Keep trying, though.

I was quite wrong. How very sad.

money from the extreme right wing Koch brothers?

Links or some kind of proof other than your word please.

Bernie's never done anything to hurt any past Democratic presidential ticket.

She's Hillary, of course.

Hillary is pretty good at it. Hillary also has nothing to do with the op that I am aware of. The op is weak and has nothing to back it up.

...trolling in this thread...I'll give you a hint...it isn't Senator Sanders..

a complimentary time out from DU... Geebus.

So to threaten a fellow DUer for having the unmitigated gall of criticizing Independent/Socialist Bernie Sanders on a DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING SITE THAT SUPPORTS DEMOCRATS is out of line.

but he's more of a real Democrat than 90% of the ones who do have the "D" next to their name.

And for the record, he votes with Democrats on all the important issues - even the dreaded PPACA, so that alone should tell you that it doesn't make him 90% better than any other Democrat since he, clearly, agrees with them and their policies.

But fact remains, he's NOT a Democrat out of choice, but this IS a Democratic Party supporting community. Just in case you'd forgotten.

that contributes to the Democratic caucus and aids in them maintaining their majority under the bus because you don't like the letter behind his name

And I know, or would like to think, that you're smarter than that.

Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic Party's enemy. And we don't have to settle for HRC or Biden as the nominee. Neither of them care about the 99%.

Senator Sanders cares as much for the 99% as HRC and Biden. It's up to YOU to ensure that the Party that gives more to the 99% as opposed to the rich, are supported and kept in power in Congress, not the White House.

You don't like the lackluster performances by some Democrats? Get off your duff and - to borrow from President Obama - ORGANIZE. Kvetching on Democratic Party supporting websites is NOT organizing. It's just whining.

And so far, those claiming to be more of the Senator Bernie Sanders ilk have failed to get a movement going to have any influence on other Democrats and "Red" State constituency. So get to work!

What with the daily pictures of Obama, shaking hands, Obama playing with the dogs, Obama getting off the plane, Obama meeting some foreign official, Michelle in her new dress.. Yeah this is a Democratic supporting website. In spades.

However, it's a pretty sad state of affairs when you consider the Republican ideals of "my party right or wrong" as your mantra.

IMHO (before you go getting all "IT'S NOT A FACT" on me) Sanders is way more liberal than most of the Democrats sitting in Congress and The Senate. You can make of that what you will. Sander "agrees" with Democratic policies because they are the lesser of two evils. It's people like you who insist that we must "stay with the party" because actual liberal ideas are too far to the right.

I am a Democrat. So are President Obama, FLOTUS, even their Portuguese Water dogs. This is a Democratic Party supporting partisan site. Of course you going to see daily pictures of them on this site. Why does that irk you so?

It's astounding that any mention of anything positive about this president (as you've so clearly demonstrated) is immediately ridiculed and/or vilified - but don't you dare speak a negative word about an Independent or you'll attract a swath of criticism from self-proclaimed Liberals around here whose sole purpose, it seems, is to discourage support for Democrats.

be cheering team blue? If Democrats were the racists, the haters of the poor?

If you answer no, then presumably the reason you support Dems is because of their positions, not simply because they have a (D) label.

So why castigate other people who actually openly admit they support *positions* and not simply the (D)? I vote for Democrats not because they're Democrat, but because of the positions they support.

If Bernie Sanders were running in 2016 against, say, Max Baucus, would you support Baucus (D), or Sanders (I)?

If Bernie Sanders had run in 2008 against 'born again Democrat' Arlen Specter or back then Dem Joe Lieberman, who would you have voted for?

I support Dems. *BECAUSE* of the good policies they supposedly champion. Not simply because of a single letter behind their name on a ballot. If there is a candidate who better embodies the Democratic platform on the ballot than does the 'actual' Democrat running, then I'm voting for the person who will best put forward the ideals and policies.

The topic here is not about blue vs red team. It's about the upcoming presidential elections and whether or not Senator Sanders, a staunch Independent, will toss his hat into the ring and run for the presidency and whether or not he'll be used as a spoiler by the pro-Republican and newly empowered (thanks to the CU and McCutcheon rulings) money-masters.

Whether we like it or not, accept it or deny it, fact remains unchanged that our election system is still winner takes all. It's how our Constitution has set it up, and tossing in a third Party candidate will either hurt the Democrats or the Republicans (in this scenario, it'll hurt the Democrats and benefit the Republicans).

As I've been pretty clear in my post here, I don't question his liberal credentials (although bills drafted under his name and passed in Congress are nonexistent despite his many terms in the House and his first term in the Senate) and I don't have any doubt that he has his heart in the right place for all of us, but should he toss his hat into the ring as an Independent - like Ralph Nader had done - he'll lose my respect because he'll actively undermine everything he's ever held dear and worked hard for regarding equality for ALL people.

All he has to do is look back to the 2000 and 2004 elections to see how Ralph Nader lost his mantle as a champion of the people when he took corporate cash to run against Democrats and how that has hurt us and this country. He'll easily see that a potential Sanders presidential candidacy can almost guarantee Jebbie wins the WH.

But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative).

I simply won't post on who I'm supporting in those periods if it turns out it's not a Dem. I read the TOS, and I'll try to stay on the 'legal' side. But it's an unenforceable TOS in making the claim that you 'must' vote for a Dem, or support a Dem in your real life. All the site can really do is prevent you from talking about it onsite. I think it's a silly part of the TOS as well, in that it seeks to 'shrink' the Democratic 'big tent'. Rather than accepting even people who vote 99% Dem, the site would run off people who vote for even one non-Dem among many races? Hell, I don't know of a single elected Democrat who even comes close to living up to that standard. Every single one has voted with Republicans in Congress at one point or another in their elected life. So the TOS is demanding a far higher standard of potential voters than it does of the very people it's asking them to vote for.

I live in blood red Ohio, where even half the Democrats are corrupt, and every so often the better or best choice in a given election isn't a Dem. I prefer not to vote for corrupt Dems, who then end up resigning in disgrace midway through their term, or arrested. I tend to feel that putting Dems like that in office actually works against the long-term interests of the party.

You continue to vote for the person you think has a chance of winning, and I'll continue to vote for the person I think will best represent me. That should make me happy and give you another opportunity to tell me how horrible I am for voting for the person I think belongs in office instead of the one you tell me belongs in office.

You know? The people who are fans of splitting the Democratic vote and who believe that the world evolves solely around them and to HELL with democracy (that inconvenient aspect that the majority wins thing).

Sorry for the late response. Was in Tennessee to see my ill sister.

you didn't even say anything negative about Bernie ... pointing out the fact that he is not a Democrat is not negative or positive ... it's a fact.

and made them lose all reason.

You'd be amazed how many so-called Democratic Undergrounders are actually Obama-Haters of the Teabagger kind.

*Edited for spelling correction.

... and then run it as you see fit. As for now I've been here for 12 years and your interpretation of the TOS is way off in practice, I can promise you that.

Democratic Party supporting site. The ToS is pretty clear what its mission is, and if that's too hard for you, read the name of this Democratic Party supporting and partisan site. That should be easy enough to understand even for you.

Why does it matter?

He organizes with us and he's never hurt us...Why is the lack of a "D" by his name such a big deal to you?

It just means that Bernie gets to keep his principles.

It would serve no purpose for DU to shun Bernie...and nothing would be better if he sat in the senate as a "D" rather than an "I".

Are you really that angry because we won't all give up our souls and back Hillary?

Senator Sanders has every right to remain true to his ideals and his own Party affiliation - as long as he remains Senator. I've got no beef with that. But I'll have a problem with him should he try and toss his hat into the 2016 presidential election as an Independent and attempt to split the Democratic vote. We've seen how that turned out for us in 2000 and 2004 and unlike some people, I do learn from past experiences.

Oh...and it's not like we're ENTITLED to the votes of everybody who doesn't like the GOP. We do have an obligation to actually show those people that voting for us is worth it. Nobody needs to vote for our ticket to "do penance".

Don't put words in my posts, Kenny. I'm quite capable of doing that myself - and I do it better than you.

But nice try. HUGE fail, but nice try.

That makes him a de-facto member of the Democratic Party as it comes to legislation and duties.

Probably not worth engaging.

I literally just hopped on DU for the evening (browse on my phone but don't reply often).

Might want to edit your post in case of late night jury baiting.

But the OP has already survived at least one alert, so I'm not sure any jury's gonna care at this hour.

Calling people names, especially undeserved ones of the Republican kind on a Democratic Party supporting site, says more about you than it does about me, Kenny.

about Dems who'd support Bernie.

And that you're implying that Bernie's planning to run a wrecker campaign in 2016 when you know perfectly well he would never do that.

what I've been implying. I've put forward a hypothesis based on the 2000 and 2004 election debacles. If you can't see that, than it's because you don't want to which says more about you than it does about me.

Just can the name-calling especially when you have to reach into the Republican cesspool in order to do it against a fellow DUer while gossiping about said DUer with another DUer. That's pretty low.

Most people who had voted for him in 2000 voted for Kerry next time. Kerry's loss had nothing to do with the actions of anyone to Kerry's left.

And we both already know that Bernie wouldn't pull a Nader and run third-party in 2016, so your fears are groundless-and nobody here would back him if he did anyway,

AND we both know(and the OP knows as well)that Bernie would never, NO MATTER WHAT, collude with the Kochs-so there was no reason to even imply that he'd do anything like that.

Bernie is NOT Ralph...can't you just accept that already?

The lesson of 2000, btw, is NOT that progressives are obligated to take whatever the Democratic offers as a presidential ticket(though that would be, agreed, the more prudent choice)-it's that the Democratic Party was WRONG to ever go as far to the Right as it did under Clinton and Gore...the party was wrong to ditch labor, throw the poor under the bus, and tell progressive activists they'd no longer matter. It's up to the party to keep people from feeling that alienated...and there's no one to the right of most Democrats who'd even consider voting Dem anyway, so that strategy was never necessary and didn't gain us any votes(Dukakis took 46%...Clinton took 43% and 49%-NO significant difference in popular vote total).

But that's got NOTHING to do with the OP or the topic of this thread, although you Democratic-Party vote-splitters keep changing the subject in order to, I dunno, maybe get some sort of "win" in this argument? If that's the case, it's pretty sad, really.

Senator Sanders can be a "de facto" Democrat all he wants - IN THE SENATE, but if he decides to pull a Ralph Nader in 2016 and run for the presidency as an Independent (and it appears he'll either do that or look like a sell-out should he suddenly change his Party affiliation after he's staunchly claimed he never would), he'll be splitting the Democratic vote and he'll aid the Koch Bros and Adelsons in this country to ensure that the election goes to Jebbie Bush. That's what the subject of this thread is about - even though you and your nay-saying pals on this DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING SITE wish it weren't.

Perhaps you need to read a bit more slowly and carefully and take a long step back before such accusations.

Bernie Sanders votes with the Democratic Caucus and is more a TRUE Democrat, in terms of his philosophy and actions than a lot of those registered with a "D" beside their names. Further, Admins have long made it clear that until the primaries decide on a candidate, your idea of party purity is not applicable.

Lemme make it easier for you:

But, since you ask, I'd not shed a tear if you joined him for a flame-baiting time out.

I'm sweet like that.

I'll wait for a TRUE Democrat/Progressive

Your thinking will have Republicans in power for the next century.

I actually SUPPORT Democrats and I don't hold purity tests. Try again.

signature blazing big as day and I was still accused of being a "Democratic Party disruptor" as though I don't support ... um, Democrats.

what the hell the motivation would be for self-proclaimed Democrats to denounce and deride him so.... Hmmm...

It's not "standing up for DEMOCRATS" to bash Bernie. Bernie is never gonna be Nader...he won't run third-party in the fall...and you damn well know it.

And it's not as though the only kind of nominee that can win is a bland centrist corporate power appeaser like HRC or Biden. ANY Dem can win if the party gets behind him or her.

(Hint: If you're really obsessed with stopping Bernie...back Elizabeth Warren. She's about the only other possible Dem candidate who's worthy or progressive support before the convention.

and aids in maintaining their majority.

The day support for Sen. Sanders and his policies becomes a bannable offense, is the day that I'll take a tombstone as a badge of honor.

You are out of line, because you don't seem to realize that he aids Democratic senators.

and that's by CHOICE.

If he decides to run in 2016 for the WH, we ALL should be afraid. Have we forgotten 2000 so soon? Even Teabaggers are smart enough not to vote against or not vote for the chosen Republican candidate. Their Party unity kicks our butts in each and every election, and I hate, absolutely HATE, losing to those racists and bigots.

And no. I'm not "out of line". I damn well realize that Senator Sanders caucuses with the Democrats (unlike his wide-eyed, unrealistic flock who'd rather excoriate them) because he's a smart man, but again, THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIM A DEMOCRAT but it does make him a viable threat to a potential Democratic presidential candidate and keeping a Democrat in the WH, as the clever Kochies and Adelson all too well know.

With Justices Kennedy, Bader-Ginsberg, and Alito ripe for retirement, do you really want a Republican in the WH in 2016-2020 just so you can vote for a candidate who has NO chance in Hades to win but who makes you "feel good"? Think about it.

You might've forgotten 2000 and the horrors that the Nader candidacy sprouted from that debacle - Cheney/Duhbya - but I won't. Ever.

and votes 90% of the time with them, then you aren't very politically astute.

I mean seriously "NOT POLITICALLY ASTUTE" and shouting Nader isn't going to eradicate that opinion from the majority of politically astute folks on DU that understand how the Senate works.

to chance the subject. Can't win on the reasonable merits presented, so change the subject!

The reason why I claimed that I don't care if he caucuses and votes with Democrats 90% of the time, is because I made the argument that it still doesn't make him a Democrat.

If Bernie Sanders decides to run in 2016 as the staunch Independent that he is (and I highly doubt it, but still) then he IS a potential threat to a true Democratic Party presidential candidate, and his candidacy will ensure that we have another Bush in the WH - or worse.

So you're wrong. I'm politically astute enough to know exactly how the Senate works and how politics work, and so do the majority of DUers. YOU, on the other hand, I'm not so sure of.

Nice. Now I'm a "Democratic Party disrupter" because I pointed out that caucusing with the Democratic party helps to maintain the Democratic majority in the Senate.

I think there are more problems going on in this thread than "Democratic Party disrupters".

Anyone defending an Independent's candidacy for the WH over a Democrat is a Democratic Party Disruptor and even though they don't know it (and that's possible in Purity Land) they're helping Republicans gain more power. It's just the way the cookie crumbles in American politics.

"Democratic Party Disruptor" if you think my support of Bernie Sanders is in some way a detriment to the Democratic Party.

It's not like attacking Democrats and people that support Democrats is in ANY way detracting from Democratic Party ideals. At all.

The tent is so small, only purists get invited in, right?

P.S. Genius. Look who I support for President.

And yes, if you support a candidate who isn't even a Democrat on a Democratic Party supporting site for president, you're a Democratic Party disruptor. And I'm certain Teabaggers and other assorted RWers are comfortable, if not PROUD, of that label, too.

The Democratic Party tent is huge. Even you should know that. As for Purists, well, that would be people who don't believe any Democrat other than the one THEY choose, is good enough. Of course, that's just being willfully naive, but there you have it.

We are back to Hillary or nothing. There are PLENTY of qualified people to run for POTUS besides Hillary. A) Hillary has merely said she is thinking about running, not that she is running. B) 2016 is fairly good way off, and there is plenty of time for EW or anyone else, for that matter, to change their minds (including Hillary to decide not to run). C) Attacking people as disruptors isn't going to exactly win friends and influence people on a Democratic website when those people are, in fact, Democrats.

But carry on.

We both know he's never gonna run as a third-party candidate and it doesn't harm anything for him to seek the Dem nomination.

And it can't be worth trying to hold the White House if we nominate HRC or Biden, like you'd prefer.

You're stirring up shit here for no reason.

"Gay marriage is for me unthinkable, but Civil Unions have my 100% vote. I believe that marriage is something done in churches, and the Bible does speak negatively about homosexuality."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1352110

to refer to gay men by women's names.

"Real Democrat" indeed.

site for Democrats.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side

It's as if it's always "anything but a Democrat" with these disruptors. They're starting early on in this election year in order to claim they're not "breaking any ToS rules" since the primary season hasn't kicked off yet. So they're getting in their disruption early and often.

And NO ONE has put Bernie Sanders and "asshole" in the same sentence. Well, except you.

if you lose you donate 10 bucks to Bernie. if not, i'll donate to the Dem of your choosing.

are okay with that? My, how rules can change just as long as the candidate of your specific choice is the beneficiary of it. Typical.

And no. Even if he'd sell out and run as a Democrat, I wouldn't send a penny to his campaign. He has zero chance of winning against a Republican on a national scale.

Why are you being McCarthyite?

And how does that make me "McCarthyite"?

You have no justification for your hostility and suspicion to Bernie...Nothing he's done has ever hurt the Democratic Party.

And he's not our enemy just because he's not a registered Dem.

A centrist like HRC wouldn't be "true Democratic party" presidential candidate anyway(I assume she, or the even more pro-corporate Biden, is the sort you'd want to saddle us with).

Yes, Bernie Sanders is a de-facto Democrat, this is without question. This is in stark contrast to Lieberman who stopped caucusing with the Democrats and who endorsed McCain. The Democrats allowed him to caucus with them before his retirement, though, but it's likely because behind the scenes he was going to introduce the DADT repeal, etc.

made in the past, calling gay marriage unthinkable and calling gay men by female names and thinks it is funny, I'm pretty comfortable with her disagreeing with me. Considering the other people in this thread that ARE Democrats and getting attacked by her, I'm in very good company .

I would think "gay marriage is unthinkable" is an instant ban.

Like Obama?

but I do support him more than I'd support any Republican or any candidate that could help another Republican into the WH. I dunno. I'm realistic rather than idealistic in that way.

Unless and until the ultra-Left put forward a candidate who can actually WIN a national election, Obama is as good as it gets but he's a helluva lot better than any Republican. Right?

I don't vote for brands just because I'm a registered Democrat. I vote for or against policies and principles.

Because you know what? My wants and needs are trumped by those of the greater majority in this country, and if you haven't seen or noticed the disastrous policies of Republicans - and what Democrats have fought and struggled to counter and deconstruct - then you're living in a rainbow-covered bubble.

The thing is, you'll have a better chance at seeing liberal policies and principles come to fruition with Democrats in power than you have with Republicans in power. Sorry, but this is a winner-take-all government system. Don't like it? Amend the U.S. Constitution. Good luck with that.

And, I suppose drones fall under the same rubric. Charter schools? Conservative judges appointed by a Democratic President?

I'd love to see a parliamentary system instead of what we have. Do you think that Democrats will sacrifice their power to attain it?