Well they are certainly nazi-wannabees.  "Clear and present danger" comes to mind.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Personal attacks aside, I fully understand that so-called "progressives" have a b!tch about the way things went. BECAUSE THEY LOST. 

 Actually, when your unelectable candidate lost WE ALL LOST.  That is what is happening RIGHT NOW.

I am more than willing to condemn the idiots who voted for Stein, I just wish you folks in the conservative wing of the party would take a little bit more responsibility for the way you soiled the bed.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

I have a suggestion, to which I think many of us more traditional dems would agree. FORGET 2016, and work toward developing a message that we can ALL stand behind. Let your perceived wrongs go, and help develop a positive, truly progressive theme for 2018, and then we can use that to start the process of choosing who should be the presenter of that program for 2020.

If that means finding  candidates who embody the values of the party of Roosevelt, I am all for it.  If, however, it means a program like that conducted by Bill and Hillary Clinton following her 2008 defeat to discourage possible candidates and destroy people who might challenge some Party anointed centrist, than you will have to count me out.

Letting the DNC off the hook and voter shaming people with no money or power will lead to 8 years of Trump.  It does not have to be that way.  Look at how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got people so excited by her platform that even 18 year olds got off the couch and voted in a non-major election.  

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez: Trump Isn't Ready For A Girl From The Bronx

https://youtu.be/Y_1G4_oPt_o

Why can't the Democrats stand up for Medicare for All and a living wage and free college and other VERY popular programs?  Cause they are owned by their donors.  They would rather lose and blame voters and Jill Stein. Looks like a bunch of you fall for that every time.

I have no problem voter shaming. The precious ones who were too “principled” to just shut the f*** up and pull the lever ( or push the button ) for Hillary have damaged the truly powerless. You are not powerless if you feel a vote for Bernie, or Jill, or no vote at all would have no impact on your own life. AO-C won because the demographics of her district have changed and she was able to communicate her progressive message to that demographic. It wasn’t some big win for progressive policies. I wish that was the case!

annielou said:
I have no problem voter shaming. The precious ones who were too “principled” to just shut the f*** up and pull the lever ( or push the button ) for Hillary have damaged the truly powerless.

 I'm right there with you as long as you assign equal blame to the folks in the (metaphorically) smokey rooms who selected HRC to be the nominee.

Klinker said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Personal attacks aside, I fully understand that so-called "progressives" have a b!tch about the way things went. BECAUSE THEY LOST. 

 Actually, when your unelectable candidate lost WE ALL LOST.  That is what is happening RIGHT NOW.
I am more than willing to condemn the idiots who voted for Stein, I just wish you folks in the conservative wing of the party would take a little bit more responsibility for the way you soiled the bed.

 You mean the "unelectable "candidate who got 3 million more votes than the one who won the office by getting  a grand total of 80,000 more votes across key 3 states?

Unelectable is a bunch of horseshit.  She was very electable.  Extremely electable.   And she would have been a great President.

If ALL of the Bernie Davidians had espoused the importance of getting out and voting for HRC rather than too many sitting home and and whining, perhaps we would all feel like winners RIGHT NOW.  And at that point there could have been some very serious introspection within the DNC  to foster change from a position of strength -without having to worry about unions being busted, Roe V. Wade being overturned, legalized discrimination and the rest of the endless list of things that have pushed us back to 1946 and will keep us there for a long, long time.

People who cherished the progress made in this country over the last few decades should not have needed a ******* decision tree to figure this one out.   

Klinker said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:


I have a suggestion, to which I think many of us more traditional dems would agree. FORGET 2016, and work toward developing a message that we can ALL stand behind. Let your perceived wrongs go, and help develop a positive, truly progressive theme for 2018, and then we can use that to start the process of choosing who should be the presenter of that program for 2020.

If that means finding  candidates who embody the values of the party of Roosevelt, I am all for it.  If, however, it means a program like that conducted by Bill and Hillary Clinton following her 2008 defeat to discourage possible candidates and destroy people who might challenge some Party anointed centrist, than you will have to count me out.

 I guess you missed, or chose to ignore..."help develop a positive, truly progressive theme for 2018. "  Contrary to public opinion, many of us would have enthusiastically supported Bernie, if he had been the nominee. We are NOT anti-progressive, just practical in deciding what is possible. Hillary was the nominee, so we erred in expecting you Bob's to support her, as the only real choice. We don't let our idealistic wishes get in the way of practicality. Again, 2016 is over. WE lost. Let's make sure it doesn't happen again.

sbenois said:

Klinker said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Personal attacks aside, I fully understand that so-called "progressives" have a b!tch about the way things went. BECAUSE THEY LOST. 

 Actually, when your unelectable candidate lost WE ALL LOST.  That is what is happening RIGHT NOW.
I am more than willing to condemn the idiots who voted for Stein, I just wish you folks in the conservative wing of the party would take a little bit more responsibility for the way you soiled the bed.

 You mean the "unelectable "candidate who got 3 million more votes than the one who won the office by getting  a grand total of 80,000 more votes across key 3 states?


Unelectable is a bunch of horseshit.  She was very electable.  Extremely electable.   And she would have been a great President.


If ALL of the Bernie Davidians had espoused the importance of getting out and voting for HRC rather than too many sitting home and and whining, perhaps we would all feel like winners RIGHT NOW.  And at that point there could have been some very serious introspection within the DNC  to foster change from a position of strength -without having to worry about unions being busted, Roe V. Wade being overturned, legalized discrimination and the rest of the endless list of things that have pushed us back to 1946 and will keep us there for a long, long time.
People who cherished the progress made in this country over the last few decades should not have needed a ******* decision tree to figure this one out.   

 She had incredible recognition and she was running against an orange reality show star.  Anyone would have won except her.  She bought the nomination in a secret deal.  She sucked, ran a horrible campaign (read the book Shattered--not written by Bernie fans) and of course people were mad because she screwed Bernie, who could have won, just to loose.  She lost. Again.  How can you say she is electable when she lost the last two times she ran?  The evidence is against you. I don't care if she won the popular vote since she, of all people, should know how it works and acted accordingly.  Stop blaming people with no money and no power and start taking responsibility for your own confusion.

nan said:

sbenois said:

Klinker said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Personal attacks aside, I fully understand that so-called "progressives" have a b!tch about the way things went. BECAUSE THEY LOST. 

 Actually, when your unelectable candidate lost WE ALL LOST.  That is what is happening RIGHT NOW.
I am more than willing to condemn the idiots who voted for Stein, I just wish you folks in the conservative wing of the party would take a little bit more responsibility for the way you soiled the bed.

 You mean the "unelectable "candidate who got 3 million more votes than the one who won the office by getting  a grand total of 80,000 more votes across key 3 states?


Unelectable is a bunch of horseshit.  She was very electable.  Extremely electable.   And she would have been a great President.


If ALL of the Bernie Davidians had espoused the importance of getting out and voting for HRC rather than too many sitting home and and whining, perhaps we would all feel like winners RIGHT NOW.  And at that point there could have been some very serious introspection within the DNC  to foster change from a position of strength -without having to worry about unions being busted, Roe V. Wade being overturned, legalized discrimination and the rest of the endless list of things that have pushed us back to 1946 and will keep us there for a long, long time.
People who cherished the progress made in this country over the last few decades should not have needed a ******* decision tree to figure this one out.   

 She had incredible recognition and she was running against an orange reality show star.  Anyone would have won except her.  She bought the nomination in a secret deal.  She sucked, ran a horrible campaign (read the book Shattered--not written by Bernie fans) and of course people were mad because she screwed Bernie, who could have won, just to loose.  She lost. Again.  How can you say she is electable when she lost the last two times she ran?  The evidence is against you. I don't care if she won the popular vote since she, of all people, should know how it works and acted accordingly.  Stop blaming people with no money and no power and start taking responsibility for your own confusion.

 Once again, nan shows her stripes...harping on her wrong perception of what was, instead of moving on to what needs to be. Bitter, depressed and almost suicidal, she clings to her fantasies, and refuses to work toward the future. Sad.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

sbenois said:

Klinker said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Personal attacks aside, I fully understand that so-called "progressives" have a b!tch about the way things went. BECAUSE THEY LOST. 

 Actually, when your unelectable candidate lost WE ALL LOST.  That is what is happening RIGHT NOW.
I am more than willing to condemn the idiots who voted for Stein, I just wish you folks in the conservative wing of the party would take a little bit more responsibility for the way you soiled the bed.

 You mean the "unelectable "candidate who got 3 million more votes than the one who won the office by getting  a grand total of 80,000 more votes across key 3 states?


Unelectable is a bunch of horseshit.  She was very electable.  Extremely electable.   And she would have been a great President.


If ALL of the Bernie Davidians had espoused the importance of getting out and voting for HRC rather than too many sitting home and and whining, perhaps we would all feel like winners RIGHT NOW.  And at that point there could have been some very serious introspection within the DNC  to foster change from a position of strength -without having to worry about unions being busted, Roe V. Wade being overturned, legalized discrimination and the rest of the endless list of things that have pushed us back to 1946 and will keep us there for a long, long time.
People who cherished the progress made in this country over the last few decades should not have needed a ******* decision tree to figure this one out.   

 She had incredible recognition and she was running against an orange reality show star.  Anyone would have won except her.  She bought the nomination in a secret deal.  She sucked, ran a horrible campaign (read the book Shattered--not written by Bernie fans) and of course people were mad because she screwed Bernie, who could have won, just to loose.  She lost. Again.  How can you say she is electable when she lost the last two times she ran?  The evidence is against you. I don't care if she won the popular vote since she, of all people, should know how it works and acted accordingly.  Stop blaming people with no money and no power and start taking responsibility for your own confusion.

 Once again, nan shows her stripes...harping on her wrong perception of what was, instead of moving on to what needs to be. Bitter, depressed and almost suicidal, she clings to her fantasies, and refuses to work toward the future. Sad.

Sounds like you could not even play a psychologist on TV.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

sbenois said:

Klinker said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Personal attacks aside, I fully understand that so-called "progressives" have a b!tch about the way things went. BECAUSE THEY LOST. 

 Actually, when your unelectable candidate lost WE ALL LOST.  That is what is happening RIGHT NOW.
I am more than willing to condemn the idiots who voted for Stein, I just wish you folks in the conservative wing of the party would take a little bit more responsibility for the way you soiled the bed.

 You mean the "unelectable "candidate who got 3 million more votes than the one who won the office by getting  a grand total of 80,000 more votes across key 3 states?


Unelectable is a bunch of horseshit.  She was very electable.  Extremely electable.   And she would have been a great President.


If ALL of the Bernie Davidians had espoused the importance of getting out and voting for HRC rather than too many sitting home and and whining, perhaps we would all feel like winners RIGHT NOW.  And at that point there could have been some very serious introspection within the DNC  to foster change from a position of strength -without having to worry about unions being busted, Roe V. Wade being overturned, legalized discrimination and the rest of the endless list of things that have pushed us back to 1946 and will keep us there for a long, long time.
People who cherished the progress made in this country over the last few decades should not have needed a ******* decision tree to figure this one out.   

 She had incredible recognition and she was running against an orange reality show star.  Anyone would have won except her.  She bought the nomination in a secret deal.  She sucked, ran a horrible campaign (read the book Shattered--not written by Bernie fans) and of course people were mad because she screwed Bernie, who could have won, just to loose.  She lost. Again.  How can you say she is electable when she lost the last two times she ran?  The evidence is against you. I don't care if she won the popular vote since she, of all people, should know how it works and acted accordingly.  Stop blaming people with no money and no power and start taking responsibility for your own confusion.

 Once again, nan shows her stripes...harping on her wrong perception of what was, instead of moving on to what needs to be. Bitter, depressed and almost suicidal, she clings to her fantasies, and refuses to work toward the future. Sad.

How can she possibly work towards the future when she refers to Democrats (earlier) as "they"?  

She's made a choice that she's not a party to our party.    And that's great.  She should ask Jill Stein what her plans are to ensure that Roe V. Wade is not overturned.

sbenois said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

sbenois said:

Klinker said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Personal attacks aside, I fully understand that so-called "progressives" have a b!tch about the way things went. BECAUSE THEY LOST. 

 Actually, when your unelectable candidate lost WE ALL LOST.  That is what is happening RIGHT NOW.
I am more than willing to condemn the idiots who voted for Stein, I just wish you folks in the conservative wing of the party would take a little bit more responsibility for the way you soiled the bed.

 You mean the "unelectable "candidate who got 3 million more votes than the one who won the office by getting  a grand total of 80,000 more votes across key 3 states?


Unelectable is a bunch of horseshit.  She was very electable.  Extremely electable.   And she would have been a great President.


If ALL of the Bernie Davidians had espoused the importance of getting out and voting for HRC rather than too many sitting home and and whining, perhaps we would all feel like winners RIGHT NOW.  And at that point there could have been some very serious introspection within the DNC  to foster change from a position of strength -without having to worry about unions being busted, Roe V. Wade being overturned, legalized discrimination and the rest of the endless list of things that have pushed us back to 1946 and will keep us there for a long, long time.
People who cherished the progress made in this country over the last few decades should not have needed a ******* decision tree to figure this one out.   

 She had incredible recognition and she was running against an orange reality show star.  Anyone would have won except her.  She bought the nomination in a secret deal.  She sucked, ran a horrible campaign (read the book Shattered--not written by Bernie fans) and of course people were mad because she screwed Bernie, who could have won, just to loose.  She lost. Again.  How can you say she is electable when she lost the last two times she ran?  The evidence is against you. I don't care if she won the popular vote since she, of all people, should know how it works and acted accordingly.  Stop blaming people with no money and no power and start taking responsibility for your own confusion.

 Once again, nan shows her stripes...harping on her wrong perception of what was, instead of moving on to what needs to be. Bitter, depressed and almost suicidal, she clings to her fantasies, and refuses to work toward the future. Sad.

How can she possibly work towards the future when she refers to Democrats (earlier) as "they"?  
She's made a choice that she's not a party to our party.    And that's great.  She should ask Jill Stein what her plans are to ensure that Roe V. Wade is not overturned.

Calling All Resistance Members! Roe V. Wade Is In DANGER! We Need YOU To Yell At JILL STEIN About The 2016 Election!

Calling All Resistance Members! Roe V. Wade Is In DANGER! We Need YOU To Yell At JILL STEIN About The 2016 Election!

 No, who cares about the past, we need you all to:

1) Vote for any Democrat in any election ever

2) Work to turn out the vote in any election ever

3) Donate to any Governor Democratic candidate in 2018 election

4) Donate to any Senate Democratic candidate in 2018 election

5) Donate to any House Democratic Candidate in 2018 election

Hillary Clinton was the nominee because she received the most votes in the primaries and caucuses.

I fail to understand why anybody disputes that.

gerritn said:

Calling All Resistance Members! Roe V. Wade Is In DANGER! We Need YOU To Yell At JILL STEIN About The 2016 Election!

 No, who cares about the past, we need you all to:

1) Vote for any Democrat in any election ever
2) Work to turn out the vote in any election ever
3) Donate to any Governor Democratic candidate in 2018 election
4) Donate to any Senate Democratic candidate in 2018 election
5) Donate to any House Democratic Candidate in 2018 election
 

 Is this the "Hide your head in the sand" strategy?   Did not work in 2016 and will not work in 2020.  But, who knows maybe insanity is not doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

nohero said:
Hillary Clinton was the nominee because she received the most votes in the primaries and caucuses.
I fail to understand why anybody disputes that.

 Cause she stole the primary and then lost to a repulsive orange reality TV star.  I fail to understand why anybody disputes that.

nan said:

nohero said:
Hillary Clinton was the nominee because she received the most votes in the primaries and caucuses.
I fail to understand why anybody disputes that.

 Cause she stole the primary and then lost to a repulsive orange reality TV star.  I fail to understand why anybody disputes that.

 And you're gonna keep flogging that dead horse until you insure that we won't unseat the repulsive orange reality star. As the saying goes, if you can't say something good, STFU.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

nohero said:
Hillary Clinton was the nominee because she received the most votes in the primaries and caucuses.
I fail to understand why anybody disputes that.

 Cause she stole the primary and then lost to a repulsive orange reality TV star.  I fail to understand why anybody disputes that.

 And you're gonna keep flogging that dead horse until you insure that we won't unseat the repulsive orange reality star. As the saying goes, if you can't say something good, STFU.

 Do you work for Hallmark?

Two major issues motivate the Bernie fans, health care and free college tuition. (Yes I'm over simplifying.)

Health care, I know little about.

Education, I have a quirky idea hatched as a student and a teacher. While we figure out how to pay for tuitions in a way that people will support, why not do something really different and overhaul our education system so there is less time wasted. The goal would be to trim 2 years off of earning a BA and 2 years off an MA. It would have to start in high school. Get the student on their path earlier.

We already have college prep classes but let's be brave and cut a few of the traditional liberal arts requirements.

We've all heard the complaints from students about courses they hated. Why not listen to them?

How much would that save?

nan said:

nohero said:
Hillary Clinton was the nominee because she received the most votes in the primaries and caucuses.
I fail to understand why anybody disputes that.

 Cause she stole the primary and then lost to a repulsive orange reality TV star.  I fail to understand why anybody disputes that.

 I will note that the Hillary hatred carries a whiff of disdain for the voters who, you know, actually cast votes.  Maybe they're the "wrong kind" of people.

sbenois said:

 You mean the "unelectable "candidate who got 3 million more votes than the one who won the office by getting  a grand total of 80,000 more votes across key 3 states?

 Believe me, no one is happier to hear that HRC is currently the President than I am.  I had this horrible dream where.....

Oh wait.  No.... its true.  She lost to a flaming orange pile of poop. She screwed the pooch and now we have to take care of the puppies.  

The fact is that as long as you guys keep chugging that Kool Aid and refusing to acknowledge the huge role the centrist machine had in losing the election we will be doomed to relive the past until the last shred of democracy has been trampled, stomped and painted orange.

sbenois said:How can she possibly work towards the future when she refers to Democrats (earlier) as "they"?   

If you insist on labeling anyone who isn't with you as against you, you don't deserve a future.

Its going to take a big tent full of lots of people to defeat Trumpunism.  Either your down with that or you need to find your own little pup tent to ride out the next 50 years.

Its time conservative democrats realize that "the right candidate for the right district" doesn't just apply to them.

Klinker said:

sbenois said:

 You mean the "unelectable "candidate who got 3 million more votes than the one who won the office by getting  a grand total of 80,000 more votes across key 3 states?

 Believe me, no one is happier to hear that HRC is currently the President than I am.  I had this horrible dream where.....
Oh wait.  No.... its true.  She lost to a flaming orange pile of poop. She screwed the pooch and now we have to take care of the puppies.  
The fact is that as long as you guys keep chugging that Kool Aid and refusing to acknowledge the huge role the centrist machine had in losing the election we will be doomed to relive the past until the last shred of democracy has been trampled, stomped and painted orange.

 She made all kinds of mistakes, many of them before the campaign began.  Despite all of that she was the only candidate worthy of a vote.  

terp said:
While I totally understand why people think it's "OK to punch a Nazi", and how that can feel good, I think it's a mistake.  
There are 2 primary reasons why.  First, when you initiate violence unprovoked, you start to surrender the moral high ground and the nazi in question can start to paint himself as the victim.  I think you run the risk of introducing perception problems.

 There is no moral high ground.  Not anymore anyway.  Have you noticed that Trump and his supporters are calling for civility lately?  

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

nohero said:
Hillary Clinton was the nominee because she received the most votes in the primaries and caucuses.
I fail to understand why anybody disputes that.

 Cause she stole the primary and then lost to a repulsive orange reality TV star.  I fail to understand why anybody disputes that.

 And you're gonna keep flogging that dead horse until you insure that we won't unseat the repulsive orange reality star. As the saying goes, if you can't say something good, STFU.

 Saying vote for any Democrat no matter what they support is not saying something good.

Morganna said:
Two major issues motivate the Bernie fans, health care and free college tuition. (Yes I'm over simplifying.)
Health care, I know little about.
Education, I have a quirky idea hatched as a student and a teacher. While we figure out how to pay for tuitions in a way that people will support, why not do something really different and overhaul our education system so there is less time wasted. The goal would be to trim 2 years off of earning a BA and 2 years off an MA. It would have to start in high school. Get the student on their path earlier.
We already have college prep classes but let's be brave and cut a few of the traditional liberal arts requirements.
We've all heard the complaints from students about courses they hated. Why not listen to them?
How much would that save?

We live in the richest country in the world.  We should not be finding ways to give out college educations with LESS education.  We have plenty of money were it not going to rich people and undeclared wars.  Plenty of poorer countries provide this.  Student debt has become a crisis that affects the entire economy.  All Democrats should be for free college.  It should be a no-brainer.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americas-growing-student-loan-debt-crisis-2016-01-15

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:
Hillary Clinton was the nominee because she received the most votes in the primaries and caucuses.
I fail to understand why anybody disputes that.

 Cause she stole the primary and then lost to a repulsive orange reality TV star.  I fail to understand why anybody disputes that.

 I will note that the Hillary hatred carries a whiff of disdain for the voters who, you know, actually cast votes.  Maybe they're the "wrong kind" of people.

 Sounds like you think all people are either good or bad or right or wrong.  Kind of severe, don't you think?   Anyway, I'm not talking about people specifically, but about a corrupt system.  The DNC signed a secret deal with Hillary to get the nomination, despite her being a horrible candidate with lots of baggage.  They were only working for her and against her competitors. They also sought to prop up Donald Trump (Pied Piper strategy: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/) because they thought he would be easier to beat.  This was obviously a failed strategy and I'd think everyone would be all over them telling them to try something different next time.  But, nope, you are all following the same cue and blaming it on voters and Russia.  Enjoy your 8 years of Trump! You earned it!

Klinker said:

sbenois said:How can she possibly work towards the future when she refers to Democrats (earlier) as "they"?   

If you insist on labeling anyone who isn't with you as against you, you don't deserve a future.
Its going to take a big tent full of lots of people to defeat Trumpunism.  Either your down with that or you need to find your own little pup tent to ride out the next 50 years.

Its time conservative democrats realize that "the right candidate for the right district" doesn't just apply to them.

 Excuse me but I did not label her.  She labeled herself.   And if she intends to be in OUR tent she might want to start by saying WE not THEY.

Klinker said:

The fact is that as long as you guys keep chugging that Kool Aid and refusing to acknowledge the huge role the centrist machine had in losing the election we will be doomed to relive the past until the last shred of democracy has been trampled, stomped and painted orange.

 Nobody denies the HRC ran an awful campaign. Nobody denies that the committee could have run a more open process. How huge is open to debate, along with a bunch of other stuff. The argument I am making is that you guys refuse to let it go. You and nan keep harping on this, while the rest of us say let's move on...TOGETHER. Eventually, we get our backs up at the relentless demeaning of our point of view, and yes, we respond with snark and nastiness, but almost always in retaliation for the heaps of scorn thrown at us by the "progressives"

A while back (toward the top of this page) I made what I felt was a reasonable post, inviting those of us who claim to be Dems, to  " FORGET 2016, and work toward developing a message that we can ALL stand behind. Let your perceived wrongs go, and help develop a positive, truly progressive theme for 2018, and then we can use that to start the process of choosing who should be the presenter of that program for 2020." You've bashed pretty much everyone since then, but I notice you have yet to respond to that invitation. What does that have to say about YOU !

I'll keep waiting to hear from you. I don't expect any coherence from nan, so I won't hold my breath on her, but would love to find what you find objectionable.