General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow many on the progressive wing of the Democratic party were duped by Putin?.
This is why I don't like populist movements. They tend to believe what reinforces their narrative no matter the source, outcome or evidence. Its not that progressive nor populist is a bad thing, its just so easy to manipulate.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 2, 2017, 02:32 AM - Edit history (1)
It's not as though those who collectively attack "the progressive wing of the Democratic Party" are somehow immune to manipulation.
(edited to phrase the observation in a less ideological way).
Eko
(7,315 posts)You didn't see a lot of "dismissive centrist Democrats" falling for putins lies like you did others. 
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And you're not going to pull us together for victory in '18 and '20 by starting "it was YOUR fault" threads.
Eko
(7,315 posts)And Bravo to you for not falling for Putin's lies. Do you represent everyone on the progressive wing of the Democratic party? If not what is your problem?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The prohibitive majority of progressive Democrats voted for Hillary. If some didn't, it's not because of anything Putin did.
What matters now is the future. It's a waste of time lashing out at people whose support we need in 2018 an 2020 over the 2016 result. What happened in November 2016 is not something any of us can do anything about now. What we CAN do something about is the NEXT elections.
Why aren't you working to find common ground and ways to bring in the voters we need to add to our total, rather than accusing people of being dupes of Russian propaganda? What good does that do? You're not going to get people to work with us by lashing out at them for not working with us in the past.
Eko
(7,315 posts)Its only a waste of time if we don't learn from history and doom ourselves to repeat it. Rinse, repeat.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)in the Upper Midwest. From what I saw, the echoes of Putinist rhetoric in Trump's campaign speeches were what played best for him in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
What would you recommend we do to combat any recurrence of whatever interference Putin engaged in?
It's not as though Putin created the Sanders phenomenon-THAT was the product of a political vacuum.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,622 posts)
ancianita
(36,064 posts)with Russians.
We'd decided long before the night of the Democratic Party nomination.
Right now, you're the one nudging this "duped" idea along, so rev up the evidence, links, quotes, etc. You'd better lay out the history we should have learned with facts we should have accessed and known, especially when you bring Putin into the mix right now.
Because if your question is honest, you should explain how you just see some documentary two years after all these events, a documentary based on hundreds of other people's investigations and books, then play the 20-20 hindsight armchair analyst or critic without providing external evidence that somehow we Democrats all had access to.
Or you could get reported for divisive, undermining statements about your fellow Democrats.
Eko
(7,315 posts)lol, I know some. So where does that leave us? You noticed I put a question mark in the title? So report me.
rzemanfl
(29,565 posts)ancianita
(36,064 posts)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)And if we don't stop it, we'll doom ourselves to repeat it.
Not only did those on the left NOT fall for stupid conspiracy theories like Hillary ran a child prostitution ring out of pizza parlor, we didn't even fall for such MSM concoctions like Benghazi or Emails.
In fact, Putins efforts were yet another hurdle for progressives, those that supported Bernie's platform, which was all we were focused on, because we knew that the intellectually lazy thing to do would be to conflate ALL those that contended her, from Democratic delegates that preferred Sanders, all the way to screaming lunatics on the right that were dead sure the Clintons were child enslaving, murdering, ISIS founding, traitors. That we all must have been duped by Putin.
uh...no. Progressives had their issues burning for years, decades, already. It was why we voted for Obama over Hillary the first time. Because, whether he lived up to those promises in the end, at the time he gave off the impression that he was going to be more progressive, and was less influenced by Wall Street, and represented a new bold agenda including fighting for a public option. The Hope and Change for us was palatable.
We didn't need to latch onto fake news and fake scandals. Those were distractions from the main message. Sanders got pissed whenever someone tried to goad him into using those cheap unproven attacks against her for that very reason. That those non-scandals, and we could include any Russian troll memes in that, were deflecting the talk away from his platform! And we took his lead, including pivoting to Hillary for the general. And any person that claimed to be a Bernie supporter and then voted for Trump or Stein, were those that were never going to vote for her anyways. You are stirring up a Straw Man position in order to get a reaction. It doesn't help AT ALL.
This OP is Putin's wet dream. In fact I want to know why you even would throw this flaming bone into DU like this. What is YOUR agenda?
Eko
(7,315 posts)If you asked me how many Democrats were and are being duped by Putin I would say there are without a doubt some.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)Just like there are 'some' Republicans that voted for Hillary. But you are inciting the idea that there was a significant amount of really stupid liberals (who statistics show are better educated, more politically aware) who based their vote on Putin trolls instead of thoughtful deliberation, for years way before. Enough to be concerned with. That we should deflect, even a part of our energy contemplating about this minuscule percentage that had zero effect on the election outcome. Especially since doing so only helps Republicans.
We are supporters of the Democratic party. We are your allies. Please stop fomenting these baseless CT that are invitations for those that fall for them to spout and support this nonsense.(See numerous posts below).
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)While Putin, Trump, and McConnell laugh their asses off at us for doing it.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)in all the election years. As for Common ground...if Trump isn't enough to inspire voters to overlook the perceived faults in the Democratic party which I actually think is mostly bullshit...than they are hardcore Democrat haters and there is no hope for them. The suggestions I have seen from this group would caused back to back losses in most cases. We can't do that. The house is on fire...let's not worry about rearranging the living room furniture.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)that what Putin did was the whole story, that we could be sure we'd have won if only it hadn't been for that.
The danger in taking that view is that it becomes justification for a "stay the course" mentality(or worse, a go further right argument, when we can't go to the right of where we were this year and still be Democratic or in any sense progressive).
Some people would like us to go back to the '92 and '96 platforms, when winning on those was in some senses worse than losing, becaues we ended with a Democratic administration that accepted deeper cuts in social services than in any Republican administration since 1952. Defending funding for social services and standing with the working and kept-from-working poor in their fight for dignity ad survival are the main reasons the Democratic Party exists. They are what the difference between being progressive and conservative-abandoning that mission means abandoning our purpose.
We can't go back to being the party we were in the Nineties...a party that was nominally pro-choice and barely pro-LGBTQ, but militaristic on foreign policy and in essential agreement with the GOP on the idea that Wall Street and corporate power should be given special deference in all major decisions in American life.
We didn't lose because Bernie ran. We lost because our fall campaign didn't reference anything in the platform including any of the large numbers of Sanders ideas included in it-ALL OF WHICH were and are popular. I'm convinced that had we led(in addidion to Hillary's personal qualifications, which essentially didn't need to be mentioned in the fall because everyone already knew what her qualifications and story were)with the platform and had we run ads in states where Sanders did well praising the Sanders kids, many of them first-time political activists, for what they had achieved, we could have brought them to the polls and we could have added to our total from other quarters.
Instead, we ran a campaign in which the only issues referenced was the need to defend choice-a point we'd already made and on which no significant number of people disagreed and about which little still needed to be said, really-and an endless, pointless reiteration of the shocking fact that Donald Trump was a misogynist bastard-a fact that, at that time, most voters didn't see as a deciding issue.
I WANTED Hillary to be elected. All I've said was that I think we'd have been much more likely to elect her had we led with what she and the party were FOR and why progressive policies were actually a GOOD thing than were going to by running a campaign that made us look twenty degrees further to the right than we actually were. We didn't win any votes in 2016 by hiding the progressive parts of our agenda.
that what Putin did was the whole story, that we could be sure we'd have won if only it hadn't been for that.
With what came out today about Flynn. I for one would not dismiss Putin's influence and the traitorous actions of the occupants of the White House. Sad to see that you dismiss that so casually.
What does stay the course mean? We have one of the most progressive platforms...and you call that staying the course. Here is the platform. I suggest you read it. Then get back to me with how it "stays the course"
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf
Do you have links to your assertion that 'some people' want us to go back to the 92 and 96 platforms? Who are all theses people you refer to that are "abandoning our purpose."
..............that's it. I am far to tired to comment on the rest of your post and your need to refight the primaries over and over again.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's just a difference of opinion.
You know perfectly well that I accept that Hillary was nominated and that I campaigned for her in the fall. If a person does those things, that proves that person is not refighting the primaries. Kindly don't ever make that false accusation against me again.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Actually, it is.
You know I'm right.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Unless you're going to define "refighting the primaries", as disagreeing with anything anyone who ever backed HRC ever said.
It's not refighting simply to call for post-election change within the party, OR to call for reconciliation between Sanders or HRC people.
And those things are all that I do now.
I don't attack anyone and I don't question the nomination of HRC.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)because you are just WRONG in your analysis, politically, socially ect:, most times, always............
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 5, 2017, 06:35 PM - Edit history (3)
I'd respect that a bit more if those who did actually engaged the points I was making rather than accusing me of having some sort of secret agenda or of being allied with anti-Democratic groups and websites or of being opposed the idea of a woman being president, or of just trying to tell me to shut up when there's nothing intolerable in what I'm saying.
And they don't have the right to misuse the "don't refight the primaries" rule when I don't refight the primaries.
Refighting the primaries is about refusing to accept that Hillary was nominated or disrespecting her or her supporters(it should also include continuing to argue that Bernie should have been barred from our primaries, but for some reason that is accepted). I've NEVER refused to accept Hillary's nomination and I worked hard to help elect her when she WAS nominated. The refighting rule does NOT mean people aren't allowed to co to respectfully advocate for the ideas of the runner-up candidate in the primaries in future Democratic platforms. Ideas are simply ideas.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)the right wing memes around for years...they colluded with Trump and may have actually flipped votes...it is the entire story...yes some of the left were duped...but our policies had little to do with it...it was a full on attack with Wiki and Russian trolls. It is the entire story. They used a divisive primary and piled on with more shit and leaks...it is the entire story of 16. But despite the bullshit Hillary won about 4 million more votes...and now people are alert...it bodes well for future elections.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If Putin wanted to meddle, he could have meddled just as effectively if Bernie hadn't run.
I'm fine with people being alert to any threats to democracy...but we can't win in '18 and '20 by focusing on calling out Putin.
As to our policies...a big part of the problem was that the campaign ads largely didn't MENTION our policies and platform-in a year when everything in our platform was popular-largely didn't tell voters about what we were offering. When they mentioned issues, the ads largely focused on reproductive choice-an important issue, but far from the only issue on which voters were progressive-and on attacking Trump and we knew from the GOP primaries that Trump could never be beaten by attack ads.
If none of the attack ads in the fall worked, starting the attack ads earlier wouldn't have worked.
I WANTED Hillary to end up in the White House as much as you did. Everything I posted about how the fall campaign was going was because I was worried-rightly-that it was slipping away and that she wasn't being well-served by what was being done.
It doesn't help her OR us to pretend that the campaign run on her behalf was flawless and should be repeated in exactly the same way next time. And from what I've read Hillary doesn't call on us to take that view.
We're going to have a different candidate in 2020...probably someone from a younger generation...and that candidate will be most likely to win if they run a policy-based campaign.
Issues matter and how you communicate with voters matter.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)What is it in here with this campaign against progressives on DU.
Of all the folks to blame. I guess its so much easier, lazier, to blame your ally, your neighbor, because they are within earshot.
And for what purpose? Divide and conquer?
WHY ARE WE USING THIS TECHNIQUE ON OUR OWN PARTY????!
heaven05
(18,124 posts)WORD SALAD EXTRAODINAIRE refighting the primaries again eh???give up, we lost because...well you do know why...
betsuni
(25,537 posts) 
"But why do spirits walk the earth, and why do they come to me?"
peggysue2
(10,829 posts)A discussion like this one needn't be an exercise in finger-pointing. We cannot reclaim 2016, regardless of what did or did not happen.
But we sure as hell better understand the who, what, where and how of what happened--even if it's unpleasant or inconvenient--in order to defend ourselves in the future. This isn't over (see my post down thread). Cyber-warfare is here and ain't going away. As Americans we should acknowledge, at the very least, that we are as susceptible to propaganda/psych-ops strategies as anyone else. That's the first step in re-charting our course and ensuring our electoral integrity.
Right again, btw: Our house is, indeed, on fire. The fire will not be put out with a pissing contest. Democrats who were duped in 2016 should be angry as shit. Take that energy and put it to use winning seats for the Democratic Party in 2018.
Because winning will work.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)Not by me and not by many I see here. It is a silly label that some attach themselves to...not sure why, though I have my ideas. Me? I am a Democrat and always have been and always will be.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)are different...but the idea of corporate Democrats vs 'hippies' is bullshit. Splitting the Democratic party by passing judgement on who is 'progressive' is crap...and of course anyone you don't like isn't 'progressive'. We are the big tent party...there are degrees of progressive belief. But we are all on the same side.
Eko
(7,315 posts)Sarandon, Nina Turner and Stein? You may interpret this as a "it was YOUR fault" thread but I stated that nowhere. I personally see this as way more of a threat than not reaching out to Trump voters, but whatever.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I've never defended Sarandon or Stein. As to Nina Turner, at MOST I've said that it's a waste of time to demonize her. Nina was not the problem.
Those were people who ended up voting Green, not Democrat. They aren't my responsibility.
You referenced progressive Democrats in your thread title. Progressive Democrats aren't to blame for Trump being in power, and Trump would be in power even if no one had run against Hillary for the nomination.
btw, what are you referring to when you use the word "this"?
Its your opinion that Sarandon, Stien, Turner and those like minded are not a problem and I respect that. To me they are. They are progressive Democrats that did not support Clinton. I never said progressive Democrats were to blame did I? I used "this" twice so you would have to be more specific.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Stein is a Green, not a Democrat. We're never going to get HER to change her mind. It's just that I think the way to neutralize her is to make some changes in the way we as a party do politics. If we can make THIS a party in which people who care about fighting corporate greed, challenging inequality and opposing U.S. militarism are made welcome and encouraged to work for what they believe in, that would destroy the Green Party's raison d'etre.
As to Turner, I think we can find a way to work with her, and that treating her as the enemy doesn't achieve anything.
As to Sarandon...she's a film actress who used to play leads and has now transitioned into character roles. I don't agree with her support of Stein and her dismissal of the need to stop Trump, but how much difference did Sarandon really make? I doubt there were that many people who made their decision about who to vote for in 2016 did so on the basis of what the female lead in BULL DURHAM said. From what I saw, Sarandon basically made herself irrelevant in 2016.
What I've been saying since November is that the answer to beating Trump and the GOP majorities in Congress does not lie in lashing out at those who might have supported us but didn't-it lies in creating a program that connects with what they want, without abandoning what the base wants(and in recognizing that a lot of the base want something close to what the voters we need want).
Let's be creative, not destructive. We need a Reformation, not an Inquisition.
Eko
(7,315 posts)of the progressive part of the Democratic party?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Stein had always been there...Sarandon ended up there.
The voters Stein added to her total were largely new voters...voters who weren't part of any party in the past, were drawn towards our party by Bernie(and would have joined us had he been nominated or at least had their agenda been accepted as valid by our nominee and the people who ran her fall campaign).
They weren't long-time Dem progressives who slipped away.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The young people who were for Bernie and then voted Stein or didn't vote are people who were headed towards the Democratic Party but most likely felt, after Philly, that they'd never be welcome to work for what they wanted within that party. The party should have reached out to them but didn't, and the party could have found a way to include them WITHOUT nominating Bernie.
Sarandon is a wild card.
No, these people are not part of "the progressive wing of the Democratic Party".
And the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is not responsible for their choices.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)to the DNC's door was October 31st. Mark your calendar for next year, Martin Luther!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)for the better.
There's nothing wrong with suggesting change after an election that didn't go our way, and I've never hated the party.
The Reformation/Inquisition thing was a metaphor.
We need more votes in 2018 and 2020. In addition to making sure our base is registered and brought to the polls(they can't be mobilized solely by saying "stop Trump!" and keeping everything else vague), we need to reach out to people who could be voting for us but haven't yet. There are positive and creative ways of doing that without betraying anybody. None of this is zero-sum.
We be for JUSTICE, in all forms.
We can stand for all left out in the cold by the power structure.
We can defend the idea of the common good AND the need to take some things out of the realm of "market values".
And we can do all of that no matter who we nominate, by creating a common program platform and expecting whoever we choose to campaign on it(which is how we should always handle what our party stands for).
It's too late to be lashing out at people for 2016. Some made choices they should not have made, but that's the past. Unity for the future matters far more than repentance for the past.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)packed thanks to those who bought this pernicious idea that the Democratic Party is so terrible or they are all the same...total crap. We simply can't afford another loss...so people have a choice...lose everything progressives have worked for since Roosevelt or vote Democratic. It is quite simple really.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The only voters we can add to our total to prevent that are to our left...and that INCLUDES voters in the Democratic base who didn't vote(or were kept from voting through voter suppression).
There aren't any "socially liberal/moderate, fiscally conservative" voters anymore, and there aren't any significant number of voters who will ONLY vote for us if we're just as committed to eternal military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world as the GOP is.
We need to get the votes we CAN get.
I don't believe the Democratic Party is "terrible". I believe it could be better. And it serves no purpose to demand that people pretend it's an example of exalted perfection in which nothing any politician associated with it does can ever be questioned.
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)
betsuni
(25,537 posts)Now I have to look up what "metaphor" means! He's so smart.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Or that I'm working against what you support in some way?
We're on the same side and we're in the same party...we simply preferred different primary candidates-after which I campaigned enthusiastically for the nominee.
You've got no valid reason to bear a grudge against me. None at all.
betsuni
(25,537 posts) Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That I don't see myself as Martin Luther or anything like that.
I never meant it to sound like I thought you didn't know what a metaphor was. I'm sorry that I somehow managed to make it sound like that's what I was saying.
These words are written by someone who is neither your enemy, the Democratic Party's enemy, nor in any way responsible for Trump being president.
I never wanted Hillary to lose the Electoral College and did all I could in the fall to help elect her.
None of my critiques of the campaign was ever an attack on Hillary or disrespectful to her or any of those who supported her from the start. They were simply about the long-term institutional mindset of this party when it comes to general election campaigns. They were grounded in the Democratic political tradition I grew up in, a tradition in which, if the election doesn't go the way you wanted, you get together and examine and critique what was done. It's simply about wanting to learn and do better. For the life of me, I can't fathom why you find that intent so difficult to accept.
Do you really believe that the only way to give HRC her due is to insist that the campaign run, not by her, but on her behalf, was flawless? Or that we can only fight against Russian interference in future campaigns by denying and significant mistakes were made?
If so...could you at least tell me why you believe that?
betsuni
(25,537 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But you do tend to look for any reason to label what I post as an attack on her, or those who support her. or on the entire Democratic Party.
None of which is what I'm about...ok?
betsuni
(25,537 posts)I'm a socialist, by the way, as I've said here in the past. If I could vote in the country I live in, it would be for a socialist or a commie. As others have pointed out, you make an awful lot of assumptions. I don't even pay much attention to the primaries because voting for the Republican or other party candidate for president isn't remotely a possibility. But please proceed in making this about your assumptions about Democrats.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I AM a Democrat.
I've called for change within the Democratic Party...I don't HATE the party...I'm not a "both parties are the same" type...I don't think Democratic public figures are evil.
I'm just someone who has posted some suggestions for things the party might do differently...those were made without disrespect to any public figures in the party or any supporters of anyone.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I haven't attacked you personally on any level, or insulted your intelligence, and I don't smear HRC(I've never even discussed the Monsanto thing that that thread was about) I'm not actually saying anything ABOUT her or about you. I'm simply talking about the future, which kind of required me to reference the last general election(NOT the primaries) as a jumping off point..
So what is your issue with me? I'm also a socialist(and have no preferred candidate for 2020), I've simply been talking about reconciliation around a common program. What, in any of that, do you have a problem with?
What do I have to do to get past the kind of response you had to me upthread?
We are not enemies and I'm not harming the Democratic Party.
Sarandon said this.
Susan Sarandon. Hollywood actress and activist Susan Sarandon says former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be a more dangerous U.S. president than Donald Trump — provided she’s not indicted first.
Susan Sarandon says Hillary Clinton 'more dangerous' than ...
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/3/susan-sarandon-says-hillary-clinton-more-…
I believed influenced their vote in the GE.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But please focus it on her as an individual, and take it out of the realm of blaming present or(in my case)former Sanders supporters for her role in politics or on demanding that EVERYONE focus on attacking her.
But again, she is NOT part of "the progressive wing of the Democratic Party", and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party(the prohibitive majority of whom did vote for HRC, if their votes weren't suppressed) is NOT to blame for her nor should it be tarred by anything she did.
And Jill Stein is not part of "the progressive wing of the Democratic Party" either, so don't blame US for what she does. Blame her.
We can't win in '18 or '20 by running campaigns based solely or mainly on denouncing the evils of the GOP and Trump and the futility of voting Green. Voters always want something to vote FOR, not AGAINST. We can win if we emphasize what is popular in our program-which is virtually everything-and if we actually make a case FOR progressive change.
The candidates who ran this November largely won on positive, largely progressive campaigns. So I think we can start trusting in the idea that we can win by winning the argument on policy, and admit that campaigns based mainly on attacking the other party essentially don't work for us.
samnsara
(17,622 posts)betsuni
(25,537 posts)First comment, divisive. A little projection with the "you're not going to pull us together ... by starting 'it was YOUR fault' threads"?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And was directed solely at that individual. I'll now delete it, but it's not "divisive" simply to respond to someone collectively blaming progressives-or collectively implying that progressive Dems were duped by Putin-and if someone is going to say that, how far are they going to take it? Are people now going to imply that Bernie's campaign was somehow a Russian plot, even though that assertion would obviously be absurd? Are there any limits on what is now going to be ascribed to "Russian interference"?
It serves no good purpose to collectively blame "the progressive wing" for something the progressive wing did not cause-OR to accuse the progressive wing of collectively being dupes of anyone.
As to "divisiveness", I'm as much of a loyal Dem as you are, and have earned the right to speak openly on issues within the party.
Nothing I've posted deserves your hostility or derision. I'm blameless in the 2016 result and my posts since then have simply been positive calls for change. I don't attack any person and I don't blame any person. My comments have simply been about the collective mindset in the party leadership. It's legitimate to question the idea of always running our fall campaign on the assumption that we can only run AGAINST the GOP, rather than FOR progressive policies.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)I love it when you talk about our fall campaign. 
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Anyway, I just proved that critiquing the fall campaign is not, in any sense, a personal attack on Hillary.
It's a comment on the defeatist institutional mindset our party has about fall campaigns, a mindset only Obama broke with in recent memory(and his break with it in 2008 is why he won, in case you've forgotten).
I WANTED Hillary to win. The way the party approaches elections didn't serve her well. I'm showing respect to her in pointing that out.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)you WONT vote for any democrat in november on your ticket?
If you say YES you would still vote for a Dem in Nov no matter what, then what does your comment mean?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Yelling at the people whose votes we could have won but didn't(and I say this as a person who did all I could to win those votes over) doesn't work-if it did, they WOULD have voted for us in the fall and we would not be in this situation.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Because we don't have nearly enough of them. 
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)KPN
(15,646 posts)far down the thread.
sadiegirl
(138 posts)i don't think the numbers lie about who didn't show up and who went 3rd party.
DangerousUrNot
(431 posts)It seems like half of the progressives think there was nothing between Trump and Russia and the other half thinks there was collusion or some type of illegal dealings. From the start, I’ve thought there was something between the two. Putin is stupid rich and Trump is stu stu stu stupid.
A lot of progressives I know are skeptics and atheists. We usually don’t believe things without evidence.
Eko
(7,315 posts)Did you watch the videos? They are pretty good and disturbing.
DangerousUrNot
(431 posts)DangerousUrNot
(431 posts)Frontline did an awesome job. People on the left who say russia didn’t have any involvement are crazy. They are so against the DNC that it doesn’t matter what evidence is shown, they’ll continue to say hillary lost all on her on.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If Putin was involved, it serves no purpose to pretend that the fall campaign made no significant tactical or strategic mistakes, or to argue that we should just keep doing things the way they were doing in that campaign.
And insisting that nothing should be changed within the party is not a way to prevent Putin from interfering again.
I'd suggest we take a holistic approach on this:
1) Beef up our computer security at all levels within the party to make sure that hacking can't be replicated;
2) Fight hard to win the 2018 midterms at all levels so that there's some chance of boosting cyber security in vote-counting machinery and software in as many states as possible by 2020;
3) Take Democratic internal politics OUT of the Clinton/Sanders duality by recognizing that both of those factions and the ideas they center have a valid place within this party and that our goal should be unity through a common program that recognizes the need to stand passionately for ALL forms of justice, and to take into account historic and continuing oppression while doing so;
4) Finally have a respectful and OPEN discussion about what did and did not work in the fall 2016 campaign-not a refighting of the primaries, but an acknowledgment of what did and did not serve our actual nominee well on the tactical and strategic levels, a discussion focused on learning from that experience and improving our efforts in all areas over which we as a party do exercise control and agency;
(I would have mentioned the need to address voter suppression there, but wasn't sure whether or not that would fit within the scope of a discussion on Putin's role in 2016).
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 1, 2017, 11:21 AM - Edit history (1)
You’re main agenda here is to try to get people to not focus on the real issue of Russian meddling in the election, something that is fact, and instead you want us to go with your opinion that the problem is the Democratic Party.
Opinions don’t outweigh facts but that is exactly what you are pushing.
Eko
(7,315 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)So what, he says. WTF!
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)There is ZERO doubt that there were widespread efforts by Russia to influence the 2016 election and not just at the presidential level, but up and down the whole ballot.
BUT to contend that this was the #1 reason we lost and claim that the "facts" bear it out is incorrect. Russian bots, active though they were, can't explain away our dismal failure to get black voters to the polls in Blue Wall states like Michigan and Wisconsin. We got 60,000 less votes in Wayne County, Michigan in 2016 than we did in 2012 - and 2012 was Obama's "off" year (there is heavy 
here because even in Obama's "off year" he got 3% more of the popular vote than we did in 2016, 8% more than we did in 1992, and 2% more than we did in 1996). That 60,000 in Wayne County ALONE was more votes than Jill Stein got across the ENTIRE STATE.
Russian bots didn't keep those voters home. Our campaign's SILENCE (and, yes, sticking it in the platform and forgetting about it is STILL silence) on criminal justice reform (you know, like the partial repeal of the 1996 Violent Crime Act), on the cold-blooded blue on black murder of Michael Brown and other people of color (in fact, we have one Democrat who actually vouched for the prosecutor who ran the grand jury whitewash), on rolling back welfare reform and on all of the other atrocities we acquiesced to in the hopes of winning back the "middle of the road" is what cost us those voters, MAY cost us the senatorial election in Alabama and WILL cost us our seat in Missouri.
Those are facts. Those are numbers.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and you do so in the face of the fact that the Russians were meddling in our election.
You want us to go with your opinion instead of a fact.
Give us YOUR explanation for Wayne County
Let me save having to come back later by adding
CRICKETS
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)and don't have any association with that site at all. They're them, I'm ME. OK?
JPR is a cyber-outhouse and I take it as an insult that you'd try to imply that I have some connection with them.
I agree that Russia played a role in the result. It's just that that wasn't the ONLY factor, and until we can at least flip one house of Congress, it's not something we have any ability to change.
We can't win in '18 or '20 by making "Putin meddled in '16" our main argument. Focusing on that isn't going to gain us votes.
We also need to step up our game, as we are doing(we kicked ass this November because we DIDN'T run the exact same campaign as we had in '16).
What is the harm, in your view, of admitting that at least PART of the problem is the way we've run things in this party? Do you see it as some sort of betrayal fo admit we're not flawless?
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)Bravo.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)'fall campaign" (Hillary) rather than Putin and the Republicans who I believe stole votes in key states...that is your mindset...and it is anti-party...and we are supposed to breathlessly kowtow to those who helped elect Trump? We are supposed to be interested in what they think the party should do when most refuse to join? Nonsense. Those who believe the Democratic Party is the same as the Republican Party in the age of Trump are trolls...Russian or otherwise. I am damned angry with them...and don't give two fucks what they think...how many kids who no longer have CHIP will die thanks to these worthless entitled people? They can all go to hell. We will have to win without them. We came damned close in 16 to doing just that. The 16 election was an anomaly, and it is very unlikely, it will be repeated in the near furture. It wasn't that different than 2000-the right and so called left ganging up on the Democratic nominee...and the GOP cheating their way in a close election to a win. This is the model we must avoid. And when the left does this they are just as much the opposition as any Republican. I say, we have a good chance to win in 18 and 20. And we have no time for the 'we hate Democrats crowd'. They can fuck off.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)2016, this meme ignores Russians trolls, ignores cheating GOP and ignores Stein, Turner and the effect turncoat Democrats had on the election. Hillary Clinton despite all the lies still won about 4 million more votes than Dumpy Trumpy.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)An event as large and complex as the outcome of a national election is particularly likely to have more than one cause.
You criticize Ken for what you say is a willingness to "blame the 'fall campaign' (Hillary) rather than Putin and the Republicans who I believe stole votes in key states..." I don't see that in Ken's posts at all. It's quite consistent to say that the campaign made mistakes (let's learn from them) AND that the Democratic Party should have done a better job of supporting its candidate (Perez himself has said this, in the appropriate context of addressing a need to improve) AND that Putin exerted influence on behalf of Trump AND that the Republicans stole votes AND that the Republicans engaged in voter suppression (my personal guess is that this factor was more significant than was the outright theft of votes but that's just a guess) AND that there was the Comey letter and so on.
There's a saying in basketball that you have to play both ends of the court (help your team score and help prevent the other team from scoring). Our situation is more complicated in that we have many more than two necessary tasks. It's not "anti-party" to point this out.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)fault during the shit show that was the 2016 election. I was referring to the fact that some groups are downplaying the Russian effect on the election. I do believe it was a significant. Great day with the Flynn news. I think this may be the beginning of the end for Trump...and maybe Pence as well.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And wish she was president. That is the truth.
Critique of that campaign is not in any way a slam on the nominee we campaigned for in that campaign.
In many respects, I feel that campaign was actually a betrayal and a sabotage OF Hillary by the cowardly, defeatist mindset of the party as an institution.
It was run the way the Democratic Party almost always(Obama being a rare exception)runs fall campaigns. It was the same old "we can't run FOR anything. We can't ever try to win the argument. We can only run to 'Stop THEM!'. For decades, that campaign has failed. It failed for Humphrey in '68. It failed for Carter in '80. It failed for Mondale in '84. It failed for Dukakis in '88. (I leave out Bill Clinton's wins, because they were about personal charisma-Bill would have won on any platform and his most popular platform was his support for universal healthcare). It failed for Gore in '00. It failed for Kerry in '04.
These were all good people who deserved to win. Had we run positive campaigns on their behalf based first on promises to DO something, rather than nebulous efforts in which all of them were told to refuse to make a positive case FOR Democratic policies and for progressive change-all of them would have done far, far better.
I simply want us to change, to run FOR rather than against.
And I have NEVER said NOT to discuss Putin's role at all, OR not to discuss voter suppression.
We need to discuss what Putin did-but to do that in a way that doesn't treat that role, plus voter suppression and Comey, as the only thing that matters.
If we work on the assumption that what Putin did is more important than anything else, what chance does that gives us to gain votes in future elections? We can't add to our total simply by shouting "Putin stole it for Trump". That can't win over any voters we don't have. Out there in "the real world", most Americans don't actually care that much about what Putin did, and will never be swayed in future elections by Democratic campaigns that center Putin's role.
I believe that the argument for focusing on Putin is an argument for running the exact same campaign we ran in 2016 in all FUTURE elections.
In practical political terms, that is an argument for committing to running a campaign in which we will always fall short. It will just get us the same 49% again and again and again and again. We did better THIS November because we didn't repeat that campaign, so why take a step back?
What is the harm of adding things to our platform, while keeping and strengthening the solid pro-choice and anti-oppression positions already in it,that will increase enthusiasm and turnout, rather than focusing solely on saying the other side is evil?
As to the people I'd like us to focus on...I don't want us to focus on the hardcore "both parties are evil" types. I'd like us to focus on two other groups:
1) Re-credentialling and re-registering the voters who were suppressed in 2016-and that's something everyone on the progressive side of the spectrum, whoever they backed in the primaries. We ALL agree that that should go first
2) Reaching out(as we should have reached out after Philly)to that sector of young Sanders voters who needed to be reassured that what they'd done for all those months was valuable, was positive, and had made a difference). We shouldn't "worship" anyone, but we need to get out of the traditional and toxic approach towards the supporters of the runner-up candidate where those supporters are derided as failures and from whom we then demand support after the derision. It's always done us damage to treat the supporters of any runner-up that way. We can be better than that and would only benefit from being better than that.
The largest bloc of voters we needed and didn't get, other than the suppressed, were people who, in my view, WOULD have voted for us if our approach to them in the fall hadn't been "you're losers, you're failures, you achieved nothing-and you OWE us our votes". Why could we not have approached them by saying "you didn't nominate your candidate, but your efforts made a positive difference. We need you, but we also have something to offer you-a structure in which you can work for what you believe in and in which you will have a voice". This wouldn't have won us the 'bros-and they were a tiny, ugly minority of Sanders people if they weren't mainly Russian trolls-but it WOULD have brought the people who came in to politics to fight for a dream and were essentially given the finger by the party after Philly. Bringing them in NOW can only help us, and it wouldn't require us to abandon anyone we fight for now.
3) By a common program, I simply meant a program that finds the language that says "we will fight hatred and heal the wounds infliceted by it-we will fight greed and heal the wounds inflicted by THAT-and we will work more than anything else to heal those wounded by both". I think anyone we could nominate could run on that, and I personally don't care who we nominate at this point.
All of this is offered in an effort to help and to get us out of a habit of mind that has never been good for us as a party.
We need to run "For", not just "Against".
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Denial of Democratic Party failures will only lead to more (they have lost 900+ seats in state legislatures during Obama's tenure because he let it wither on the vine).
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)29. Actually, it's more like..."Ok Putin was involved...but so what? What do we do with that?"
Do you know that the GOP has increased their full throttle on jamming a 'tax reform' bill down our throats? You know why...because Flynn pleaded guilty and Mueller is on Trump now. Do you know that it will increase the deficit by trillions? Trillions. Do you know who wrote it? GOP and lobbyists behind closed doors. No Democratic Senator was allowed in that chamber...these are elected representatives in almost every state and they did not get a seat at the table that their constituents voted for them to join. Yet here you are saying "so what"? So what that they are going to pay for it by destroying Medicare....there will be automatic cuts up to 25 BILLION DOLLARS! There was an article posted here yesterday by babylonsister, cancer patients will be refused treatments because the government has cut the funding. Think about that, Medicare patients...ie older Americans will be refused treatment.
Yet here you are talking about BS and Hill in 2016 while the rest of us are talking about the social issues that are effecting elder Americans now. "So what" that in 2017 Putin and the administration are treasonous bastards that are doing their best to destroy America and Americans. "So what" ???
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's the OP that brought up 2016 and I'm trying to get him to stop, since that year is in the past.
I know all that you mentioned is happening right now.
My point is...given that, what is the POINT of anyone still going on about Putin's involvement in the last election when there is nothing we can DO about that?
You would agree that talking about that is now a pointless waste of time, right?
It's the OP you should be going after, not me.
I'm solely about the future.
It can't be unacceptable for me simply to POST in a thread about the last election, especially when I'm the one trying arguing that the OP is a waste of time.
Eko
(7,315 posts)In fact I only talked about the 2016 election when someone else brought it up, like you for example. This is still an ongoing thing. Putin is still doing it now and there are people out there falling for it now. Why mention progressives?, because they are generally supposed to be on our side and vote for the Democratic party in a higher percentage than republicans or independents and loosing them because of idiot propaganda from Russia is just stupid. Do I think progressives are falling for it in a much larger percentage than "mainstream Democrats"? Yes, show me a mainstream Democratic site that acts like JPR and we can have a discussion about it. Show me a "mainstream Democratic" politician that has fallen for it, a "mainstream Democratic" celebrity that has. Ive been here a while, anyone that has knows exactly what it was like trying to explain sensible things to a lot of progressives, all the evidence in the world didn't matter if there was some conspiracy that made the democratic party look downright evil, its still going on. Its a mind set that should have us very concerned and it involves not being to weigh evidence that is opposite to what you believe in a rational manner. Seriously, how many "primary Pelosi" threads have you seen this year? Do you think these are from "mainstream Democrats"? And then think of how many "Primary Sanders" threads you have seen. Zero. Isnt that interesting to you? Doesn't that merit you stopping for just a darn minute on your "need to change the platform spiel" and really think about what that means? Pelosi is the minority leader of the house,,,,,,, if we are talking in chess terms that's one of our kings, and you have progressives, on here, wanting to primary her. Why? because she is not progressive enough, not a FDR Democrat lol. You think changing our platform is important, I think rational thought should keep us from doing stupid things like sacrificing things like one of our kings when we need all the strength we can get. There are many reasons we lost the last election, I never said that it was because of progressives falling for Putin, (once again I didn't bring up the election until others including you did), I think that was a factor and it deserves just as much attention as our platform. I mean, you are asking us to genuflect on how the platform was wrong, how us "mainstream Democrats" helped loose the election, we are just asking you to do the same, genuflect on what the progressives did wrong.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)"The progressive wing of the Democratic Party" being duped.
If that was a faulty assumption, then I apologize-but you'd have to admit it was a REASONABLE assumption.
I seriously doubt that threads calling for incumbent Dems to face primary challenges are driven exclusively or even primarily by Russian propaganda.
I have always worked on the assumption that the threads suggesting primarying incumbent Democrats have been driven by a desire for simply accountability(full disclosure, I've pretty much stayed out of such threads since the election, and as far as I can recall for a long time before that). Is it your position that it should be considered anathema to suggest that ANY Democratic incumbent should face a primary challenge? And wouldn't that be damn near the same as saying that Democratic Party activists have no right to expect anything from the Democratic politicians elected by our grassroots efforts-which would pretty much be ANY Democratic politician?
You are sounding extremely condescending now...really close to saying "ANYBODY who'd question anything a 'mainstream Democratic' politician does or says is a dupe". Please tell me you don't actually believe that.
What this really comes down to is that you apparently think that all rank-and-file Dems should simply give unquestioning support to any choice ANY Democratic politician makes, and that you think no one would question that unless they'd somehow had their minds twisted by Putin.
BTW...there have been a number of "primary Bernie" threads. It's not as though nobody you consider "mainstream" has suggested that.
I just did a search here for "Primary Sanders" and "primary Bernie" and didn't find a single thing, its possible I missed something, can you help with a link or something?
"I seriously doubt that threads calling for incumbent Dems to face primary challenges are driven exclusively or even primarily by Russian propaganda." I never said that, assumption again, only that it seemed to reveal a mindset that was susceptible to propaganda.
"I have always worked on the assumption that the threads suggesting primarying incumbent Democrats have been driven by a desire for simply accountability" assumption again, why would you always assume that?
"You are sounding extremely condescending now...really close to saying "ANYBODY who'd question anything a 'mainstream Democratic' politician does or says is a dupe".Please tell me you don't actually believe that." Never said that at all, constructive criticism is welcome, but primary so and so for a unknown when they are the house minority leader is a bit odd dont you think?
"What this really comes down to is that you apparently think that all rank-and-file Dems should simply give unquestioning support to any choice ANY Democratic politician makes, and that you think no one would question that unless they'd somehow had their minds twisted by Putin. " Never said that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Eko
(7,315 posts)Pretty much black and white. It is all that you have assumed. Forget what I have actually said, you have a preconceived bias and you are not able to look beyond that. From the "primary Bernie" threads that don't seem to exist to putting words in my mouth, its right there. I hope you don't take offense, because you are without a doubt a good person, but you proved my point. You have "always assumed" that the primary threads where with good intents, I don't even assume the impeach the Trump threads are, I never will, I go by the evidence and logic,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you don't.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)As to the primary threads, I based my assumptions on very little, because I simply think about those threads that much. I don't think about them that much because I simply don't believe they are very important in the greater scheme of things.
You appear to disagree on that point, and I respect your right to express your opinion.
I would say, in response to your patronizing remarks about my supposed lack of concern for "evidence", that you actually offered no evidence in your thread title-you simply made an inflammatory collective accusation about progressive Democrats-and an ill-informed accusation at that, since you implied that Jill Stein, of all people is part of "the progressive wing of the Democratic Party"-as in the Jill Stein who has repeatedly run for president on the ballot line of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTY.
It appears based on the verbal evidence I derive from the post you made prior to this post, that you believe all sitting Democratic incumbents should be guaranteed absolute freedom from a primary challenge, and that any such challenge is somehow a threat to the entire party. Am I correctly describing your views on that? How many other restrictions, might I ask, would you like to place on free speech and internal democracy within the "Democratic Party"? Are you arguing that, until Trump is out office, no disagreement with anything decisions our party leaders make on tactics, strategy, policy or preferred nominees should be tolerated?
BTW-in that previous post, you repeatedly used-and capitalized-the term "Mainstream Democratic". Therefore, in the search for further evidence, I'd like to ask you a few questions about that term and how you define it:
What, in your view, qualifies someone to be called a "Mainstream Democrat" and what proscribes someone from being so considered? Which political positions, in your judgment, are "Mainstream Democratic" and which are not?
To what degree are those you would label as "Mainstream Democratic" entitled to lecture those you feel are not on the subject of wat is and what is not politically possible? To what degree should whoever it is you see as "Mainstream Democratic" be treated as "the natural leaders" of the Democratic Party?
What electoral advantage comes, in your view, from giving special deference to those you would label as "Mainstream Democratic" when the ideas such people tend to stick with are the ideas that lost us most presidential elections between 1952 and 2004?
Can you accept any political views that are even minutely more progressive than yours as being "Mainstream Democratic", or are all such views anathema and heresy?
And why does it seem to be so much more important to you to lash out at "Progressive Democrats" than to offer constrctive thoughts on how we might unite the country's anti-Trump majority for electoral victory in 2018 and 2020?
In closing, I'd like to ask this: Do you actually WANT the Democratic Party to make a comeback, or do you care mainly about making sure those to your left within this party are silenced and kept out of the loop? It's not really possible to achieve the former objective if you are focused on achieving the latter objective first.
Eko
(7,315 posts)Its right there for all to see. "It's the OP that brought up 2016 and I'm trying to get him to stop, since that year is in the past." You even admitted it "OK, I've assumed it was that election that you were referring to when you spoke of "The progressive wing of the Democratic Party" being duped. If that was a faulty assumption, then I apologize-but you'd have to admit it was a REASONABLE assumption." I can admit that could be a reasonable assumption, but it is an assumption and that is exactly part of the problem I am talking about.
As to how important the primary threads are I cant say, but what I can say is the mentality behind those are very important.
I'm sure many here would argue that just because someone ran for office for a different political party that doesn't make them not part of the progressive wing of the Democratic party, Bernie Sanders?
"It appears based on the verbal evidence I derive from the post you made prior to this post, that you believe all sitting Democratic incumbents should be guaranteed absolute freedom from a primary challenge"
And yet again you put words into my mouth. I talked only about one person, Pelosi, and the evidence leads you to believe that means all?
Mainstream Democratic= ones that don't call themselves progressive but can still be very progressive indeed.
"To what degree are those you would label as "Mainstream Democratic" entitled to lecture those you feel are not on the subject of wat is and what is not politically possible?" No one is entitled to lecture anyone.
To what degree should whoever it is you see as "Mainstream Democratic" be treated as "the natural leaders" of the Democratic Party?" The same as anyone else.
"What electoral advantage comes, in your view, from giving special deference to those you would label as "Mainstream Democratic" when the ideas such people tend to stick with are the ideas that lost us most presidential elections between 1952 and 2004?"
More than the progressives who lost all of those.
"Can you accept any political views that are even minutely more progressive than yours as being "Mainstream Democratic", or are all such views anathema and heresy?" Yes to the first part, no to the second.
"And why does it seem to be so much more important to you to lash out at "Progressive Democrats" than to offer constrctive thoughts on how we might unite the country's anti-Trump majority for electoral victory in 2018 and 2020?"
One persons constructive thoughts can be another's view they are lashing out, quite a few people think that saying our party platform needs to change and that is the reason we lost while discounting myriad other things that it could be as well as more people actually voted for us as lashing out.
"In closing, I'd like to ask this: Do you actually WANT the Democratic Party to make a comeback, or do you care mainly about making sure those to your left within this party are silenced and kept out of the loop? It's not really possible to achieve the former objective if you are focused on achieving the latter objective first. " What a stupid question, here, lets flip it, Do you actually WANT the Democratic Party to make a comeback, or do you care mainly about making sure that the party platform is what you want? It's not really possible to achieve the former objective if you are focused on achieving the latter objective first.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Or are they just so steeped in Hillary Hate that they can't admit it?
DangerousUrNot
(431 posts)The thing is these progressives are Youtube stars. They constantly bash Hillary. So much so that their YouTube comments are filled with people who don’t believe there is anything between Trump and Russia. I notice a lot of centrists and right wingers even started populating the comment section because of their disdain for Hillary.
The youtubers also think the DNC is talking about Russia too much and not about policies like health care and free college. I stopped watching their channels because of the Hillary obsession.
Personally, I think Russia is a big deal, I think there is something between Trump and Russia. I also think that the DNC should talk about policy more but at the same time don’t stop taking Russia seriously.
I’m not the biggest fan of Hillary but I don’t like the constant bashing, she would have made a hell of a lot better president that the guy that’s in there now.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)about progressives. I'd love to know where you are getting your data.
DangerousUrNot
(431 posts)I said “it seems” like half of the progressives are split with the Trump and Russia thing.
Then if you actually read what I wrote about the second issue, you would see that I was talking about progressives I know.
If you’re wanting charts, data and facts on my loosely based assumptions, then I don’t know what to tell ya lol.
Skittles
(153,165 posts)tells me it is a LOT of people
a lot of STUPID people
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But the conversation we need to have, the conversation about the FUTURE-which is the only period of time we can do anything about-should NOT be a conversation about Hillary and how people feel about her. Hillary is a senior figure in the party and has every right to play a meaningful role in our party's future.
By that same token, the conversation we have about the future should equally not be about Bernie-and this SHOULD mean that, if it's unacceptable here to argue that Hillary shouldn't have been nominated, it should be EQUALLY unacceptable to keep trying to delegitimize the Sanders movement-to be arguing that Bernie should not have been allowed in our primaries, that he and his supporters caused Trump, AND that his supporters and their ideals should have no place in our party. ALL of those type of discussion should be put to a stop here, because there is nothing but toxicity, division, and defeat that can come of any of anyone beating any of those dead horses.
To those who'd say I brought up the past, I did so ONLY as a frame for discussing what we need to do in the future. I never brought it up out of malevolence or disrespect to anyone, out of any harmful, out of any motivation at all but trying to offer ideas for the future.
What matters is us, rank-and-file Democrats and rank-and-file people who could be voting Democrats if we found the way to connect with them or in some cases if we could simply make sure we could get them to the polls.
We need to be looking at positive steps for the present and future, and leave the past in the past. If we can't do that, we're not going to recover as a party.
Skittles
(153,165 posts)I'm not saying the discussion needs to be about HILLARY, I was just providing an EXAMPLE
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's just that so many people STILL reduce the outcome to "oh, they just hate Hillary", when it's never been as simple as that.
A lot of people don't like her...but there were also a lot of people for whom it was truly about the issues(especially in the spring).
And it's frustrating that there still seems to be so much of a fixation among some about making people admit they were wrong.
Would you agree that it's time to move on and focus on the future?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Good grief. You asking others to move on while using scars of the past to present it is damnably ironic.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)
Willie Pep
(841 posts)I am just not sure how many were progressive Democrats as opposed to swing voters or people who don't vote much or are usual Green or other third party voters. Everything I have read indicates that most Democratic Bernie supporters came home and voted for Clinton in the general. So what I think you had on the Left were the usual Greens, socialists, anti-politics "they are all the same" types. I am not sure if Putin made much of a difference with them since I doubt they would have voted for the Democrats anyway. The bigger influence was on swing voters and apolitical people who might have voted for Trump to thumb their nose at the "System" I think.
That being said this country is in trouble because there is a growing lack of confidence in most institutions other than the military. That works well for the Republicans who can rely on their very loyal base to come out to the polls. Democrats have a tougher time getting their base out. A lot of people who would vote for the Democrats are demoralized and don't care or are buying into angry populism that says "the system is totally corrupt, burn it all down."
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Rather than work with them and hope they change, I rather appeal to half of the American public who does not vote
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They both want a real fight against social oppression(there is no dispute on that point among rank-and-file voters on the left side of the spectrum).
They both want the most vulnerable people in society defended from attack.
They are both solidly pro-choice.
They both want more social spending and cuts in the war budget.
They both want education to be improved at and made more affordable.
They both want the environment protected.
That's the reality if you look at what ordinary people, rather than candidates, support.
We don't have to choose between the groups and we gain nothing from driving either group away.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)The group I am talking about still believes pizzagate BS up until this day..
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Wasn't saying we should go after the tiny number of idiots who think that was real.
I've never heard of anyone on the Left buying into that, and anyone who would is not part of the group I'm talking about.
yardwork
(61,634 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And even if there were any left people who still believe(or EVER believed) Pizzagate was real, that would be a pathetically tiny group at most.
There's no justification for speaking as if that view is held by most people who voted Bernie, or even a contingent of any significant size.
It's a strawman and a slander on the Sanders movement as a whole.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)is pure naivete. Putin is about profiting at the US expense.
Response to Eko (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
grantcart
(53,061 posts)
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)They are populists and don’t get to own the term progressive since they only believe a limited narrative.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)are still doing Putin's bidding, and they have a lot of sucers still willing to follow them...
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Progressives who didn't vote for Clinton were (in my opinion) making a mistake, but it wasn't a mistake induced by anything Putin did.
For example, did Putin dupe people into believing that Clinton had voted for the Iraq War Resolution? No, he did not. That was her actual vote. I don't think Putin even played any significant role in publicizing that vote. The progressives to whom it was important knew about it long before anything Putin said or did.
For many progressives, it was clear, even without Putin, that they were closer ideologically to Stein than to Clinton. It was equally clear that either Clinton or Trump would become President and that progressives were closer to Clinton than to Trump. Therefore, the question was whether to cast a symbolic protest vote for Stein or to take a hand in trying to keep Trump out of the White House. The vast majority of progressives chose to vote for Clinton.
I personally have never liked the phrase "lesser of two evils" to describe pragmatic voting in a two-party system. I voted for Bernie in the primary but I wouldn't call Clinton evil. She's more conservative than I am but that's not the same thing. The comparative handful of progressives who refused to vote for Clinton probably would call her evil, but that's because of their ideological disagreements with her that built up over the years. Again, it wasn't a Putin operation.
I've seen conflicting statements about whether the Russians were involved in the release of the DNC emails. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that they were involved. Of Stein's 1% of the vote, the vast majority were voting for Stein anyway, but there might have been a few voters who were right on the fence, who were undecided between Clinton and Stein, and who might have been swayed to Stein by the emails, the release of which might have been in part Putin's doing. That still doesn't count as "duped" unless what were purportedly emails were actually falsified -- and I've seen no allegation to that effect. To the extent you want to point to the DNC emails as a factor, blame the people who wrote them. But my personal guess is that they were a very minor factor.
Eko
(7,315 posts) Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Remember, this thread is about whether Putin duped people. If the Russians illegally hacked DNC computers, and then cynically and for their own nefarious motives made public what they'd found, then they committed various bad acts but they didn't dupe anyone.
I personally thought the DNC emails were of extremely little importance. To some people, however, they were a big deal. The people who were incensed about the DNC emails didn't care whether they'd been leaked by an insider or hacked by the Russians. They cared about what was said in them. I've always assumed, from the absence of credible denials, that the texts that were made public were truthful representations of the emails that had actually been sent. Am I wrong about that? I confess I haven't paid the subject much attention.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/358662-russia-linked-hacker-edited-leaked-documents-report
The emails are only one part of Putin duping progressives. There is plenty of information out there just look. Maybe watch the videos I posted, that would be a great start.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Although, as I said, I haven't paid much attention to this email thing, I did remember reading about that. What I haven't seen is any contention that the substance of any of the emails was false.
Now let's put this in the context of the question in your OP. We'll assume for the sake of the argument that "150,000 messages stolen from more than a dozen Democrats" (as per the article in The Hill that you linked) were stolen by the Russians and made public, that one of them was altered by the addition of a spurious "Confidential" tag "to spice it up for journalists" (as per the article in Salon that you linked), and that all of this was done at Putin's direction.
Is there one single solitary person, progressive or not, anywhere in the whole United States, who would have voted for Hillary Clinton otherwise, but who was swayed to voting Stein or staying home because there was a fake "Confidential" tag on one of those 150,000 emails? We can't know for certain but I'm gonna go with No.
Most of the people who expressed outrage at the emails were already pissed off and weren't voting for Clinton anyway. They merely seized on the emails, somewhat disingenuously, as a convenient basis for further criticism of a candidate and a party establishment that they already disliked. Of those (probably not many) who were genuinely swayed by the email releases, what got to them was the contents, i.e., the things that were actually written by, to, or about various officers of the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign.
As for your videos, thanks for taking the trouble to post them -- but I'm afraid I don't have 108 minutes of my life to devote to what I see as a tempest in a teapot. Perhaps you could just tell me what specific falsehood(s) Putin disseminated that a significant number of American progressives believed and acted in reliance on.
I'm sorry that you don't have the time to watch a news show that has won numerous Emmy awards and countless other awards, Im sure you have much better things to do like argue on a message board. You can keep on burying your head in the sand if you like or you can believe the decisions that our intelligence agencies have come to that the Russians engaged in a massive effort to interfere with our elections and that despite what you believe it wasn't just conservatives they targeted.
Eko
(7,315 posts)Nowhere in the title does it say it is just about emails but you seem to want very badly to make it just about that. I have to ask you, why is it that you will spend a lot of time on a message board arguing but wont watch videos from what is arguably one of Americas best news series on the subject of Putin's involvement in our elections? Is that not important to you?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)No, the title of the OP isn't just about emails, but that was the only example that occurred to me that might be remotely plausible. I asked if you could provide ONE other example of Putin duping progressives, but I'm supposed to watch 108 minutes of (presumably well-done) videos because you won't type one paragraph to tell me about other duping by Putin. Sorry, I pass.
As for your #46, it represents the straw-man argumentation that's become so common on DU. You write:
You appear to be refuting these contentions:
The Russians didn't interfere with our election. If they did, it was only conservatives they targeted.
But, you see, I didn't say either of those things. You feel free to say "what you believe" about me and my beliefs when you have no basis for your statement. Consider this possibility: Russians interfered with the election, they targeted progressives, their targeting included the dissemination of falsehoods -- but there were no or virtually no progressives who were deceived by these falsehoods and who cast their votes (or stayed home) in reliance on the deception. That's a perfectly consistent assessment, and nothing in this thread has given me any reason to doubt it.
If you wanted a discussion of whether "the Russians engaged in a massive effort to interfere with our elections" you should have worded your OP differently.
During the general-election campaign, I was active on JPR, as one of the minority who advocated a vote for Clinton. I don't know whether I persuaded anyone, but at least I tried. In the course of those discussions, I saw a lot of arguments, but I don't recall seeing a single one that I'd say was likely to be the result of any deception engineered by Putin. Putin isn't responsible for every mistake that people make.
Eko
(7,315 posts)as you asked for, apparently it was not enough even though you asked for "one" and I gave it to you as you accepted then said it was only "one" and was not enough. See you later.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Did. Sorry but I heard lots of progressives quoting RT, Sputnick and Assange. They were fucking duped into hating/ yeah, it may have been their nature to be hateful, but they spread bullsht far and wide with the help of many bad actors. What's worse is people who knew it was bullshit and went along with the "corrupt" crap. Even to this day Brazile talking both sides of her mouth.
Garbage.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)As I've said, I didn't pay much attention to the whole thing. Some of my fellow Sanders supporters were quite worked up about the email issue but I thought it was a big nothing.
As I understand the flap about the emails, a few of them showed that there were DNC officers and employees who, although required by party rules to be neutral, actually favored Clinton. Well, duh. She had the overwhelming support of the party establishment in the form of its elected officials -- and, say, did you know that Bernie isn't even a Democrat? Under those circumstances, it would have taken extraordinary evidence to convince me that the DNC people did not favor Clinton.
As a result, I don't see how the striking of edits and time stamps fooled anyone about anything. People who disliked Clinton and the party establishment pointed to the emails, as released, as evidence of anti-Sanders bias. If the emails had been hacked and released in pristinely accurate form, with nothing stricken and no spurious "Confidential" tag added, the evidence for that accusation would have been just as strong or just as weak, because the authors of the emails really did write the words that were made public.
So what I don't know is: Was there a specific assertion as to a matter of fact (as opposed to opinion) that was promulgated by Putin, that was false, that was nevertheless believed by some progressives, and that induced a nonnegligible number of them to not vote for Clinton? That's what the word "duped" suggests to me. So far I haven't identified such an assertion. I'm suspecting that other people are using a far broader definition of "duped" and that's why the discussion has been unproductive.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)There were also emails presented as people's ideas when they were actually passing along other people's thoughts. So yeah- people were fooled. I'd look into it more before writing paragraphs about how that could not be. It was.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)Based on your posts, would you cite how HRC's views on gender, race, and civil rights are more conservative than yours?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I also didn't single out "HRC's views on gender, race, and civil rights" as areas of disagreement -- that's also your addition to what I wrote.
Aside from those misstatements, your question is a reasonable one, but I must regretfully decline to answer it. There is too much risk that a full explanation of my vote for Bernie Sanders would be removed for refighting the primary. For purposes of this thread, what matters is that I voted for Clinton in the general election. I consider myself a progressive and I don't think I was duped by Putin in any way.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)when I see "invitations" like this, let me compliment you for avoiding being duped not just once, but twice.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)and any vote for a third party was a vote for Trump. And if you stayed home and didn't vote for Clinton, it was a vote for Trump...don't mean you personally...the generic you. There are only two choices realistically...and you are either a Democrat or your enable Republicans...wait until this crowd sees what Trump will do to college aid...already went after the graduate aid in the tax bill...wait for it...these poor dumb people fucked themselves in the end by not voting for the only person who could stop Trump...Hillary Clinton.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You loftily inform me: "There were only two choices...Trump and Clinton..."
Gee, maybe that's why I wrote in #36: "It was equally clear that either Clinton or Trump would become President...." I'm glad I convinced you of that point. 
You ask: "So is Trump more to your liking?"
In #42, the very post you're purportedly answering, I wrote: "I voted for Clinton in the general election."
You say this was a "generic you" so I don't understand why you posted this in reply to the (non-generic) me. To give you a face-saving out, for not doubling down on this, I've tossed in a reference to JPR. That way you can reply with some canned vitriol about JPR. That always goes over well with some people here, even if it's tangential.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)My entire point was the GOP is the worst of the worst ...including Trump. There is only two choices in most elections...you pick the best one you can. I know you didn't vote for Trump...I don't have to be told...seen many of your posts-we may not always agree, but you are wicked smart as my Dad would say... However, those who did vote for Trump, stayed home or voted for Stein ( I really dislike 'check you privilege' Greens ) are asshats and deserve to be called out if for no other reason than the suffering they have caused. I am sure you would agree that politics is not just about you 'side' winning, It is about how it affects folks in the real world and I weep for those children who will die without CHIP, for dreamers, For those have no health care and/or will starve under Trump.I could go on and on naming those who will be hurt or die because Trump is president and the GOP is in control of Congress.It would be too depressing though. Trump and his GOP minions are monsters...political serial killers.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)As for your calling Trump and his ilk "political serial killers," you can expect to receive a lawyer's letter demanding a retraction. The letter will come from lawyers for actual serial killers, none of whom (not even the Las Vegas shooter) have caused as many deaths as Trump.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)by comparing them to Trump. As for my 'kind' word...it is the truth. I always enjoy our back and forths.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Which is pretty much in line with the history of the progressive movement. From William Jennings Bryan to Woodrow Wilson to Huey Long. Reign in big business and take care of working white folks. But to hell with those colored people.
I am a southern liberal social Democrat. What the fuck is a Progressive? From what I can tell it is a white guy who thinks he is a socialist and believes all racial problems are about class, not race. But they all have black friends!!
RandySF
(58,888 posts)People here cheered him on as he rolled into Ukraine because he was “sticking it to the West”.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If people say that angering some leaders they dislike is a sufficient basis for an armed invasion, that's not because Putin duped them, it's because they don't care about international law.
I don't even remember whether there were any phony atrocity stories about events in Ukraine. Military operations are often justified on such grounds (for example, the false testimony about Kuwaiti newborns yanked from incubators, offered some years earlier). It wouldn't surprise me if Putin adhered to tradition and vended such stories. That doesn't mean that any progressives were duped by them, though.
I personally would be hard put to say who has lower credibility, Putin or Trump. One consequence of my total distrust of both of them is that neither of them has ever duped me about anything
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)There has never been 'communism' in Russia...they are fascist...no different than Nazis...and as we have seen the last year or two...they have much in common with American Fascist. The Russian Oligarchs live like kings while the people suffer. This is the vision the far right has for America. If the left left falls for this..than they are very gullible...or they are actually in the pay of the Russians. I lean towards believing they are gullible.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)RandySF has always been a stand up person that I have seen. Calls it like they see it. Thanks RandySf. Keep on keeponing.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts) Alice11111
(5,730 posts)...unless you are complicit?
David__77
(23,419 posts)...
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)protection, and at least once (accidental) assistance.
David__77
(23,419 posts)....
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 1, 2017, 08:43 AM - Edit history (1)
Were duped by Putin?
Even now, after learning that internet persona spewing obviously, and often ludicrously, false talking points were actually paid Russian trolls and bots, the vast majority of centrists (liberals?) are STILL acting like those fake persona are proof that progressives are hostile to the goals of our party.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)These folks spread their lies about Hillary Clinton far and wide...doing Putin's work for him...so stupid...I knew these lies were all bullshit immediately, and I didn't have to' think' the left left (those who refuse to be Democrats) we spouting these lies...I knew who they were. And there are no centrists in the GOP party...we are all progressive.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)Try nightcrawlers, crawdads or cheese
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)I reflexively (meaning "unfairly" in many instances) view requests to define any group of Democratic voters as an invitation to expose my post to an alert for making a divisive group attack.
It is a lesson I received from my law partner (who went from 2 to 5 hidden posts and FFR status in a single day for using the term "Third Way" in a series of Sunday morning posts) when I told him I was going to join DU in order to restore a voice for black Democrats who find the party's current efforts to engage black voters to be both insufficient as a matter of principle and fatal to our efforts to win elections (efforts which are of special importance to black voters as well as all other people of color).
I should have not taken it out on you. Nonetheless, it is a conversation I remain reluctant to have.
I appreciate your response.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)others that some could call socialist or super liberal...I kind of was being a jerk in my post. I have three millennial kids who loved Sen. Sanders. In fact they called me out as I had said that if a candidate came along who matched my views, I would vote for them so we all went down and voted for Sen. Sanders...family event) in the Ohio primary. Surprised? My kids were naive and believed most of the lies told about Clinton...and it was their first political rodeo. In the end, they voted for Sec.Clinton. But I saw how effective the lies were on my kids who are smart kids and believe that many others were taken in as well. There is no doubt that some who call themselves progressive passed along the Russian lies or maybe that is not true...maybe most were Repugs or Russians...I doubt we will ever know. I like to argue and get carried away at times...but seriously I feel bad for the kids taken in by Trump ET AL...because they are young and will pay the biggest price...also I think most of the kids did in fact vote for Hillary Clinton in the end. I have hope for the future when I look at my kids and their friends.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)I have to wonder if this sort really are Russian trolls or Republicans themselves.
mcar
(42,334 posts)once upon a time.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)It is about giving control back to people, in contrast to giving it to elites or corporations. Putin is an authoritarian, so I would think that would be contrary to any stated aims of populists. I also don't think he's quite the bogeyman he is made out to be. The LAST thing we need is a new Cold War.
Obviously we should be concerned about Russian meddling in elections the world over and we should be concerned about bots that seem to influence the narrative on sites like Facebook or Twitter.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)holocaust began with populism...the great horrors of humanity always do.
Caliman73
(11,738 posts)We have to be careful with blanket statements.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)what you call it.
Caliman73
(11,738 posts)The country was in a state of near revolution during FDR's time. FDR specifically went to the people through his fireside chats to use popular (as in populism) support to push through his policies. There were actually populist parties that sent members to Congress who voted with Democrats to pass the New Deal legislation. President Obama used populism to get elected. He rode a wave of people power by inspiring hope and promoting civic duty.
Populism is not "mob rule" populism is a focus on the needs of the average person rather than on the policies that will increase wealth for the wealthy.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Pretty much all the criticisms of Clinton from the left were demagoguery.
Trump’s campaign was 100% populist demagoguery.
Caliman73
(11,738 posts)Manipulative demagogues? JFK too?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)what it was. Attacking Clinton wasn’t populism or progressive. There’s a reason Trump stole Bernie’s attacks on her.
KPN
(15,646 posts)Thank you for stating what should be obvious to anyone who has a sense of party history.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it sounds-I hope I'm wrong-as though you're seeing any politics that inspires genuine enthusiasm as an incubator of fascism.
It's not evil to argue that transformational change can come through electoral politics, that the way you vote can actually make a difference in your lives. And Trump, the demagogic false "populist" came to power because our party didn't offer any real policies to help the victims of the post-1981 economic changes in this country.
Passion and appeals to the need for change aren't the enemy, and you don't prevent the next Hitler by keeping politics limited, pessimistic, and defeatist-we know that because that was the approach the main parties in Germany used in the Twenties and early Thirties, and that approach was a cataclysmic failure.
Greybnk48
(10,168 posts)But the only people I EVER heard sound impressed with Putin were MAGATs. My circle knows the Russian govt. cannot be trusted and have known this since we huddled under our desks in the 50's.
nini
(16,672 posts)Then there are those who refuse to put the pieces together out of their blind purity tests.
We all need to stay focused and quit falling for the BS.
KPN
(15,646 posts)"tend to believe what reinforces their narrative". It's called belief bias. Not just progressives.
As a progressive, I view centrists/neolibs like you view "populists". They strike me as easily manipulated based on their own beliefs.
KPN
(15,646 posts)This complaint/meme in one form or another (first it was RW talking points, now its Russian bots) is now over a year old. What's the value in bringing it up for the zillionth time?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)This OP is somewhere between McCarthyism and group insult.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Good grief, hyperbole much.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)And to lack rational explanations on why they are so worked up. Ask them for practical, workable alternatives to current policy and watch as their eyes go blank. They are idiots, they are dead to me. We are better off educating non voters on what they are missing out on, than to spend one more second on populists.
KPN
(15,646 posts)Other than "they are idiots", I have no clue what or who (generally speaking) you are talking about. Care to be at lest a wee bit definitive?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And in a later post by the author of the OP, the assertion that Jill Stein and Susan Sarandon were somehow part of "the progressive wing of the Democratic Party"-which, if nothing else would certainly be news to the party Stein actually leads and Sarandon ended up supporting.
This whole thread was about blaming Democrats to HRCs left for the "electoralation" of Trump(I just invented that term because he wasn't actually elected).
KPN
(15,646 posts)Re: the rest, exactly.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)what BS is this....putin made dupes of us all. Some knowingly and others not so much knowing as just chumps of a system easily manipulated by many in the media and those calling themselves 'progressives'. Installed would be a better description, your invented word, not so much so..geez
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And that was totally out of line.
It's not the fault of progressive Democrats that we've got Trump.
heaven05
(18,124 posts) Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)"How many ON THE PROGRESSIVE WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY were duped".
That's what it says.
Eko
(7,315 posts)no one else was?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)A person doesn't have to be duped by Russian propaganda to support the idea of challenging a Democratic incumbent in the primaries.
There are situations in which it has been called for in the past.
(note: I don't support any of the current proposed primary challenges-I just can't stand by when an entire section of this party, perhaps the largest section depending on how you define the term "progressive Democrat", since most Hillary supporters describe temselves as progressives, are collectively smeared by you simply because you seem to find some of what they do annoying).
Eko
(7,315 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)other than a long list of things you felt "mainstream Democrats" should no longer have to put up with from "the progressive wing of the Democratic Party"-at the top of which, for some reason, are threads on DU in which a primary challenge to Nancy Pelosi are suggested, and calls for change within the party.
Do you honestly believe the only reason anyone might suggest such things is that Vladimir Putin might for some reason want them?
Also,given that nany Pelosi is politically unassailable in her district, that there's no way anyone could possibly beat her in a primary, why do you even care that threads suggesting she face a primary challenge are posted? Those threads aren't going to do any harm.
And are you at least willing to finally admit that "the progressive wing of the Democratic Party" does NOT include the leader of the Green Party? Last I checked, you could only be part of one party at a time.
Eko
(7,315 posts)twice now, "Last I checked, you could only be part of one party at a time. " So you are saying Bernie Sanders is not part of the progressive wing of the Democratic party?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Up until now, you were talking about Stein and Sarandon(I assume you now admit Stein is not part of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party)
And he ISN'T part of two parties.
Bernie's officially an independent, but essentially part of the Democratic Party
And Bernie campaigned for OUR ticket, refusing Stein's offer of the Green ballot line.
Bernie's campaign had nothing do to with Putin, was largely good for our party, and his campaign had to happen.
"And he ISN'T part of two parties. Bernie's officially an independent, but essentially part of the Democratic Party"
Those are two separate parties.
Im not saying Sanders had anything to do with Putin, only that your claim that you cant be a part of the Democratic party and in another party is false, now by your own words.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And my point still stands. Stein is NOT part of "the progressive wing of the Democratic Party". Progressive Democrats are not responsible for her and didn't vote for her.
You cant run in political races as anything other than a Democrat and be considered part of the party unless you are Bernie Sanders.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)For all practical purposes he's a Dem.
Bernie has never been the presidential nominee of an entirely different party-unlike Jill Stein, who has been the presidential candidate of an entirely different party on multiple occasion, and who is NOT in any way shape or form part of "the progressive wing of the Democratic Party".
Stein is totally separate from actual Dems and has nothing in common with Bernie or progressive Demse. Case closed.
Eko
(7,315 posts)be in another party and be considered part of the progressive wing of the Democratic party?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You can't be the presidential nominee of another party and be a Democrat.
So Jill Stein is not part of "the progressive wing of the Democratic Party".
Eko
(7,315 posts)a Democrat or a Independent?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)His organizational identity is with us. He doesn't work against us.
He doesn't run against our ticket as a third-party presidential candidate.
Bernie has nothing in common with Stein and proved that by refusing to run in the fall of '16 on the Green ballot line.
Stein is an active opponent of this party, Bernie isn't.
Eko
(7,315 posts)against Democrats before.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Never in a presidential campaign, a race where all he could do was help the Right, as Jill Stein or Nader have both done repeatedly.
Bernie is totally different than Stein and is on OUR side.
Eko
(7,315 posts)So if Sanders runs as an Independent for president he will no longer be part of the progressive wing of the Democratic party?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Remember, he turned down the chance to do that in 2016, when he turned down Jill Stein's offer of the Green ballot line.
In 2020, the guy will be 79.
Face reality...the result in November '16 would have been exactly the same if he hadn't been in the Democratic primaries.
What matters is the future, and we can ONLY win in the future if we stop having threads devoted to driving people AWAY from the Democratic Party.
Eko
(7,315 posts)bringing up the 2016 election?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I simply provided proof that Bernie is not working against THIS party, as opposed to Stein, who is leading a different party and running against our presidential ticket.
OK?
Eko
(7,315 posts)I'm not arguing that Sanders is working against this party, I brought him up because you said you cant be part of another party and be considered part of the progressive wing of the Democratic party, which, obviously you can as Sanders is in the independent party and is a part of the progressive wing of the Democratic party,,,,,,
Eko
(7,315 posts)as recent as 2004.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) Eko
(7,315 posts)"Bernie Sanders is serving his second term in the U.S. Senate after winning re-election in 2012 with 71 percent of the vote. His previous 16 years in the House of Representatives make him the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history."
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/about
Eko
(7,315 posts)putting words in my mouth, the fact that it keeps on reinforcing the narrative I have been pushing seems to blow right past you, it is like the concept is entirely outside of what you can understand. You just keep making assumptions that I have never said and move on from there, never learning your mistakes. It is exactly what I am talking about, but you cant even see it. Or can you?
betsuni
(25,537 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)supposedly have to put up with from "the progressive wing of the Democratic Party"-and your absurd implication that "the progressive wing of the Democratic Party" is only doing or saying things you disagree with becase they were duped by Vladimir Putin.
Nothing the progressive wing is doing helps Putin, and this party would not be in any stronger of a position if only there was no one within it disagreeing with you from any point to the left of your comfort zone.
All that's happening is that there are differences of opinion. There have ALWAYS been differences of opinion in this party. It's nothing new.
The Democratic Party simply can't BE a disagreement-free zone, and there's no one who doesn't vote for it now who would start vpting for it if only everyone to your left were silenced or expelled.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The two groups largely want the same things, and neither is going to be brought to the polls by a party that presents itself as "pro-business", indifferent to labor, dismissive of the poor and the victims of greed, and just as willing to go to war as the GOP.
If the approach we already used(an approach I assume you want us to continue)appealed to non-voters, they'd be voters.
MaryMagdaline
(6,855 posts)At least insofar as Ukraine and Syria. I thought our state department under Clinton and Obama was becoming neo-con II. The propaganda from Putin regarding Ukraine was that our State Department instigated the coup and was about to start WW III. Once I figured out that the Russians were lying, I became strongly pro-Clinton and strongly anti-Russia (which is not to say that we were not up to no good, but I think what we did was to preserve NATO and to keep Russia's power in Europe to a minimum.) I think by pulling my anti-neocon strings, the Russians had me believing their BS. Because I was duped, I am one of those who think that the Russian propaganda against Clinton was effective during the election. Call me stupid. I now know that I am vulnerable. Doesn't matter that how much LW media I read.
KPN
(15,646 posts)they were Russian trolls so you switched your allegiance back to Hillary during the election campaign? That's what it sounds like you are saying. How did you discover they were Russian trolls? Doesn't add up to me.
MaryMagdaline
(6,855 posts)I obviously knew the posts I was reading were pro-Russia. I did not REJECT them just because they were pro-Russia. They could have been telling the truth. I read Gorbachev (not a troll); RT (I now know is full of trolls); and various left-leaning media. I was not sure who the good guys were in Ukraine. I began to see more in print giving the US side of the story (maybe our state department started to get the word out??). I started to see that our state department, CIA, had every right to help Ukraine get away from Russian influence. Started to accept Hillary's previous belligerence with Russia. I had been beyond angry with her because Iraq War vote ... began to feel she was right about Russia ... began to see Russia pulling Turkey away from us, undermining NATO. I can't say when it all broke ... maybe Brexit.
Not till the story was coming out last summer about the trolls did I realize that I had been influenced. It is murky, I know.
TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)that you were duped/wrong... There are still many voters who felt as you did and are now resistant to facts - are not willing to admit to themselves or anyone else that they were conned.
In this very thread, there is another poster who was duped as you were but he seems to have swallowed the Russian "bait" too deeply to reverse course...
MaryMagdaline
(6,855 posts)After the Iraq War lies, I have not trusted anyone. 😊
yardwork
(61,634 posts)Millions were duped. Thank you for witnessing to that.
Me.
(35,454 posts)My guess would be that many were duped by Putin's minions
Liberal In Texas
(13,556 posts)I have not seen this and will watch later. It looks intriguing.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)When will you guys ever learn: you can't browbeat people into voting for you, no matter what your consultant and trust fund baby donors tell you.
JHan
(10,173 posts)"Hedge fund managers" "baby donors" etc etc.."centrists"
Yes of course, the problem right now are centrists.
Nevermind it was moderates who got shit done: LBJ was no far lefty, neither was JFK - neither was FDR.
But hey it's the "centrists" who are the problem.
ANd none of that remotely compares to being duped by propaganda from an anti-gay autocratic oligarchic regime.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)Democrats?
JHan
(10,173 posts)Lawd it's tiring.
With Trump in office and the ugly revanchism of the GOP on display, the bothsidism nonsense persists.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)in Congress and the states.
When Obama was elected, I was HOPING for an LBJ, maybe an asshole abroad, but at least a progressive at home. Instead, he appointed a privatizer to head the education department, and gave us health care reform from the Heritage Foundation, and continued down the Bush administration list of countries scheduled for regime change.
You can't have it both ways. You can't suck up to Wall Street and expect ordinary people not to notice who you are taking care of and who you aren't.
It is especially galling when we see how much harm Republicans can do in a very brief time to hear the incrementalist excuses when we do give Democrats another shot at the driver's seat
Either shit or get off the pot.
Just because you've heard those words a lot doesn't mean they aren't true.
JHan
(10,173 posts)and Dems, while blissfully ignoring policy and harping on an individual appointment to try to push the nonsense meme that Dems and GOp are the same, while thinking "incrementalism" is the problem, I can't help you.
Keep democrats out of office and see how that works for you, worse yet, keep harping on the fake equivocation bandwagon.
You'd think the GOP at their very worst would be a learning lesson, but apparently it isn't.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)I don't know who the hell that is, neither do his views reflect mine.
I am a pragmatist but very liberal. Pragmatism involves incrementalism. So while I am very liberal in my views, I believe in pragmatic politics in terms of strategy..
yurbud
(39,405 posts)to bailing out Wall Street, the defense budget, or starting wars?
JHan
(10,173 posts)And Republicans are awful at governance, which should tell you all you need to know. They've killed off all their centrists.
but here's what, stop voting Dem and see how that works out for you. Take your chances with amplifying the voting strength of republican supporters.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)polls show a lot of other people are looking for more choices including 70% of millennials.
Democrats should be figuring out how to fix that besides browbeating their base for seeing through their allegiance to Wall Street.
If the centrists here on DU represent the strategy of the party, it will be dead within two to three election cycles because you will make the same mistakes you made under Obama.
JHan
(10,173 posts)As a millennial, I know what the problem is - there's widespread ignorance of how government works, what the branches of government actually do. It doesn't surprise me people are disenchanted - billions have been spent to make people disenchanted and disconnected from politics.
The irony of you accusing me of misrespresenting you and accusing you of ranting and then you make a statement like that......
And you regularly bang on about centrists as if they're still a thing. Moderates aren't as common as they used to be, now elections are all about reaching out to your base. The country is the most polarized that it's ever been in generations.
And how do I know this whole Centrist thing is a ruse?
The DNC Chair race is a good example: Where Tom Perez was accused of being a "centrist" and "establishment" .. the same Tom Perez who nearly became Obama's AG but it was thought he couldn't get through senate confirmation because he was seen as too left leaning. The same Tom Perez whose nomination as Labor Sec. was seen as extreme because of union ties. That he ended up being viewed as "centrist" tells me that people don't know what they're talking about and abusing terms willy nilly to insult.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)
lapucelle
(18,268 posts)Pelosi and Schumer had no problem offending that guy.
http://krwg.org/post/not-one-penny-campaign-hosts-rally-leaders-pelosi-and-schumer
yurbud
(39,405 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)as if the heritage foundation plan and the ACA are the same - again trying to push the GOP-Lite meme. That is antagonistic spin.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/03/heritage-plan-conservative-alternative-aca-much-worse-ahca
To summarize, the Heritage Plan was to end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system, end Medicaid and phase out employer-based insurance, and require everyone not eligible to Medicare to purchase largely de-regulated catastrophic insurance with ungenerous subsidies. It is, in other words, radically different than the ACA. Saying the ACA is “based on” the Heritage Plan is like saying George W. Bush’s plan to privitize Social Security was “based on” FDR’s Social Security legislation. The only thing they have in common is the requirement to carry insurance, a banal recognition that insurance requires a broad pool to work that was hardly invented at Heritage.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Don't be spreading fake news around here.
JHan
(10,173 posts)The plans are NOT THE SAME. The similarity is the individual mandate.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)though it doesn't attack the primary problem for most of us:
private insurance companies demand ever higher profits, and they will use some of those profits to buy politicians to make it legal for them to take more and more of those profits.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I will admit that there should have been a greater push for a public option, but the point is what works better for people, what improves lives even if it is not ideal- and then the republicans spent years trying to obstruct fixes to it.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)nothing stopped them from adding the public option, which would have had the effect of either slowing insurance company rate hikes out of fear they would lose their customers to the public option, or, if they didn't care, then they would lose their customers even faster.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Sometimes when I read things I think people believe Democrats are a super power who could always get things done if only
Let's take a trip down memory lane okay?
Yes the Democrats had a house majority in 09, but that majority existed in conservative leaning districts which Dems swept up on the heels of Obama taking the presidency. These Blue Dog dems were against the ACA, I suspect they feared the building rhetoric from republicans, and were concerned about holding on to their seats ( Look politics is complicated, who knew?) And Nancy Pelosi, who is now derided by some usual suspects, managed to whip them into shape to get the ACA through the house and then to the Senate.
When it reached the Senate, Democrats did not have the majority they needed when legislation was drafted. If you recall, Dems only got to 56, after a prolonged months-long legal battle over the close election in Minnesota which Al Franken eventually won. He eventually took his oath in the summer of 2009. Still Dems were short of the 60 mark. Usually they could rely on the independents who caucus with them - Sanders and Lieberman. At first Sanders was against it until he got his concessions.
Lieberman, unfortunately, showed his true colors, and was probably still smarting from his failure in 2006 and discontent with the Democratic Party, and by this time could not be relied upon as any kind of ally to Democrats. If you recall, he endorsed McCain in 2008 and ran as an independent in a state where insurance companies have a stronghold. He refused to get on board until the ACA was stripped - and stripped of BIG THINGS like: public option and lowered medicare age.
Ben Nelson was also iffy. As a concession to him, the "cornhusker" amendment was added which gave States the option to expand or not expand medicare. (Also the supreme court later held this up in a 4-5 decision in 2012: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/analysis-us-supreme-court-upholds-affordable-care-act-roberts-rules)
Ted Kennedy's death in August 2009, threw a wrench in the process even though Paul Kirk who replaced him supported the ACA. After months of hearings and subcommittees, by the time the final ACA was sent back to the house , the Dems lost Kennedy's old seat via special election to Scott Brown which meant Dems lost their filibuster proof majority. House Dems realised they had to make do with what they had, and they knew if it was too "Liberal" the Senate would kill it. Nancy Pelosi stood her ground and they stuck with the flawed bill which was signed in march of 2010.
So much for Dems easily adding the public option, unless you think the ACA should never have been passed, damn the people who eventually benefited from it?
yurbud
(39,405 posts)ignored their constituents.
Frankly, I am running out of patience with the filibuster.
Republicans do away with it when it really gets in their way, and Democrats use it as an excuse not to pass more progressive policies.
The party in the majority has to own what they do and don't pass if it only requires a simple majority.
That logic is like saying: The solution to gaining votes in moderate constituencies is to run far leftists or uber progressives and that makes no damn sense. Then you follow it with logic suggesting that moderates cannot possibly be good reps for their constituents, like really?
Which just proves the point there is literally nothing Democrats can do to your satisfaction. It's as though Democrats are the only actors in this game, which completely ignores the dominance of republican backers and how they've shaped narratives for decades, and how Democrats have always had to navigate terrain where there's tension between what is politically possible while facing opponents who want to limit the franchise and , today, don't believe in liberal democracy. It doesn't matter if I remind you of history of present facts or provide a nuanced argument.
And the idea that Dems will lose upcoming cycles has become such a cliche, like the hysterial "DEMS ARE IN DISARRAY" and doesn't even neatly fit with the overblown DISASTER narratives of what happened in 2016 where it is routinely ignored that a plurality of voters went for Clinton and where Dems picked up seats in both chambers of Congress. Hell, the perpetual complainers said that Virginia would have been a loss and it wasn't.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)A candidate who bothered to say those last three words could probably win on that alone.
JHan
(10,173 posts)and "well why not free college"" i'm sure if they ran on that it will work????" thinking.
Voters aren't mindless. By now we should heed Lakoff's thinking on this, voters vote based on their values, it's not about "voting against your self interest"- they vote based on their values and those values can be messed up. Voters who regularly vote moderate aren't looking for a progressive savior.
Personally, I'm not entirely in favor of free college. And my reasons are more sound than voters who bang on about government handouts.
I prefer greater focus and emphasis on K-12 as I explain here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029578436#post113
"Generally, the neediest of society, those who are functionally illiterate and didn't finish high school, will not be eligible to receive "free college" . The beneficiaries will be young people who hope to make more than median wage on their first day at the job.
The catch is most degrees will not net you more than the median wage on the first day. How many degrees are worth taking yourself out of the workforce for 4 years when you could have gained experience had you started work right out of high school? Take Germany for example: grossly simplistic comparisons are made between the the U.S. and Germany - but there's a difference, in germany there are jobs you can get without a university degree, jobs that require a degree in the U.S, and there's a focus on vocational training. Treating free college as a fixall puts pressure on administrative university costs, especially if you're taking a degree which isn't terribly productive - ergo a degree society isn't lining up for and demanding.
And let's say someone takes up a degree that society IS lining up for, why can't that person cover the costs of their tuition? There are already state taxes aimed at keeping state colleges affordable, federal research grants, land grants, scholarship aid etc, it's not that society doesn't pay anything at the moment.
And as for unproductive degrees, "free college" encourages students to pursue these degrees when they might be better off pursuing a trade career for example or pursue a productive degree instead. EDIT: And I am not arguing that Students shouldn't pursue degrees that aren't high in demand, personal education is valuable regardless, but it's a valid consideration. I also believe the humanities shouldn't be dismissed or ignored, and I won't mind a change in the way we value and assess certain degrees, but is this some magical fix? No it isn't.
What free college does is give funds to literate high school graduates who only have to choose a sensible major and they're set for life.
Which is why I favor greater emphasis on k-12. Greater emphasis on infancy health and nutrition plans for vulnerable mothers, particularly if those mothers are homeless, barely literate and live in communities with decrepit infrastructure. I want less talk about "free college" and more talk about literacy and numeracy rates in the United States and how to address the effects of poverty on access to education. "
And I didn't cover grade/degree inflation. Further, there's no hard evidence that a degree closes the wage gap. In fact, there's strong evidence that talking yourself out of the job market for four years to pursue a degree maybe a bad idea when you could develop skills. Yes the dreaded skills training people love to poo poo on.
But let's look at other examples;
Scotland: Free College has not closed the gap because the lower classes or those without access to moderately high standard of education, have a high high-school drop out rate so they're out of consideration. Which means the bulk of the students who benefit are the middle and upper classes. And don't just take my word for it: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/apr/29/free-tuition-scotland-benefits-wealthiest-students-most-study
And then in Germany, you're seeing affluent kids getting multiple degrees and staying out of the job market for 8-10 years, which adds to administrative costs, paid for by everyone else (including lower income brackets) And you can't very well tell them- well that's enough studying, because it would leave other potential students out of the loop.
So it seems even I have failed your litmus test of "free college", simply because I recognize that poor neighborhoods lacking adequate infrastructure and burdened by poor services, will not receive tangible benefits. And it might well turn out to be a gift to those who ordinarily can afford to go to college.
And Medicare for all - how you want that funded? State level? Federal Level? How will Federal level coverage affect reproductive healthcare access?
And how would you view Sherrod Brown ( one of the most progressive senators there is), opting out co-sponsoring Sanders' Medicare For All Bill, preferring instead to push his own bill which is a Medicare buy in ( sort of like what Clinton campaigned on) but according to your logic, this strips him of his progressive credentials and makes him a moderate.
In the main though, It'll be helpful to address the metric used to judge how well Dems are with "bread and butter issues" in conservative leaning or republican leaning districts: and that metric is how well Dems do with white working class people. And to put your arguments into context, the only Democrat to win WCC rather convincingly since the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the "Great Society" was Bill Clinton - a southern moderate.
And as a point of comparison, Dem candidates who performed the worst among the WWC were McGovern and Mondale.
But if you take whites out of the equation, Democrats overwhelmingly attract working class votes.
So what can I say, policy making is not easy, and it's not as simple as you describe.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)We need financial aid generous enough for students to go to school full time without working, which existed when I went to college in the 80's.
If someone stays out of the job market to get an education, that reduces unemployment, which means more jobs are available, and wages are driven up.
I would support Sherrod Brown's bill if that was the one getting traction since it's a step in the right direction.
The funding for Medicare for all question is dishonest. Would people keep paying for private insurance once they got Medicare? No.
People would still be paying a premium one way or another, it's just that a big skim wouldn't be taken off for profits, executive salaries, advertising, and all those operators who put you on hold before they deny your coverage.
JHan
(10,173 posts)....carpet statements about democrats deliberately blocking progressive legislation? or whatever
Yeah, Scotland "Cut some programs" - Free college subsidies aren't exactly cheap. With concerns about the debt, of course there were cuts. Students who can afford to take on college debt , don't and with a deluge of applications it's also getting harder for Scots to win a place in universities, on top of the cap by their Government to control costs. In policy considerations, emphasis matters. With free college you have increased applications and heavier administrative costs- it stands to reason the added focus would result in cuts in other areas - in their case schools and colleges.
And I made a bunch of other points re college which you ignored, which is why more discussion about it the idea is necessary instead of blind acceptance that "Free college" is some magical solution to tuition costs. You'll also find a lot has changed since the 80's. Any policy which ignores why tuition costs are high, and thinks "free college" would be a fixall is going to be bad policy.
And re wages:
I'd recommend you read:
From Income Inequality and Education Richard Breen,Inkwan Chung ( University of Oxford & Yale University ) https://www.sociologicalscience.com/download/volume-2/august/SocSci_v2_454to477.pdf
and figure 3 on page 13
It might be objected that education explains only a small share of inequality because the educational groupings we are using are not sufficiently discriminating: the category “college” for example, puts together graduates from different colleges and from different majors and also includes people with post-graduate degrees. Perhaps if we had a finer categorization of education we could explain more; some of the within-education inequality would then become between-education inequality. We repeated our analyses with six categories of education: “less than high school” “GED” “high school diploma” “some college” “completed college” and “advanced degree (MA, PhD or professional qualification)” This had little impact on the share of inequality explained by education.
For example, if we consider only the results for the entire period, the original four categories of education accounted for 0.044/(0.044 + 0.122) = 26.5 percent of total adjusted (for within-person volatility) inequality in the older cohort and 27.4 percent in the younger cohort. Using the six categories these percentages change to 27 percent and 27.8 percent. The additional contributions from the use of the finer categorization to between-group inequality in each of the sub-periods are similarly very small."
Which is why I questioned the sense of a high school graduate taking themselves out of the market for 4 years, to pursue an unproductive degree according to market demands, for the purpose of netting an above-median wage only to then be disappointed.
And my focus on k-12 is the direct link it has on generational wealth: poor education in formative years puts you out of the loop permanently. Literacy and numeracy rates are alarming enough in a country that is the richest and most powerful in the world.
So yeah, instead of "free college" aimed at roping in millennials, I'd rather focus on formative education.
No it's not "dishonest" . How it's paid for, whether it will repeal hyde, are important questions.
And I'm not the only one unimpressed and wanting more fleshed out details. This article lays out ( better than I could) how Medicare For All might might compromise attaining universal healthcare, and explains how other countries do it better.
https://www.thenation.com/article/medicare-for-all-isnt-the-solution-for-universal-health-care/
Eko
(7,315 posts)As for the rest you can take a long hike buddy.
sadiegirl
(138 posts)After Reagan's send term I could find no one who said they voted for him.
peggysue2
(10,829 posts)More than we'd like to think or admit. I said early on that Democrats were duped in 2016, targeted by sophisticated and effective propaganda efforts. And yes, progressives and those claiming to be progressives were drawn into the whirlpool and swept down the drain. Deliberately and with malicious intent. An astonishing number of intelligent people fell for it, screamed the memes and thought they were perfectly legitimate. As Americans we are not immune to this sort of psych-ops warfare.
As time goes on I'm confident we'll begin to understand the details, the people involved, the nature of the attack on our electoral integrity. Not as an exercise in finger-pointing but to defend ourselves in the future. Because this war on our national security is not going to stop once the Trumpster and his cabal are disposed. This is what war looks like in the 21st Century, a War of Information.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,622 posts)It has been shown that Russian bots and trolls played a big role in spreading the "Bernie or bust" meme, and the actual number of Bernie supporters who voted for Trump or third party was actually quite small.
Nevertheless, there are some Dems who believe there was a widespread movement among Bernie supporters to work against the election of HRC.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)...put forth by a troll
Eko
(7,315 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)if you believe that then move there. They might cooperate but, they will try to undercut the United States, one way or another. Comrade Putin is a ex USSR KGB Agent, they hold big grudges of the down fall of the Soviet Union. Were just fighting Cold War 2.0, Russia wants it more then we do.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)The types of things being repeated right off of Russian State media here was rampant.
I also remember in the Spring of 2016 we had contingents who were very excited about what was coming on Wikileaks regarding Hillary Clinton.
Unfortunately, this is all too real.
nycbos
(6,034 posts)Here everyday.
People here bought it hook line and sinker.
and you hear Dems are "GOP Lite" and Hillary was supposedly "Trump lite" ... fucking crazy shit.