What is a Democrat. Are you a Democrat?

[angrychair]

Repost due to lock. Cleaned up concerns of lock.
People can argue the finer points but by Clinton's own admission she is a "moderate centrist". While you can make a case for her being a Democrat in a broad sense, the case that she is not to the right of a good portion of Democrats or left-leaning Independents, is a much harder case to make.

At the end of the day, for me, it's not specifically about Sanders but the ideals he has chosen to represent. It is the attack on those ideals, ideals that are central to my identity as a Democrat, that has been so disheartening.

In defense of their candidate, some have gone way over the top. Yes, there have been personal attacks against Sanders and Clinton, yes some have gone to far. That, while troublesome, is not the worst component of this primary season. It was the attacks, on what I consider core Democratic values, by overzealous people, in their attempts to demean, insult or counterattack a Sanders supporter or Sanders himself.
Humiliating and shaming poor and struggling people for only wanting "free stuff". The trade and trafficking in pure right-wing "free stuff" memes was the most disappointing. Making disingenuous claims about taxes and complaining that they don't want their taxes to go up to give poor and struggling people "free stuff" is not a core Democratic value.

Lastly, while many complain about sources, there has been more than once that a person has used a anti Semitic, neo-Nazi, holocaust denying hate site and their batshit crazy conspiracy theories, to attack a Democratic Jewish candidate.

For those that engaged in these type of attacks, please take time to reevaluate where you are at in your life and what it means to be a Democrat. Attacking poor or struggling families with "free stuff" memes is not being a Democrat.
Attacking struggling or poor students that are drowning in student loan debt while the government makes billions from the interest, is not being a Democrat.
Attacking people for wanting health and dental care, that has little to no barriers to entry, is not being a Democrat.
Attacking a Democratic candidate, who is of Jewish heritage, using neo-Nazi hate sites, is not being a Democrat.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Lovers of labels.

[Maedhros]

2. Alternatively: This is what Democrats are now.

Democrats want 'fiscal responsibility'. Democrats use elective wars based on lies as part of their foreign policy. Democrats allow their Presidents to execute Enemies of the State without due process. Democrats do not find habeus corpus to be important. Democrats favor corporate funding of elections. Democrats want to 'reform' Social Security. Democrats cynically use race to divide and conquer the electorate.

Democrats are not what they once were. Why pretend that they are?

[nolawarlock]

13. A Democrat is ...

... what the party as a whole wants it to be. This whole idea some idyllic Democratic roots is ludicrous. The party of FDR (who practically invented workfare, by the way) was also once the party of slavery and Jim Crow. If you want to define what the Democrats are, then you need to participate it its ongoing definition and not just ten months before a major election.

The hubris of Bernie and his acolytes never ceases to amaze me.

[snowy owl]

33. The shifting winds of democracy become oligarchy but your okay with it. It is the same party I guess

I'm not. My principles are not for sale do they change on a whim. I'm sorry you sell your principles so cheaply and easily. Shifting winds of democracy . . . and one day you have oligarchy. That's what you're saying.

I don't think you're actually participating. You're really going along. What brought you to the party to begin with?

[nolawarlock]

54. That was not my point at all.

My point is that falsely idealizing the golden age of Democrats is not effective in developing what the party is. Yes, going back and saying, "we did this right, let's keep it. We did this wrong, let's not" is effective, but there never was a perfect ideal.

I'm not going along with anything. I'm voting my issues. Hillary comes closest to those. Bernie comes second. I have disagreements with both candidates and with a plank here or there and such disagreements are why I've always registered independent. So I wasn't able to vote in my primary at all and I didn't complain about being disenfranchised either because I get why.

[mooseprime]

27. ^^^^^^^^^^ this! ^^^^^^^^^^

the word means whatever they want it to mean. until they want it to mean something else.

[LexVegas]

3. Attacking civil rights icons is not being a Democrat or progressive.

Its part of the reason your guy is getting the shit beat out of him.

[bkkyosemite]

4. "shit beat out of him" no cheated out of him.

[LexVegas]

5. ...

[hedda_foil]

7. That's a scurrilous lie.

Exactly which "civil rights icons" has Bernie ever attacked? Please include specific quotes, dates and links.

[frylock]

10. Correcting Dolores Huerta on her lie ERRRRRRR mistranslation is to be considered an attack.

The rules are that civil rights icons can say a stupid thing they want without being impugned.

[ScreamingMeemie]

20. ...and it also burns the shit out of me that she is also a labor icon, but that doesn't

fit the narrative.

[snot]

32. You know darn well, Bernie NEVER attacked civil rights.

You've forfeited all credibility with me.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. That is one of Skinner's All Stars- Posts hidden by Jury: 10

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=313074&sub=trans

[Unicorn]

6. After looking at the Hillary supporters willing to support a proven warhawk, the tpp, superpacs, and

ignore corruption, I'm not sure I want to be a Democrat if it means being in their group. I'm too liberal for that. And I only see what they're supporting and attacking as something Republicans would do.

I suspect after the convention, I won't be and thank God. I want to distance myself from those people. If that's Democrat I want nothing to do with it. I've been voting Dem since the late 80's because I thought Dems were against everything these neocons are supporting.

[nolawarlock]

14. Warhawk?

Is that her superhero name?

[liberalnarb]

21. Maybe supervillain name

[nolawarlock]

29. In the DC Universe, he's a hero. :) nt

[NurseJackie]

8. It was a mistake for the Sanders campaign to go down the "Confederate States" path...

... and be so dismissive of (and insulting to) so many voters. Any candidate (or campaign, or supporter) who is concerned about "voter shaming" would not have so gleefully pursued such a tactic. It may have temporarily soothed their stinging pride, but it was very self-destructive.

It's one thing for the Hillary's supporters to needle Bernie's supporters ... but it's a huge mistake for Bernie (and/or his campaign) to be so condescending to entire sections of the country, and to attack civil rights icons.

Although this thread appears to be one that attempts to divert and blame others, it's a positive step forward in that it also appears to show signs of inward reflection and post-mortem analysis of what went wrong.

[angrychair]

11. What I am saying

Is no different than what I have said from the beginning. I support a candidate that aligns with my ideals but if that candidate is successful or not does not change what I have advocated for since I was 11 years old.
Sanders being successful or not, doesn't change his positions, since they have been his positions for 30+ years.

You ignored the substance of my post and the significant issues I raised on "free stuff" memes and the use of neo-Nazi websites but that is typical.

[NurseJackie]

12. Because the Bernie camp here ONLY uses impeccable sources for their smears? GMAFB.

Sanders being successful or not, doesn't change his positions, since they have been his positions for 30+ years.

Being stagnant and inflexible and unable to adapt or compromise isn't really something that I'm looking for in a candidate. But, if that's your thing ... you've found your man.

[angrychair]

16. So the perceived poor behavior or slight by others

Is justification for poor behavior from those that felt slighted? Interesting.

So, to be clear, given the clarification I made, and taking into account your response, it would appear you have no issues attacking people of Jewish heritage with neo-Nazi hate sites as long as you feel they are not using "impeccable sources" themselves. Interesting.


So, to be clear, given the clarification I made, and taking into account your response, it would appear you have no issues attacking poor and struggling people for wanting "free stuff" as long as you feel they are not using "impeccable sources" themselves. Interesting.

[NurseJackie]

43. Your selective outrage and pretzel-logic has been noted.

[angrychair]

46. Not my logic

But your justification.
You bundled all my concerns about neo-nazi hate site sources and there batshit crazy conspiracy theories and apparently all of the poor shaming use of "free stuff" memes against struggling people into you response header of

Because the Bernie camp here ONLY uses impeccable sources for their smears? GMAFB

Because the remainder of your post was a rant about how him being pretty consistent in his principals over 30+ years is a bad thing.

The attacks on poor and struggling people by many Clinton supporters on this site has been pervasive and constant.
From access to college and student loan debt to minimum wage and trade, a common theme from many Clinton supporters has been the use of the phrasing with "free stuff" memes. It somehow became the boilerplate attack against Sanders supporters without concern that those very same attacks were also humiliating and ridiculing the poor and struggling. These type of attacks are perfect mimics of teapublican talking points about the poor on their hate sites and in the press.

Clinton supporters have literally ganged up and trashed people that were only relating their economic and personal struggles and why that played a factor into their supporting Sanders.

If this is a portent of the type of society Clinton wants I don't want any part of it.

[NurseJackie]

48. You're doing some pretty good "bundling" there yourself! What a confusing post!

It's just all OVER the place! I'm sick of hearing all the whining and complaining about how the 85% of Bernie fans are being victimized by the 15% of Hillary voters. What a crock of shit! There's a REASON that Skinner eliminated the "automatic time out" punishment for having 5 hidden threads... and I assure it, it was NOT because Bernie fans were being victimized by alert-stalking and Hillary-stacked lopsided juries who voted against them.

Here's the thing: Bernie is NOT going to be the nominee. It's done. It's not going to happen. This this is over (except for the shouting and crying and cheering and balloon-drop).

The hardcore Bernie fans online have always had a reputation of being bitter and angry, and there are only a few exceptions that I've ever seen. So, are you going be one of the ones to wallow in resentment, rehash old arguments and bickering ad infinitum? Are you going to hold a grudge forever and bask in your own self-pity?

Jesus Christ, let it go and move on! Nothing you do or say is going to change the outcome. Hillary will be the nominee.

In the end, it's your choice if you want to live in a perpetual state of resentment, or if you guys want to do some self reflecting and analyze what your mistakes were, what you can do better, find a better candidate who can deliver a better message with broader appeal, who can deliver the votes you need, etc etc etc.

If this is a portent of the type of society Clinton wants I don't want any part of it.

You're letting your imagination and fears get the best of you. But, if that's truly what you believe, then it would seem to me that your choices are rather limited. I can only think of two alternatives. (Well, maybe three, but the third one is a bit drastic.)

[angrychair]

51. Tangent again

Failed to address the actual post. I never once mentioned Sanders or "cried" about him not getting the nomination. I spoke to the conduct of Clinton supporters during this process. You have a serious obsession and seething hatred for Sanders boarding on disconcerting.

I have said this many times, for many months, but will say it yet again, at the end of the day it is not about Sanders but the ideals he has chosen to represent. Ideals, that until this nomination, I thought all Democrats shared. Time on DU has shown me that is not true. Many Clinton supporters have spent their time attempting to attack Sanders supporters but in reality were attacking the poor and struggling people and using "free stuff" memes nasty slurs.
Just because you feel slighted doesn't make those things "ok".

[NurseJackie]

52. No, you're just cherry-picking and obsessing...

Clinton supporters have spent their time attempting to attack Sanders supporters but in reality were attacking the poor and struggling people

... and doing some deflecting yourself. "Boo hoo, they criticized Sanders' free college plan... therefore Hillary voters HATE college students, or HATE the poor, or HATE education." Again: GMAFB!

This tactic reminds me of the response to critics of GWB's wars. What did they say? "Boo hoo, why do you hate our fighting men and women?" (Same thing, different subject.)

You have a serious obsession and seething hatred for Sanders boarding on disconcerting.

HA! Now *that's* funny!

I spoke to the conduct of Clinton supporters during this process.

Yet remain oddly silent about Bernie supporters conduct, smears and attacks.

Ideals, that until this nomination, I thought all Democrats shared.

Such as stealing data, then lying about it? Or calling Hillary "unqualified"? Are those the "ideals" you're talking about? Oh yeah, he's a real prince.

[frylock]

9. A Democrat is someone who once checked a box on a form.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

15. Someone who registers to vote as a Democrat

It's not that difficult to figure out. Don't over think it.

[angrychair]

17. I didn't make it sacred

Your camp did. Their standard is that Sanders isn't a 'real' Democrat because he hasn't been one long enough. The required timeframe is a little soft, I am sure it's not goal post moving but simple lack of consensus.

Others have said that the Democratic Party primaries and caucuses should be closed to only registered Democrats, who I assume must be Democrats for 'long enough', if they want to vote in the primary.what that means and how long appear soft but I am sure it will properly exclude the "right" people. Maybe we can sit a jar of marbles out front and if people can't guess the right number they can't vote or leave the date unpublished and only tell real Democrats during secret meetings so we only have the 'good' Democrats voting.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

18. If it were up to me, a Democrat would have to be registered for six weeks prior to a primary

Primaries would be closed; all voting would be by mail (which is what we should do anyway as a nation); and the party would pay to have an accounting firm or some other transparent body count the votes.

Parties represent organizations that choose candidates. Independents, by definition, have chosen not to participate in the party. I'm not setting the bar high -- there is certainly no marble guessing. But if you can't be troubled to join the Democratic party, you shouldn't be involved in picking the party's candidates. Obviously, independents are free to choose among the candidates put up by the parties or whichever independents have chosen to run in the GE.

[BootinUp]

19. I just read something that made sense on DU! nt

[Algernon Moncrieff]

22. Thanks. I keep trying to explain this.

Typically, I get nonsense about labels and tribalism in return.

[angrychair]

23. So, the point of the 6 weeks is?

Why not 6 months or 12 months?
Is it to prevent the mythical "spoiler" vote?
The myth of the "spoiler" vote is as invalid as the teapublican nonsense of in-person voter fraud.

What you are proposing, just like teapublican voting laws, is only an attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Washington state lets you register at the caucus. Do you really think that doing that could actually alter the outcome? I talked to almost everyone that voted in my precinct. Even if you discounted the people that said they normally didn't vote or were normally Independent, Sanders still would have won by more than a 2-1 margin (it was 54-14, with about 8 or 9 - notes are hard to read now - falling into the category you are concerned about, still 46-14 - I didn't really talk to the HRC supporters a lot so I am honestly not sure if any were Independent or not though it is less likely)
It is ridiculous tinfoil hate nonsense to set faux standards as there is no practical benefit to be gained.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

24. No - the spoiler vote is not a myth

In fact, in Nebraska, it's kind of a thing. Many offices are so dominated by Republicans that Democrats will become "Republicans for a Day" to vote in the primaries for offices such as Governor. I dislike it as a practice.

[angrychair]

26. ROFL

So the only example you can give me of the mythical "spoiler " vote is Democrats doing it to teapublicans?
Even given that example, they have little to no chance of actually influencing the final outcome. Which is my actual point.
There has never and will never be a case where a national or state office holder's election will be impacted enough by so called spoiler voting or in-person voter fraud to make a difference to the final expected results.
There are just not enough people, who give enough shits, to change an outcome.

Does "Operation Chaos" ring a bell? The largest, organized, spoiler vote effort ever attempted and it made zero difference.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

34. You only cited one example - why shouldn't I

By the way - I wen to the Nebraska Caucus. Nasty business, that. That's another process that needs to end. It combines all of the worst elements of a used car sale and a pep rally. One person. One vote. Done in the privacy of one's home , car, or office, and then mailed.

[Sky Masterson]

25. I've voted for Democrats since the 90's

Rarely has the person that I backed made it past the primary until Obama.
Now it seems to me that Both parties are stuck in a rut.
The critters we send to Washington are comfortable and complacent.
They learn the ropes quickly and nothing ever changes.
The lobbyist rub elbows with the congressmen for access to them, The media rubs elbows with the congressmen for access to them.
They spend half of their time begging for money for the next election.
The people they beg don't do it for free. They do it for Access!
So, The question was " What is a Democrat. Are you a Democrat?"
I would say a democrat is a cog in the same machine as republicans are cogs in ,and the democratic cog runs only barely better.
To ask if I am a Democrat? I don't know anymore.
Washington is Fucked. And we going full status Quo with the Clinton rehash.
It is no wonder that this is the election of the outside candidate.
Americans are over it.
I'm over it.
My vote is no longer free.
I will leave it up to others to label me.
They do it anyways.

[angrychair]

28. Well said

I cannot disagree.

[guillaumeb]

30. The US has a non-parliamentary system of government.

If the US had a parliamentary system, each party would have an official party platform that every candidate would support. That makes it easy for voters because any voter can easily find out what the official party position is on any particular issue.

But with the somewhat chaotic/confusing US system, any politician can simply claim to be a Democrat or a Republican. The GOP at this point is more like a parliamentary party because they generally move as a monolithic entity, but the Democratic Party embraces corporatists as well as more progressive types.

SO, to ask again, is there a real Democrat, or merely many varieties of Democrat?

[snot]

31. I am not a f---ing anything. My loyalty is:

to trying to perceive and deploy reality in ways I prefer––e.g., with less needless destruction and waste, more efficiency, love, beauty . . . .

[hobbit709]

35. Evidently I'm not one as defined by a certain protected group that blocks everyone.

[baldguy]

36. Members of the "Not Hillary Party" are not Democrats.

[hobbit709]

40. Tell yourself that come November. If you don't want our vote then don't complain

When she loses.

[JSup]

37. I am a Democrat...

...and anyone who argues otherwise is no better than those who argue that people that are not like them are not "Real Americans".

That said, I never got into the "free stuff" argument; it tasted too much like 'Tea' to me.

[pdsimdars]

38. Now, the graphic. . . . . ..

Does the term "Democrat" stand for anything any more? It doesn't seem to if the nominee is Hillary. It would stand for nothing, just be a label.

[Demsrule86]

39. false premise.

Clinton says she is progressive.

"During CNN's Democratic Town Hall in New Hampshire on Wednesday night, Hillary Clinton recalled her decades of experience both in and out of politics, telling the audience she is "somebody who wants to actually produce a real difference in people's lives. I am a progressive who gets results, and I will be a progressive president who gets results."

http://theweek.com/speedreads/603467/hillary-clinton-says-progressive-who-gets-results

[hobbit709]

41. the results of personal enrichment.

[Demsrule86]

42. Roosevelt was thought by some to be disqualified by his great wealth

And we all know how that turned out! Being wealthy does not mean you don't care about those who are less fortunate.

[hobbit709]

44. Little bit of difference there. He didn't go from "dead broke" to $250+ mill in 15 years,

He didn't use his position to enrich himself.

[Demsrule86]

45. He was born rich

And making money is not a bad thing. The Clinton's have done much to help people with their charity. I would argue Hil and Bill know what it is like to struggle.

[azurnoir]

47. The fact is what a Democrat is has changed radically from days of LBJ's War on Poverty

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

it is said that Reagan killed it but the sad reality is that it was executed in the only way it could be-by another Democrat

Since that time those living in poverty -the homeless-those whose lives are without hope have disappeared from the radar -replaced by endless policies that we're told help the middle class - to a degree they do especially if you're on the upper end of that-however if your on the lower end you're left with policies that sound swell but do not change reality, like ACA ya you've got health coverage but except for maybe some preventative care you'd still better not get sick because you'll find your coverage will still leave you out in the cold

today's Democratic Liberalism has left many out in the cold with heartless economic policies and other platitudes not to mention the current atmosphere of "identity politics", has anyone stopped and asked themselves why a whit candidate seems to be more concerned with Black issues than a Democratic Black POTUS or at least it could appear that way on the surface

[Go Vols]

50. "Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican in 1980s"

I didn't care for them then either.

[Demsrule86]

53. She has said she is progressive

Better clean a bit more.