCain: 48.22%
Third Party: .75%

2012
Obama: 50.01%
Mittens: 49.13%
Third Party: .86%

2016
Hillary: 47.8%
Trump: 49.0%
Third Party: 3.2%

That's a big increase in third-party voters. Sure, it's easy to blame mythical protest voters, but DU underestimates: 1) Clinton fatigue; 2) Hillary hatred lingering from the '90s; 3) dislike of Obamacare (especially those with soaring premiums and deductibles); 4) rejection of political dynasties (Jeb lost); and 4) etc.

This Professor Lichtman from AU is interesting -- he's correctly predicted presidential election winners since 1984:

...

So, we studied every American election from 1860 to 1980. This was in 1981, guided by the thesis that presidential elections are primarily judgments on the performance and strength of the party holding the White House. And from that study, we came up with 13 simple, true/false questions, where an answer of “true” always favors the re-election of the White House party. And we came up with a really simple decision rule: if six or more of the keys are false, that bodes defeat for the party holding the White House.

...

Critically, the party holding the White House did not achieve major policy change in the second Obama term. So, they didn’t have a big domestic accomplishment to run on. In addition, they didn’t achieve a big splashy foreign policy success.

....

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/accurately-predict-presidential-election/

[R B Garr]

110. To heck with Denmark. Bernie couldn't even get it passed in Vermont.

And he was only vaguely asked about that in a debate, and he blamed it on the Governor. How lame. If he's out there spearheading this monumental change in policy that will be implemented nationally, and he can't even get a tiny state with not even a million people to go for it, of course people are going to notice that.

And the whole idea of policy differences -- you're only kidding those who were gullible about Bernie's "policies" Who doesn't like to dream. But when I go to an auto dealer to buy a new car and he wants to show me a $100,000 Mercedes when a we can barely get a $20,000 Toyota, then it's a colossal waste of time. My analogy is related to the expensive social policies that sound dreamy compared to practical daily obtainable things like building on existing policies. Bernie has already compromised on the minimum wage after viciously attacking Clinton about her $12/hour proposal. These kinds of vacuous, vicious attacks on Clinton took a toll. The GOP is the party of unreality, but it was unwieldy and damaging to have it happen for the extended period of time it was allowed in the primary. Bernie lost early on, but he decided to go scorched earth for his repetitive talking points, all to no good end.

So it turns out that all that hot air during the primary just caused bitter divisiveness since it was not based in reality. Look at Bernie now settling for $10/hr. That's the kind of hypocrisy of Naders and Sanders that people notice. Nader told some whoppers himself.

And Bernie lost Florida. Hillary won Florida. So your analogy is more fail.

[ucrdem]

64. 'You can't spell Sanders without Nader' -- thread winner

[SMC22307]

66. Hillary lost 32 Iowa counties carried by Obama in 2012.

Why? Not a measly one or two counties, but thirty-two. It's never the candidate, eh?

[ucrdem]

67. The point is that by running hard against Clinton, from within her own party,

Sanders made a difficult race even harder in heartland states like Iowa. Hence the association with Nader.

[SMC22307]

112. Hillary came in third after Obama and John Edwards in Iowa's 2008 caucus.

It appears that Iowans don't care for her very much. Obama carried Iowa twice. She lost to Trump by almost 10 points... ouch. Any Iowans on this board? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on what happened.

[R B Garr]

86. Why couldn't Bernie get single payer passed in Vermont? His adopted home state with a measly

600,000 people rejected it, yet he thought he could sell it to the rest of the country. What's up with that, eh?

That's why I hope he does better now than in the primary. No one questioned him in the primary, so he got away with these kind of hoodwinks.

[ucrdem]

61. oops

[leftofcool]

63. Didn't he already cave on minimum wage?

[SMC22307]

111. No. (n/t)

[Lotusflower70]

4. Why not

Sanders's message was relevant and influential in shifting Hillary's platform and it is important to understand various Democratic points of view. If you deny a part of the equation, it doesn't accurately reflect the divide in the Democratic party.

[Champion Jack]

6. he may not be a card carrying

Democrat but he's one of the most progressive liberals out there, and he's still fighting for us.

[putitinD]

27. Bernie is more of a Democrat, than most Democrats!

[JudyM]

88. Thread win. We seem to have forgotten our deepest values.

[longship]

8. I think we've been through this over and over again already.

I see no need to bring it up at this time.

Nota bene: Bernie Sanders has universally caucused with the Democratic Party during his entire many decade career. And Vermont has a very long history of Independants, and independence.

Saying the he is not a Democrat is just an invitation to yet another useless argument.

That's enough.

[sheshe2]

14. Well....

Hillary. A lifelong Democrat is trashed here to this day. Frankly I am sick of it and tired of the...

Patriarchy

Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property; in the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

Patriarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

Men are not now or ever will be better or superior to women. Stop it!

[longship]

19. Well, she, you won't find me trashing her.

But that's no excuse for this OP.

I voted for Bernie in the MI primary, and unhesitatingly supported Hillary in the GE.

I learned feminism on my mother's lap in the 1950's and have always supported it. If the MI primary had been a bit later, I very well might have voted for Secy Clinton. It was not an easy choice since both candidates had some rather impressive plusses.

But I don't come here to pick fights, at least not deliberately. I find this OP as attempting to fight the primary election again. Frankly, I wish the admins had not reopened up that can of worms.

Nevertheless, I will stand by my post. Bernie has supported the Democratic Party during his entire career, but being from Vermont, he calls himself an independant. It's a regional thing and Vermont has a long history of such things.

Always glad to see you, my friend. I will always have your back on women's issues. I think that my mother taught me well in that respect.


My best to you.

[sheshe2]

23. I am angry. I am hurt.

Don't mean to take it out on you.

I am tired of all the Bernie posts and the trashing of Hillary here.

[longship]

24. I understand, my good friend.

I am also hurting badly. Hillary Clinton was a great candidate. She should have won.

Sadly, that did not happen.



We're in for it. Buckle up.

[sheshe2]

30. Many of us will not survive.

They take ACA I am dead, many with me. Hospital ER's will be flooded with the uninsured. Tax payers will pay and the hospitals that offer care will die. My sister is a nurse. She told me Doctors are very concerned they will not be able to provide care. They take Medicare as well? We will have no hospitals left. Yet here we are talking about Bernie.

[longship]

34. I am dead if they kill Medicare.

It's all I have, other than Social Security.

So, I understand. The privatization of healthcare is an utterly odious thing. Hospitals should not make profits.

Peace, she! We all need to stick together now.

[SMC22307]

33. Why not use the tools Skinner, et al. have so kindly provided?

Isn't hide thread by keyword an option, or something to that effect?

[sheshe2]

35. Lol!

Got it. You want me to sit down and shut up. Not Happening.

[SMC22307]

38. You admit up-thread that you're tired. Rather than complain...

why not use the tools provided to you? Block keyword "Sanders" and you'd be less tired, no?

[sheshe2]

41. Well yes. I am tired.

It is 2AM. I need to go to sleep. I so appreciate your concern. You are so incredibly sweet to think of me.

Hearts...lol!

[SMC22307]

45. My pleasure. (n/t)

[R B Garr]

49. I think we're being told to bow down again.

It looks like where this is all going......

[Fla Dem]

96. Yes, and someone is the Dems Savior because they caucus with the Dems, and they will save

Medicare and Social Security singlehandedly. Without them we are doomed and feckless.

[melman]

90. lol

indeed. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2623004

[SMC22307]

113. LOL

Ah, I love this place.

[Lucky Luciano]

117. LOL!

[JudyM]

89. And what about your incessant trashing of Bernie and his supporters? You can't see that's generating

so many of the pro-Sanders posts?! Seriously, take another look at what's been happening here.

Bernie is out there now, fighting tRump with op-ed, speeches, working on legislation... when these good-for-the-country actions are reported here, you hijack the threads by trashing him/his supporters. Do you not see this? Want us to just sit there and not respond with our own strongly held beliefs about "the truth?" We see things very differently and regardless of your beliefs, it's not an inferior truth.

Do you seriously expect that his supporters will not respond to all the OPs that spew vicious rhetoric against him? If you do expect it, why participate, if the resulting exchanges bother you so much? You seriously believe that tearing him (and us) down will somehow vanquish the loss we all share?

Seriously, if you can't see that you are stoking the very fires that you're objecting to (and that are making you feel badly), please consider it as a possibility for how to shift this place into more of a united community. We all have to move on together for the good of the party. Not just you and yours, but all of us, and if you would commit to no attacks on Sanders for 2 weeks I'll bet you $10 it gets more comfortable for you, as well, because we won't need to step up in defense of our own principled passion for him. We need to be fighting the Orange Ogre.

Personally, I would love to see a thread or two in this forum where we try to unify without any angry rhetoric posts. Where we try to just see what's real in a shared vision kind of way.

[JCanete]

102. but are prefectly fine with, or blind to the opposite? Nobody polices their own here,

that's for sure.

[GummyBearz]

53. Uhh... the Goldwater girl is a "lifelong Democrat"

Might want to look up the definition of lifelong.

[PatsFan87]

12. Does a D next to his name mean more than what he is fighting for on our behalf?

He's doing a great job of speaking out against Trump's appointments, his infrastructure plan, his move with Carrier. We need all hands on deck.

[SMC22307]

15. Exactly. And as he's fighting Trump to protect SS and Medicare...

most Americans won't give a rat's ass about the letter after his name.

[JudyM]

92. Truth. Welcome to DU, PatsFan!

[gejohnston]

20. conventional wisdom is that he would have

done better against Trump. I frankly think the opposite is true.

[StevieM]

21. Enough guys. Hillary and Bernie are both great Democrats/Democrat caucus members.

They have both had admirable careers in which they have done terrific things.

[HassleCat]

22. Fellow traveller

And a better Democrat than some "real" Democrats.

[putitinD]

31. Better Democrat than MOST Democrats. Bernie truly is for the middle class.

[JudyM]

93. And renewable energy.

[applegrove]

28. He is important. He speaks for a great many Democrats. And better yet

he speaks truth to power.

[JudyM]

95. It's puzzling to me that so few of our political leaders are publicly challenging tRump. Warren is,

and of course Bernie, but where are the others? Little snippets here and there, but nothing front and center. Unless I'm missing it...

[cer7711]

46. What's with all the threads about Donald Trump? He is NOT a Republican.

Answers: Relevancy. Current events. Elephant in the room.

[David__77]

58. Millions of Democrats voted for him to be presidential nominee.

I think it's fine to post about him.

[kcdoug1]

71. Ah yes

The old democratic purity test, so after losing 30 state house and now the entire federal government, how's that working out for ya?

[stonecutter357]

72. If Sanders had won, I would have found myself voting for a flawed candidate.

[frazzled]

75. Because

Idolatry.

Gotta have your heroes, you know, even if they are flawed (like the rest of us) old men still spouting the same ideas and phrases they've been hawking since the early 70s (ideas that have their origins in the 1920s). And even though he's never made an inch in progress in effecting any of these ideas, he says them loud, and with a wagging finger, which people think is cool. And those who don't realize these are old ideas and not particularly fit for the 21st century and its technological, global, multicultural demeanor, think they will Make America Great Again, like it was during the Roosevelt administration, when, you know, there were still lynchings all over the South, and schools were legally segregated, and it was okay to put Japanese Americans in interment camps for a few years at a time.

And also because ... even though 17 other public figures have first said it ... when Bernie says the same thing it is unique and deserves a "Bernie Says" thread. Because, as we know, his you know what doesn't stink like the you know what of everyone else.

And, idolatry. It's kind of embarrassing.

[stone space]

76. You felt it necessary to start another OP about Bernie just to say this?

I guess that you just answered your own question.

[Bad Dog]

77. Lots of people on DU aren't Democrats

All of us who aren't American for starters. I'm English, and a member of the Labour Party. It doesn't mean we don't have shared values and goals. If people who support Sanders are shut out then DU will become an unrepresentative talking shop with everyone agreeing with each other. Clinton has just lost the Presidential election, clearly the message wasn't getting through, or if it was, it wasn't convincing enough people. The Democrats won't regain power if they keep trotting out the same old lines. In order to progress to victory you need some detractors.

And I know Clinton won the popular vote, fat lot of good it did.

[yodermon]

78. Correct. He's an Underground Democrat. N/t

[randr]

79. And we dont like click bait

[FreakinDJ]

81. Yet votes more like a Democrat then many carrieing the lable

Shock

[GreenPartyVoter]

84. But he fights for Democratic principles, and we need as many people like that as we can get!

[TransitJohn]

91. Maybe you should read the Terms of Service again.

They seem to have gone over your head.

[ismnotwasm]

97. Oh people are grieving

It's like a sad stew, with the major ingredient of should coulda woulda, a handful of I told you so, and a soupçon of if only, and a to taste only, and just a bitter few, the secret ingredient of schadenfreude.

[Gothmog]

104. I strongly agree with your analysis and conclusions

[FourScore]

107. I honestly wonder if democrats WANT to continue losing.

Threads like this tell me they do.

[gollygee]

116. Since when did we only talk about Democrats?

Why would we avoid talking about anyone?