Third party morons blame President Obama, RBG, and "Democratic normies",

[lapucelle]

(i.e. the Democratic base voters who always show up on election day) for yesterday's SC decision.

Many of these opportunists are already busy collecting cash through their dark money operations while they fluff for Republicans by depressing the Democratic vote in a midterm election year by flogging the narrative that this is the fault of the Democratic Party.

This is how we got here.

====================================

Link to tweet

====================================

Link to tweet

====================================

Link to tweet

====================================


Meanwhile, here's a little throwback "comic relief" from another clueless third party acolyte.


====================================


====================================

[TwilightZone]

1. Briahna Joy Gray really thinks the president can single-handedly codify something?

*sigh*

And Sirota gonna Sirota. That's no surprise.

[MichMan]

2. Sen. Warren and Smith believe he can

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216845104

[mcar]

4. Maybe the 2 senators should be lobbying their fellows

to vote on the law that the House passed. Instead, Sen. Warren is once again publicly calling out our Democratic President to "do something" while she, herself, does nothing.

She has been a disappointment. Sen. Smith was, I believe, in charge of Planned Parenthood at one time.

[betsuni]

9. +1

[sheshe2]

44. +1

[PunkinPi]

94. This. nt

[TwilightZone]

6. Biden can't unilaterally declare a public health emergency.

Someone in HHS would need to do so. We really should know that after the last two years.

Besides, the SCOTUS would shut down any such attempt. Something else we should know by now.

Declaring a public health emergency is also not codifying anything. If we really want to get Roe codified, we need to get more Democrats elected instead of blaming everything on the ones we already have.

Maybe these clowns should have tried a little harder to get Democrats elected in the 2016 general instead of sitting on the sidelines, whining about them.

[lapucelle]

10. Maybe Warren and Smith didn't have time to follow President Biden's remarks yesterday.

The actual CNN headline from the story in the OP link you provided reads :

Biden will "continue to find solutions" to ensure abortion rights, White House says

-----------------------------------------------------------------

White House prepares to fight states over abortion pill
WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) -

President Joe Biden's administration indicated it will seek to prevent states from banning a pill used for medication abortion in light of the Supreme Court ruling overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, signaling a major new legal fight.

The administration could argue in court that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of mifepristone, one of the pills used for medication abortions, pre-empts state restrictions, meaning federal authority outweighs any state action.

snip============================================

Biden said in remarks after the Supreme Court ruling that the government would seek to protect access to medication abortion, saying efforts to restrict it would be "wrong and extreme and out of touch with the majority of Americans."

Attorney General Merrick Garland was more explicit about what Justice Department is eyeing, saying in a statement: "States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy."

Mifepristone was approved for use in abortions by the FDA in 2000, long after Roe was decided in 1973. The pill, also known as RU 486, blocks the pregnancy-sustaining hormone progesterone while the other drug used, misoprostol, induces uterine contractions.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-administration-signals-fight-over-medication-abortion-2022-06

[treestar]

53. They should have gotten elected President and done it.

Obviously Obama did not think that. And respected the law.

[maryellen99]

7. I bet she and sirota voted for trump twice nt

[JohnSJ]

78. Gray, Turner, and the usual cast went out of there way not only to loudly proclaim they would not

vote for Hillary in the general election in 2016, but encourage others to do likewise.

They are a contributing factor why we are where we are today, and why trump was able to appoint three SC justices.

They knew as well as everyone else that the Supreme Court was at stake in 2016, and the bottom line is they didn't care. Their fragile ego was more important then Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Worker's Rights, Environmental Rights, etc. etc. etc.

and at a time when they should be working to get more Democrats elected in the midterms so we have a meaningful majority in both Houses, they play their same old divisive bullshit.

What they have effectively done by their tacticss is get more republican elected.

Yes the Supreme Court did, and does matter, and that voting between Democrats and republicans is NOT an exercise between the "lessor of two eviils". That they cannot even understand that speaks volumes about reasoning abilities.

[mcar]

3. Covering their behinds

by blaming Democrats - SOP for these idiots.

They have no idea how government works, refuse to criticize the actual party responsible (in fact, they are praising Republicans in part), and will never, ever take responsibility for the actions in 2016.

[In It to Win It]

5. Obama, Obama, Obama! We only had 60 senators for a small amount of time

Who were not entirely pro-choice!

YOU TRY PASSING A PRO-CHOICE BILL THROUGH 60 SENATORS WHO WERE NOT ALL PRO-CHOICE!!!!!!

[BumRushDaShow]

29. "YOU TRY PASSING A PRO-CHOICE BILL THROUGH 60 SENATORS WHO WERE NOT ALL PRO-CHOICE!!!!!!"

The ACA was almost LOST in the House thanks to anti-women (D)s like Bart Stupak.

I posted this last month - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16661638

=========================================

I remember back in 2010, there were at least 12 of them who along with Bart Stupak (remember him?) refused to vote for the ACA unless abortion access had some kind of restriction, which initially meant that the "Hyde Amendment" wasn't enough. There were actually 64 Democrats who voted for Stupak's "Amendment".

Could Issue of Abortion Derail Health Care Bill?

Rep. Stupak says he won't vote for bill if it contains Senate abortion language.

By HUMA KHAN
March 4, 2010, 6:40 AM


WASHINGTON, March 4, 2010— -- Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., today said he and 11 other House members will not vote for the health care bill unless it includes more stringent language to prevent federal funding from going toward abortion services. "We're not going to vote for this bill with that kind of language," Stupak told "Good Morning America's" George Stephanopoulos today, referring to the Senate health care bill, which includes less restrictive language than what the Democratic lawmaker proposed in the House.

Stupak said he is willing to take the criticism that will be hurled at him if he blocks the bill because of the abortion language, but that he won't back down on his principles. "I want to see health care pass. I agree... people are being priced out of the market. We must have health care but, boy, there are some principles and beliefs that some of us are not going to pass," he said. "We're prepared to take the responsibility. I mean, I've been catching it ever since last fall. Let's face it, I want to see health care. But we're not going to bypass some principles and beliefs that we feel strongly about."

The ongoing abortion debate threatens to stall the health care bill and reflects the deep divide among Democrats. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs today said the president would like to see the House pass the health care bill before he departs for his international trip on March 18, but that does include passing the "fixes" that the White House has proposed.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., today said that the bill makes no changes to the existing law on abortion.

"There is no change in the access to abortion, no more no less. It is abortion neutral," Pelosi told reporters. "If you believe that there should be no federal funding for abortion, and if you believe that there should be no change in policy... we will pass the bill." Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius told Stephanopoulos on "GMA" that the bill is not about abortion, but about changing the health care system to ease the burden on families and small businesses facing skyrocketing insurance premiums.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/HealthCare/abortion-issue-derail-obama-democrats-health-care-efforts/story?id=10006591

Bart Stupak, A Year After Health Care: Getting 'Bitched Out' in Airports, How the Deal Went Down, and More

By Chris Good
March 23, 2011

Former congressman Bart Stupak was the lynchpin of health reform's passage, and he paid a price for it in the end.
The pro-life, Michigan Democrat led a small but powerful bloc of Democratic lawmakers to oppose the bill because of its language on federal funding of abortions. Seemingly at the last minute, Stupak and the White House hammered out a compromise, his pro-life allies supported the bill, and it passed by a thin margin.

After that, Stupak received a death threat. Facing outside spending in his district and a vitriolic political climate, he decided not to run for reelection. Now, he's a visiting fellow at Harvard's Institute of Politics.

On health care reform's first birthday, Stupak told The Atlantic about getting "bitch[ed] out" by angry citizens in airports, how he and President Obama reached the deal that secured the bill's passage, and that Rahm Emanuel knows better than to get in his face.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/03/bart-stupak-a-year-after-health-care-getting-bitched-out-in-airports-how-the-deal-went-down-and-more/72938/

Per this, there were 6 others with him at the time of his announcement of finally agreeing to it (of that group, there is still one still in Congress - Marcy Kaptur) - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stupak-to-vote-yes-on-health-care-bill/

Stupak was joined at the press conference by six other lawmakers, including Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), who had said previously she would vote yes, and Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Nick Rahall (D-WV), Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Steve Driehaus (D-OH), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), who all said they would now be yes votes.

After he left congress, he was a huge supporter of Hobby Lobby (and their case).

There are still some in there and I hate to say. Below were some remaining post-ACA after trying to torpedo the ACA to forbid abortion services (bolded are still sitting members of Congress) -

Colin Peterson MN-07
Jim Cooper TN-05
Dan Lipinski IL-03
Stephen Lynch MA-08
Sanford Bishop GA-02
Jim Costa CA-16
Henry Cuellar TX-28
Jim Langevin RI-02
Tim Ryan OH-13
Richard Neal MA-01
Marcy Kaptur OH-09
Mike Doyle PA-14

(we know Tim Ryan just won the primary to run for Senate in OH)

And the one about to get a laser focus includes my own Senator, whose father was the defendant (as Governor) in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Granted, Bob Casey, Jr. is definitely NOT his father and has been much more moderate on the issue. But I know some of the local (and probably national) media have started to bubble about it...

If Roe v. Wade falls, Pennsylvania’s pro-life Sen. Bob Casey becomes a linchpin for abortion rights

He was one of two Dems who didn’t join 48 other senators in co-sponsoring the Women’s Health Protection Act.


Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in December 2021 Carolyn Kaster / AP Photo

Lizzy McLellan Ravitch
May. 03, 2022, 1:15 p.m.


Bob Casey is an outlier among his Democratic colleagues in the U.S. Senate. As a pro-life Democrat, he wants to limit the number of abortions that take place in the U.S. — but he also doesn’t approve of Republicans’ recent attempts to weaponize the issue. A draft of a U.S. Supreme Court decision leaked Monday night, indicating a likelihood that the justices will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Casey responded to the leaked opinion in a statement Tuesday afternoon.

“If this draft opinion becomes the final opinion of the Court, I have serious concerns about what overturning almost 50 years of legal precedent will mean for women in states passing near or total bans on abortion,” Casey said. “Congress should be working to reduce the number of abortions and unintended pregnancies and doing much more to support women and families.”

After the SCOTUS draft leaked, pro-choice advocates renewed calls for federal lawmakers to pass a law that would preserve abortion rights. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Women’s Health Protection Act last fall. The Senate then voted in late February, but the act failed to get majority support.

Just two of the 50 sitting Democratic senators held back from co-sponsoring the bill. One was West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who ultimately joined Republicans (as he has on other issues) and voted against moving the act forward. The other holdout who declined to sponsor the bill was Casey, who has throughout his political career described himself as a pro-life Democrat. His father, former Pa. Gov. Bob Casey Sr., was famously pro-life.

https://billypenn.com/2022/05/03/bob-casey-abortion-senate-pro-life-democrat-scotus/

The entire thing above is just to make people aware because some of these people ARE getting pounded by some of their constituents now.

[In It to Win It]

30. YES! I mentioned him this morning talking about this. Also Ian Millhiser invites people

to look him up.

My focus of my discussion this morning was the Senate. Dems had 60 senators blah blah blah... and it just annoyed the fuck outta me.

Link to tweet

Thanks for the additional info, btw

[BumRushDaShow]

60. One of my Senators at the time in 2009 - Arlen Specter (R) switched parties to (D)

and that is what took Democrats to 59, after which Franken finally getting sworn in gave us 60. But then after Kennedy died and MA appointed a fill-in (D), MA had a special election to fill out the term that December and carpet-bagger Scott Brown (R) won the seat, breaking the 60 votes when they resumed that January 2010, and that forced Democrats to have to use "reconciliation" to fix and finish what became the ACA (because we were back to 59), and that is when Stupak came into play.

[Samrob]

38. According to the legal "experts" Roe was settled law. Obama was busy trying to save us from crisis

He actually saved the economy and put healthcare out front and was successful at getting millions healthcare they never would have received before. And he did all that with Progressives blathering about him and demeaning him on every turn while GOP House and Senate voted down much of what he was trying to do.

Nothing like trying to cover your non-voting asses or third-party-voting asses with GOP-laden memes.

[sheshe2]

45. +1

[treestar]

55. +2

[treestar]

54. and the amount of things they expected in that time

is ridiculous!

There was only time for one issue - there generally is. Obama picked the ACA. That is not a bad pick, especially at a time when no one knew Trump would ever be POTUS and ever get lucky enough to appoint 3 justices.

[JohnSJ]

79. It was a very brief window, and that some continue to not realize that only displays their

ignorance.

The passage of what it took to get the ACA through is a perfect example:

The U.S. House of Representatives was safely Democratic as a result of the Nov. 4, 2008, elections by a margin of 257 – 199; the Democrats had gained 21 seats from the 2006-07 Congress. The real interesting ACA political dynamics began during the November 2008 U.S. Senate elections.

Going into the 2008 elections, the Senate consisted of 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and two Independents (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont) who caucused with the Democrats. When the smoke cleared from those elections, the Democrats picked up eight seats to increase their majority to 57-41 (although Democrat Al Franken’s recount victory was not official until July 7). With the two Independents, the Democrats were one vote shy of the supermajority magic number of 60 they needed to ward off any filibuster attempts and move forward with broad healthcare reform legislation.

But on April 28, 2009, the dynamics changed when Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Spector changed parties, giving Senate Democrats that coveted 60th vote.
Now the Democrats had a safe majority in the House and a filibuster-proof supermajority of 60 in the Senate. That scenario lasted only four months before fate intervened. Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died on August 25, 2009, leaving the Democrats, once again, with 59 seats (counting the two Independents). Exactly one month later, on September 25, Democrat Paul Kirk was appointed interim senator from Massachusetts to serve until the special election set for January 19, 2010 – once again giving the Democrats that 60th vote. But the intrigue was just beginning.

There didn’t seem to be an urgent need for Democrats to reconcile both bills immediately, because the Massachusetts special election (scheduled for January 19, 2010) was almost certain to fall to the Democrat, Attorney General Martha Coakley. After all, no Republican had been elected to the U.S. Senate from the Bay State since Edward Brooke in 1972 – 38 years before! But in yet another twist of fate, Republican Scott Brown ran his campaign as the 41st senator against ObamaCare and shocked nearly everyone by winning the special election by 110,000 votes.
That left House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama in a dilemma. Everyone assumed that the Christmas Eve 2009 Senate bill would be tweaked considerably to conform more with the House bill passed two months previously. But now that strategy wouldn’t work, because the Democrats no longer had the 60th vote in the Senate to end debate. What to do? They decided to have the House take up the identical bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve. It passed on March 21, 2010, by a 219 – 212 vote. This time, no Republicans came on board, and 34 Democrats voted against. President Obama signed the ACA legislation two days later on March 23.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2014/03/26/a-look-back-at-how-the-president-was-able-to-sign-obamacare-into-law-four-years-ago/?sh=6caf0d19526b

In addition, the reason a public option could not be included was because there were Democrats who refused to vote for it if it was included in the bill. Nelson in Florida, Nelson in Nebraska, Blanch Lincoln, Lieberman, Bayh, Pyror.

It came down to getting something, or have nothing.

For those Monday morning quarter backs who find it so easy to "blame the Democrats" for NOT codifying Roe, they conveniently forget the facts, and as you pointed out, not all the Democratic Senators at the time were pro-choice, and that Roe had been established by the Supreme Court.

The fact that todays SC not only retracted what had been established by the court for over 50 years, all of trump's SC appointments, except barret, said under oath they would honor stare decisis, was a complete LIE, and slap in the face of precedent of the SC.

[mcar]

8. ...

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=ww8VNBMGtcyasfVWXFpJoA

[BumRushDaShow]

21. OMG THAT CHART in the tweet is a KEEPER!!!!

(saved! )

[mcar]

22. Isn't it?

YW.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

50. I love this chart

[mcar]

51. Sad thing is, it's 100% true

[LetMyPeopleVote]

93. You are correct

This chart is 100% true

[In It to Win It]

27. That graphic

made me chuckle. I know I shouldn't have but its sooo true!

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

91. Same here, crazy how it always comes down to Dem bashing n/t

[Cha]

39. Rts TY, mcar! So True.. magats get

a "complete pass from the 3rd party RFs.

💙💛

[sheshe2]

46. Perfect, thank you mcar!

[treestar]

57. perfect summation!

[TwilightZone]

59. That chart is brilliant

[Me.]

70. Brilliant

Thank you.

[betsuni]

87. Just read a long discussion, too many people convinced there are easy solutions laying around

and Democrats haven't done them. Why didn't Democrats stop _____ ? Why did they let/allow _____ to happen? The usual litany of insults about Democrats not fighting/both sides/naive/spineless/do nothing and threats not to vote.

When someone tries to explain about numbers and how government works, it is mocked as THOSE ARE JUST EXCUSES.

That chart is perfect and exactly what they do.

[mcar]

88. "Do something!!11" social media

does not want to accept that a) a lot has been accomplished, and b) government, i.e. the President, can't do everything on his own.

Just yesterday, I saw a certain congresswoman who, to my knowledge, has no record of getting bills passed in the House, insist at a rally that President Biden could open up Federal health clinics to people seeking abortion. It's one of the Just Us Democrats' new chew toys.

They completely ignore the Hyde Amendment (execrable, but it's there) and a few other things that make this impossible.

[Jedi Guy]

89. Sad to say, but for a lot of people...

They will choose comforting fables over unpalatable facts every time. There are a lot of folks out there giving us a master class in that over the last two days.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

11. Three or four posts last night doing the same thing here

And juries let them stand.

[lapucelle]

31. How would anyone know that? N/T

[dalton99a]

12. Ratfucking scumbags

[AntivaxHunters]

13. David Sirota is a Democrat

and his wife is an elected progressive to the House here in Colorado.
I live in her district & she is awesome! [link:shorturl.at/vFGIN|https://leg.colorado.gov/legislators/emily-sirota]

[TwilightZone]

16. David Sirota is an independent.

[H2O Man]

32. I'm interested in

what evidence there is of this? I'm not saying you are incorrect, but I remember that he has voted in Democratic Party primaries, and worked on a number of Democrats' campaigns. I recognize that people can change party affiliations, but am unable to find anything that verifies he left the party.

[lapucelle]

35. The fact that Sirota is not a Democrat is right on his wiki page along with a professional headshot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sirota

[AntivaxHunters]

41. Wiki is not a reputable source lol

Anyone can edit anything on Wikipedia.

[lapucelle]

47. Yes it is. Sirota provided the headshot, and he is publicity conscious enough

to have ensured that any inaccuracies would have been removed.

Besides, if someone had written that wikipage to troll him, they probably would have used this picture.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you or any members of your group of

"over 30 doctor's [sic]"

have any evidence that Sirota isn't currently an independent or that he is currently a Democrat?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=364710

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[AntivaxHunters]

64. lol no it is not. Anyone can edit it.

He has posted many times on Twitter how he's a Democrat and has voted for both Hillary & Joe Biden.
I really wish people would stop jumping to conclusions on things. Just because someone is critical of someone doesn't mean they aren't a member of our party. You should've heard was California Governor Gavin Newsom said yesterday about Democrats in DC.

[lapucelle]

71. Where has he ever posted on twitter that he is a Democrat?

He's on record saying (just this week!) saying that a "mental illness problem plagues Democratic politics".

==============================================================

Link to tweet

==============================================================


David Sirota lamenting the "mental illness problem that plagues Democratic politics".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[H2O Man]

61. I have to agree

that it sometimes has inaccurate things on it. The page about one of my late friends has always had both disinformation and misinformation on it, from someone (or "ones" ) to cling to bitterness and hatred. Many other times, it has accurate information. This seems to be a period where a good many good people here are reacting to the USSC decision by selecting things/people that they sincerely think are fully responsible for that decision. In my opinion, there are a number of factors from decades on that combined to create this outcome. And that, in time, it might be beneficial to have a conversation about all of them, but emotions are running to allow for that right now.

[AntivaxHunters]

65. Yup exactly

People think it's a legit source but it isn't. It can be edited by anyone. And there have been some big disinformation campaigns aimed at Democrats on there in the past including President Obama & Hillary Clinton. Everyone on there is fair game though.

[AntivaxHunters]

40. Nope, he's a Dem

[TwilightZone]

49. Prove it.

Provide proof that he's a registered Democrat.

We'll wait.

He's been an independent for years. Just because he (probably) voted for his wife doesn't make him a Democrat.

[AntivaxHunters]

67. Prove he's not

All I can tell you is that he has said he is a Democrat on Twitter. Granted a disenfranchised one.

[lapucelle]

63. Really?

His wiki bio says he's an independent, and Sirota appears to have jumped onto the lucrative third party bandwagon.

================================================================

On this week’s Lever Time, host David Sirota is joined by Philadelphia City Council member Kendra Brooks and former Vermont Lt. Governor David Zuckerman - both of whom won their seats as members of third parties. They discuss the obstacles third party candidates face, the blowback they faced for running against the duopoly, and how they work with the major parties once in office. They also discuss lessons for those who want to build third parties in their own communities.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Independent/Anti-Duopolist David Sirota:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[AntivaxHunters]

68. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source & can be edited by anyone

See replies above.

[lapucelle]

76. Yet you have no evidence for the claim that an independent, third party advocate, anti-duopolist

who was busy depressing the Democratic vote the day before a presidential election, and who tweeted just two days ago that "a mental illness problem plague[s] Democratic politics" is actually a Democrat.

Does anyone in your group have evidence?

[dalton99a]

17. He sure likes to attack Democrats

https://www.levernews.com/not-pretending-anymore/
May 17, 2022
David Sirota
They Are Not Even Pretending Anymore
Top Democratic leaders are joining with oligarchs to try to permanently destroy the progressive movement.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/democrats-fdr-new-deal-financial-crisis-1248615/
Democrats’ Betrayals Are Jeopardizing American Democracy
History is screaming at Democrats to both rescue the economy and save democracy from a meltdown. They’re doing the opposite
By David Sirota & Alex Gibney
October 27, 2021 7:30AM ET

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/19/politics/bernie-sanders-hires-former-journalist/index.html
New Sanders hire, who was critical of Democratic opponents, scrubs internet history
By Ryan Nobles and Gregory Krieg, CNN
Updated 11:56 AM EDT, Wed March 20, 2019

... As of Tuesday morning, Sirota had scrubbed his Twitter page of some 20,000 tweets going back several years. The campaign would not say whether it asked Sirota to delete his old tweets.

In addition to his attacks in the current cycle, Sirota was also a regular critic of Hillary Clinton and her campaign in 2016. He often hammered reporters covering the Clinton campaign, faulting them for not being critical enough of the former secretary of state.

[mcar]

24. He hates Democrats and constantly bashes them

[AntivaxHunters]

69. If he hates Democrats then why would he ever marry one who's serving in office?

[mcar]

72. Don't know

Why don't you ask him? You seem to be a big supporter.

I followed him until the 2020 election when he completely turned on Democrats and became one of those bitter, Democrat-slamming "progressives" because he didn't get whatever pony was popular among that set at that time.

[W_HAMILTON]

81. Because he's a fucking grifter first and foremost.

[lapucelle]

25. Really? Well, Sirota certainly was busy depressing the Democratic vote on November 7, 2016.

The actual tweets have (of course) been deleted, but the screenshots live on.

=================================================

=================================================

Perhaps Mr. Sirota has seen the error of his ways, but his recent "normie Democrat" nonsense seems to belie the possibility.

[dalton99a]

34. +1. He ran a years-long smear campaign against Hillary

etc.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

26. Whatever his wife is, he himself is a Dem-hater.

He worked very hard against Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. In fact, I'd say he's one of the most poisonous of all that lot of Dem-hating leftists.

[Midwestern Democrat]

14. There's no way to sugarcoat it - Ginsburg made a VERY risky gamble - gambling that the Democratic

Party would win three presidential elections in a row (and she didn't have a crystal ball that told her what the political environment would be like in 2016 or who the GOP nominee would be). Since 1952, the same party winning three presidential elections in a row has happened only once: Reagan/Bush (1980-1992).

[Sympthsical]

18. When obvious statements are anathema

The problem isn't with the obvious statements.

[lapucelle]

20. Indeed. Unfortunately there are influencers who don't understand the obvious,

and their fan base goes along for the third party ride because it's cool cosplay.

==========================================================

[Sympthsical]

23. It's not on my radar

I do not spend all day attacking the Left. Nothing productive in it. It just serves to pull everything rightward (which may be the goal in some quarters).

I will only say, when people cannot so much as countenance the discussion of past mistakes, the future tends to take a grim shape.

And that would go for everyone involved in mistakes. And god knows, given where we are today, there are plenty to go around.

I just don't happen to be the type to only recognize those which suit my partisan leanings, whether that be liberal, Democratic, progressive, or other.

It's the others I worry about.

[lapucelle]

28. It is a shame that folks like Yang and Gray cannot countenance the discussion of their past mistakes

and instead are busy spinning narratives on twitter. They are certainly not Democrats, and I'm not sure why anyone would consider these particular craven opportunists "the left".

Thanks for checking in even though it's not on your radar.

[Midwestern Democrat]

37. No kidding. I'm no Bernie/"Our Revolution" fan, but I'm not ever going to engage in such blind hero

worship of anyone that I'm going to make rationalizations/excuses for anything they do.

[lapucelle]

56. Agreed. The blind hero worship of third party acolytes who work to depress the Democratic vote

is frankly weird.

Instead of spinning tales, rationalizing, and making excuses on twitter, they should be taking responsibility and apologizing.

[lapucelle]

19. It wasn't RBG who made the risky gamble,

but thanks for sharing.

[Hortensis]

15. Matthew Iglesias said it good!

Btw, I actually hope this is very bad for third parties in this era as more people realize that voting third party tends to elect Republicans and put RW extremists and racists on the courts. In better times it can be different, but these are very dangerous times.

[LiberalFighter]

36. Those morons are ignorant of reality.

It is important to identify them.

[Cha]

43. Agree! Why cover up their names?

💙💛

[Cha]

42. FO to All those 3rd Party POS Who

Actually had a big Part in getting Roe VS Wade Overtruned!

💙💛

[sheshe2]

48. Recommend!

[treestar]

52. I hate that sentiment of Andrew Yang

There was nothing else going on? No one knew Trump would get in. Trump got lucky to make 3 SCOTUS appointments in one term.

[Lancero]

58. Anyone wondering if we have them here too, heres a thread full of em.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216841366

Chock full of supposed Democrats who can't help but get on the ol RBG blame train.

Edit - And not just new members too. Some of them are even OG members.

[Crunchy Frog]

62. We wouldn't be here if RBG had retired in a timely fashion.

[lapucelle]

75. Yes we would. Both the NY gun law case and Dobbs were 6-3 decisions. N/T

[Crunchy Frog]

77. Dobbs yes, but not the complete overturning of Roe.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

82. Roberts proposal would had only delayed matters

Roberts concurrence would have approved the 15 weeks ban and opened the door to further piecemeal gutting of Roe

[lapucelle]

85. Then why not blame Justice Kennedy who "unexpectedly retired"

with the full knowledge that it was Trump who would replace him?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

80. If RBG retired before the 2014 midterms, the 60 vote filibuster was in effect

The Democrats had made a big deal in the nuclear vote for cabinet and lower judges of keeping the 60 vote requirement in for SCOTUS judges. That would had played in to RBG's decision to stay on.

Again, Hillary warned us

Link to tweet

[we can do it]

66. Fuck grifting Yang, and all the idiots who believe this shit.

[Me.]

73. And Don't Forget PJB

for not being strong enough or, too old.

[Samrob]

74. They can say that crap all they want to. We have the receipts

("I don't vote with my vagina&quot

Cornel West: Why I Endorse Green Party's Jill Stein Over "Neoliberal Disaster" Hillary Clinton

[Pete Ross Junior]

83. Just an aside ...

Anyone who uses the word "normies" (except maybe sarcastically) is someone whose opinion doesn't matter.

[Jedi Guy]

90. Well...

I agree that their opinion shouldn't matter if they use that term with a straight face. I wish I could agree that their opinion doesn't matter, but sadly it seems to hold some weight in certain circles.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

84. I am not a fan of the Justice Democrats

I have been following the Justice Democrats and its predecessor and affilaites for a while including the "brand new congress group" and other groups created by Cenk, Kyle Kulinksi, Waleed Shadid, and their ilk. I am on the Justice Democrat email list and I have even listened once or twice to the Justice Democrat podcast which is amusingly called "Just Us" democrats. The Justice Democrats emails are fun to laugh at and I love the hatred this group shows to the Democratic Party, establishment Democrats and best of all corporate democrats. The posts attacking the DCCC for raising money to elect real Democrats are really amusing.

I have been following a number of posters on twitter who dislike the Justice Democrats who have issues with the concept of the Justice Democrat group wanting to take over the Democratic party and remake into their image.

Link to tweet

I have been getting a ton of emails from the Just Us and Our revolution types. These emails are sick and want to blame""corporate" democrats.

Waleed Shahid is one of the founders of the Just Us democrats and this post sickens me

Link to tweet

Voting against regular democrats will not help.

[Cha]

86. Rts💕TY & JDW, LMPV!

💙💛

[Hortensis]

92. +1000, though after 2016 I no longer laugh at radical fringe

groups motivated more by hostility toward the Democratic Party and need for power and relevance than by the goals they claim to draw idealists.

This era's version have repeatedly help kick progressive ideals and goals under the Republican bus in order to defeat Democrats, not just willing but sometimes actively working to help tRump and the Republican Party win as the closest they can get to "winning" themselves. That's the real role they play in these dangerous times.