Coalition of 6 progressive groups are out with a statement of blue no matter who.

[redqueen]

Last edited Thu Jan 16, 2020, 02:30 PM - Edit history (2)

Link to tweet

We must end the divisiveness.

Edit: I don't know why this is not getting through to some people but just to highlight it...

[MineralMan]

1. That's good to hear.

[George II]

3. Would be good to hear if it were true, see my post below.

[MineralMan]

4. Yes. I don't believe it, either.

Many things are said. I wait to see action.

[The Valley Below]

24. It is gaslighting.

Read the statement.

[redqueen]

26. Wow great job much unity

[The Valley Below]

39. This is not a call for "unity."

The statement is divisive. Thread fail.

[redqueen]

44. Congrats again on 60+ days at DU. nt

[The Valley Below]

45. I'm much more proud of being a lifetime Democrat who has never missed an election

and always voted Democratic.

Membership here means squat.

[George II]

2. That contradicts the article that appeared in the Hill earlier:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/478533-18-progressive-groups-sign-unity-pledge-amid-sanders-warren-feud

Eighteen progressive groups have signed a unity pledge vowing to keep their fire trained on the “corporate wing” of the Democratic Party amid a burgeoning feud between Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that has split the left.

The signers include seven groups who back Sanders's 2020 presidential bid and two that back Warren's. The remaining nine groups are either supportive of both candidates, such as Democracy for America, or have not endorsed anyone yet.

The three-part pledge says the groups will “focus our fight for the nomination against candidates supported by the corporate wing, instead of fighting each other.” The groups say they’re committed to ensuring a progressive candidate wins the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination and that they’ll join forces to ensure that candidate ultimately defeats President Trump.

Keeping fire trained on part of the Democratic Party isn't "blue no matter who"!

Here are these groups, most if not all are PACs or Super PACs. Both Sanders and Warren have said they're not supported by PACs or Super PACs!

1. Be A Hero Action Fund
2. Black Male Voter Project
3. Black Voters Matter Fund
4. Center for Popular Democracy Action (Sanders)
5. Democracy for America
6. Dream Defenders (Sanders)
7. Inequality Media Civic Action
8. Justice Democrats
9. Our Revolution (Sanders)
10. People’s Action (Sanders)
11. Presente Action
12. Progress America
13. Progressive Change Campaign Committee (Warren)
14. Progressive Democrats of America (Sanders)
15. Roots Action (Sanders)
16. Social Security Works
17. Sunrise Movement (Sanders)
18. Working Families Party (Warren)

[redqueen]

5. Maybe all those others weren't willing to sign a pledge that said blue no matter who.

I don't know why there's a separate group of those six orgs but I'm trying to increase messages of unity.

Not amplify discord.

You should really consider doing the same.

[ancianita]

9. Both Warren and Sanders likely meant CORPORATE PACs, since that's the common public understanding.

Can't we have that understanding, too?

Am I missing your point? Aren't you insisting that their claims are compromised?

Yet, can't we distinguish PACs between corporate and group/organization categories?

Especially since they're called Political Action Committees, that would be the goal, right?

The monetary source of their formation is the proof that what the candidates say is what they mean.

The acronym PAC isn't proof alone. Not of the candidates' intent.

No one can win without PACs. We all know this.

[highplainsdem]

11. +1,000,000

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. I applaud this statement

It is consistent with the beliefs of these organizations and it should surprise no one that it espouses and advocates for progressive politics. Calling for unity among behind any of our progressive candidates is a good thing, but this goes a step further. It acknowledges that even if a self identified progressive fails to win the Democratic nomination, that it is essential for all progressives to unite behind whoever does win the Democratic nomination.

They speak for me also.

[George II]

7. And as if on cue, Sanders tweeted this out six minutes ago:

Big surprise!

The corporate wing of the Democratic Party—which called me “an existential threat"—is attacking us again because our agenda of fighting for working people is very popular and threatens corporate elites who fill their pockets.

We’re making them nervous. Keep it up.

[melman]

16. Context

Link to tweet

Responding to an attack from Third Way*





*who totally don't exist.

[George II]

17. Third way is not a part of the Democratic Party nor it is...

....the "corporate wing of the Democratic Party*"

*which totally doesn't** exist.

**correct grammar!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

23. Bazinga!

It’s getting too easy

[BannonsLiver]

8. Talk is cheap

[lees1975]

10. How to we get Stein and the Green Party on board

with beating Trump instead of wasting money and votes on a candidate. Unless they prefer Trump and want to become Russia.

[The Mouth]

40. Rubles

Or get Putin to give the appropriate orders.

[Syo]

12. Your title is false

The group vows to vote for only those candidates who are not "anti-establishment".
The statement bashes "corporate" Democrats.
Blue means Democratic no matter who.

[redqueen]

25. No, it isn't.

[coti]

13. Totally agree.

The petty bullshit is really disheartening. Everyone needs to let it go for the sake of our kids. I honestly don't care which of the candidates gets the nomination as long as they kick Trump's ass.

[redqueen]

27. You said it. I'm baffled seeing so many people intent on bolstering any and all internal squabbling

[brooklynite]

14. I think your title was meant to say: "Blue as long as it's Sanders or Warren"

From the tweet:

"Our best chance of defeating Trump does not lie with an establishment or corporate Democrat".

[George II]

18. Bazinga!

[redqueen]

29. Ugh

Never thought I'd get so annoyed with Sheldon's catch phrase.

[redqueen]

28. WTF

[W_HAMILTON]

15. Uh, that's a pretty damn divisive statement.

[George II]

20. Divisive in the name of unity.

[redqueen]

30. How?

[W_HAMILTON]

36. Uh, try reading it?

They are only seeking unity within those they have defined as progressives. They go after """establishment""" and """corporate""" Democrats in their so-called unity statement. Not very unifying, but I guess it's about the best you can expect from this divisive crew.

[redqueen]

37. And moderates say that only moderates can win.

That's not divisive that's just politics in a campaign.

It's the HE STARTED IT / SHE STARTED IT bullshit that needs to stop. It's counterproductive and also annoying as fuck.

[W_HAMILTON]

38. Bullshit.

Most of the """moderate""" candidates that are being attacked by these groups don't attack progressives like that because they actually ARE progressives as well.

It's just more of the same divisive shit from these people.

[The Valley Below]

19. Read the message.

It is as divisive as hell.

Same old crap, with a fig-leaf.

[redqueen]

31. Where?

Which part is divisive?

[LanternWaste]

21. I accept that during the primaries, divisiveness is a tactic.

As long as it remains frying in the primary pan and doesn't simmer over into the general again, I'm simply going to accept it as a tactic and as a standard.

Once the primaries are (mathematically) over, unity of course becomes a (necessary) strength; but until then, the proxies will bleat, the hacks will make faith-based prophecies, and bumper stickers will be pointed to as valid arguments.. and it's a white-noise I've gotten used to and even hum to these days.

[beastie boy]

22. There is precious little of "blue no matter who" sentiment in the statement.

The last 25 words or so, to be precise. The rest of the three-page statement is about "Warren or Sanders no matter who", with emphasis on rejecting mainstream Democrats (aka the Democratic majority) as "corporate democrats" and "establishment".

I am not holding my breath until this coalition issues an unconditional blue no matter who statement.

[redqueen]

33. The rest of it is similar to shit I see posted here and everywhere every day

God almighty we are just dead set on repeating 2016 aren't we. Christ

[getagrip_already]

32. These are all PAC's or Super PAC's, correct?

Basically money mills fronting campaigns. Pretty corporate in reality.

Don't expect them to be apolitical. That's not why they were created. Their funding is largely dark.

I don't listen to anything they have to say. They don't speak for or to me.

[guillaumeb]

34. Recommended.

And the title is not misleading, except perhaps for those who confuse PACs with progressive organizations.

Thank you for posting this.

[redqueen]

35. My pleasure!

It's so disappointing to see all the negativity being posted here about it.

For all the shit people here talk about Twitter, the response there is about the same as here, so...

[The Valley Below]

41. Nah, What disappointing is a dishonest statement that encourages division in the name of "unity."

It is insulting.

[redqueen]

43. Hey you've been here just over 60 days now. Congrats. nt

[The Valley Below]

46. I've been a Democrat my whole life. I know what's important (and what's not).

And I know gaslighting when I see it.

[guillaumeb]

47. Saying "vote blue no matter who" is encouraging division?

That is an interesting assertion.

[The Valley Below]

48. LOL. Did you read the entirely of the divisive scree?

[guillaumeb]

49. I read the article, yes. eom

[The Valley Below]

50. Me too.

it was anything but a unifying message.

[guillaumeb]

51. I will assume that you read a different article referenced in this thread.

That article dealt with different groups, and has no bearing on this post.

[The Valley Below]

52. You assume incorrectly. It was an attack on the party and deeply divisive.

[guillaumeb]

53. Have a good day. eom

[oasis]

42. "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, Bernie good, move on".

[David__77]

54. Cool.

...