that criticizing Bernie is perfectly appropriate.

It's just that it's not his fault we lost, and no one deserved to be accused of not caring about racism or sexism or homophobia just for supporting him in the primaries. We are all on the same side on those issues.

What matters is the next elections. Those are the only ones that matter.

Ken. From a woman here. We are the ones that birthed you, nursed, nurtured you and raised you. We have far more skin in this game than any man that tells us they are equally on our side. They are not now and they need to be.

Sorry Ken, you are not on the same side because we will always be considered less.

We are one woman.



This is a song for the ages and it speaks for every woman and the men that love and support us always.

Our time is now. We will not wait. Our time!

And of people of color and LGBTQ people. I hope you do win liberation in all levels.

Saying that I'm on your side(men CAN be on your side and white people can be antiracist) doesn't mean I think I have it as bad as you. It just means I'm in solidarity and allyship with women, and POC and LGBTQ people.

I supported Hillary in the fall and have always backed the feminist and antiracist causes.

I suspect it would be help if you explained it to those who so foolishly agreed with that. Such shocking misunderstanding of the political dynamics of our world is truly dangerous.

Lifelong liberal progressive here. I'm libeled and lied about more than enough by conservatives, don't need it here in DU.

to the East German Socialist Unity Party, the Stalinists who shot people for trying to leave East Germany. That would offend me if I saw somebody else posting something like that. That's not a comparison I'd ever intentionally make and I'm sorry I made it sound like I was making it. I just simply shouldn't have done it.

All I meant to do was to joke on the English translation of the song's title "The Party Is Always Right".

The joke didn't work.

I truly wasn't calling anybody a Communist. As one of the most (anti-Stalinist)left people here, that's not something I'd call anyone as an insult.

I should have known better.

n/t.

Yeah, right... it's TOTALLY different. Nothing offensive about that at all.

"I was just riffing off of the delusional idea that ANY party would or could always be right" ... BY COMPARING THE fallibility of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY to the fallibility of EAST GERMAN STALINISM.

Yeah, right. Got it! Much clearer now.

You say this as if people only "took offense" because they misunderstood your intentions, and if only they'd been clever enough to see how "intrinsically absurd" the comparison was.

But now that you've gone to such a great effort to rationalize your intentions and offer-up a lame non-apology, I think you need to know that you're probably just making things worse. In the future, it's probably best to just live with the hide and remain silent, or if you must flagellate yourself, try to keep it short and sweet.

For example: "I'm sorry. What I posted was offensive and I was wrong." Short and sweet. Avoid convoluted "explanations" and avoid doing anything that has the appearance of evading personal responsibility.

What I'm seeing above has a tone that reads more along the lines of: "It's your fault for not understanding my sophisticated humor. But for those who may have been offended, it wasn't my intent. I'm sorry you took-offense."

Basically, what you've done here is to try an offer up an EXCUSE and RATIONALIZATION for your mistake. You've also subtly suggested that any offense that people take is just a misunderstanding because they obviously read it wrong and it's their own damn fault for being unnecessarily offended.

I admitted I was wrong to do so.

... like when a politician says "I'm sorry if anyone was offended." A meaningless way to put the blame on someone else's hypersensitivity for THEIR being needlessly offended.

I'd respect you more had it been a straight-up, no caveats, no-explanations, no blame-shifting apology.

That's an unqualified apology. I don't have to talk as if I meant to offend.

... but I also see that you've added a little something else that's less "passive-voice" in structure.

I'll give you credit for that. "E" for effort... even if grudgingly. Yes, it's an afterthought, but it's an improvement, but only a minor one.

Nobody ever deserves a "go away, little boy" response from you.

... that takes the cake!

n/t.

That cracks me up! Thanks for the chuckle!

Look, you've had it in for me for ages now...what did I ever do to deserve all of it?

I campaigned hard for Hillary in the fall and endorsed her BEFORE Philly.

And I never posted anything that did her chances any damage.

What is this about with you?

Do you think it's clever to pretend otherwise?

The preceding comparison is intrinsically absurd.

edited to add:

PS: Look elsewhere on this thread and you'll see another poster also includes the emoji ... yet there's no complaining about it. Not a single word. (Weird, huh?)

👏 ✌️

I'd be fine with actual debate, but the wave smilie and all the other things she does aren't debate. They are about avoiding debate and trying to shut people up.

What is it about admitting that we have to change some things to win that is so intolerable to some of you?

None of the changes anybody's suggested would be a betrayal, none would be about not talking about social oppression or sexism or racism.

you were out and out wrong in inferring what you did and it is Modus operandi per you when it comes to MY/OUR POLITICAL PARTY. and major candidates that don't meet your criteria for a proper democrat. No you were wrong and everyone that saw it, whether with smilies and words or just with words are right in dragging you through the coals, again and again til you realize that as some asked you just apologize without equivocation and prevarication on your part and get on board the true freedom train that is all inclusive and ALL pushing for DEMOCRATIC PARTY victory in 2018-20.

The person you're referring to has been anti-racist, sexist and from what I've read abhors social injustice of any type. And as all true liberals want, we want change all know to be right.

I abhor social injustice of any kind.

Nothing I've ever posted was dismissive of those things.

It's just that I abhor economic injustice and war, too.

I admitted I was wrong to post the clip in starting this thread.

The debate was about party policies and what sorts of candidates we need, not about the clip.

economic justice follows closely on the heels. NOT the other way around. Period. Generations of racism has proven that, many well off black people are still subject to instant n******ation in many a white person's eyes and I know that to be true.

You rock! Preach!

Are you as sick of this shit as I am?

Gets right to the heart of it, frankly.

Given this persistent anti-Democratic Party tirade, maybe you should ask yourself whether this is the right place for you.

I admitted I was wrong to post it. I wasn't defending it.

it is something not quite mainstream/whatever, which I can live with. But for me, it's always just this-side of something that unsettles me, but always: *JUST A TINGE.*

I don't believe in apologies because those are demands/expectations of permission to do stuff again and again.

I don't believe you add anything useful or constructive to our community.

Feel free to alert as per usual.

I supported the ticket all-out, I've worked for the party in three different states now and my posts are nothing but constructive. I don't personally attack people, I don't disrespect Democratic public figures, and the sole purpose of my post-election threads has been tp call for partnership, dialog and unity.

I'm not anti-HRC and I've said repeatedly I don't think Bernie should run again. What I've called for is a platform tat reflects Clinton ideas, Sanders ideas, the best ideas from other Dems and ideas that would turn non-voters and third-party voters INTO Dem voters. What, in any of that, do you object to?

about DU, I wonder what it will be called? Cave, tree, and radical are already taken.

Nothing I've posted has harmed the party or in any diminished any Dem's chances of victory.

FSogol - you silence a Democratic voice. That hurts the party.

I've done nothing to deserve being accused of undermining this party in the middle of an election.

(Italics mine.) I must say, that's very specific qualifier. It's not an absolute denial, instead it specifically says that a specific-something didn't happen "in the middle of an election"... yet it leaves open all the other days of the calendar that aren't "in-the-middle-of-an-election".

I don't undermine the party at any other time, either-he specifically implied that I undermine election campaigns.

It doesn't undermine election campaigns to acknowledge that losing ground in the polls means the campaigns aren't working.

What I'm trying to do is to help us win.

It's not as though we have any chance of recovery in '18 or '20 if we don't change anything.

We're at 49% popular vote support in presidential races and in a minority in most legislative bodies.

If we "stay the course" we can only just stay stuck there. It's not possible for us to gain in the midterms by just saying Trump is horrible.

The '16 campaign proves that never works.

Nothing I've posted here has done the party any harm.

Overreact much? I never accused you of anything. I was just offering you some friendly observational advice on how your awkward phrasing could be read, and instead you ATTACK me! Sheesh! You should be THANKING ME! What have I ever done to you to deserve this kind of disrespectful treatment?

I'm not the enemy and I'm not attacking anyone in joining the calls for the party to change.

I didn't try to silence Sogol. I was falsely accused of undermining Democratic election campaigns and if doing so in mid-campaign, and of planning to start an anti-Democratic website in the middle of the next campaign.

I would think you would start noticing what others, all of whom VERY much support the party, are saying to you.

Here is what happened; for 25 years, the past 2 especially, multiple organized entities attacked a woman because she was a strong, smart, and very capable woman.

Through this constant, nonstop, well funded and organized attack, somehow millions became convinced that she was filled with problems, when in fact she had none. No laws broken, no lies, compared to someone we now know does nothing but break laws and lie.

NOW is when I would say "oops, I was duped, used, lied to" if I EVER communicated anti HRC sentiment.

I am not saying this applies to you, but if it does or to anyone else here, please take heed. We are out of time, we either support every single democrat NO MATTER WHAT or Nazi's complete their coup.

Am I wrong? Tell me if I am, I want to know where I am wrong.

I don't vote third-party or encourage others to do that.

All I've done is suggest ways to get more people to support Dems in the fall and more to be involved in the party.

As to Hillary, I agree that the right-wing maligned her for years and that things would be much better if she were president. What does that require of us now, though? She isn't going to run again (she has said that) and what matters is the elections to come.

I campaigned hard for her in the fall, and did so with enthusiasm.

think you are still not recognizing all these staunch party supporters are trying to tell you something.

Why do you think it is you get so much push back from so many democratic party supporters?

My theory is that the ones who push back simply don't want the party to change in any way.

I recognize that we need to stop Trump.

It doesn't contradict that realization to note that 2016 proved, for the rest of eternity, that we can't win by just saying "stop Trump".

That's why I've been so vocal. I've seen, over and over again, that we never win by just saying "Stop ____"

We lost badly in 1980 and 1984 by reducing it to "stop Reagan"...and in 1988 by reducing it to "stop Bush". We lost the Electoral Cllege in 2000 by reducing it to "stop the next Bush" and lost by a larger margin in 2004 by doing the same thing again. And it cist us the Electoral College this year. We could have won this year by centering our campaign on the unity platform.

Obama won by doing what we should do...by running FOR, not just against.

How, Eliot, is it damaging to this party to argue that we should run the kind of campaign that elected the last Democratic president?

I feel like I'm trying to communicate with this guy:

Is not what you were trying to do, tho that is what you did. Now calling the attachment intrinsically absurd. You are now saying you were doing it to show that it's "delusional" to think no party is always right. Isn't that just as intrinsically absurd? There isn't even a real point to such an argument outside of trying to attack democrats and start shit.

It was a really stupid joke that didn't work and I was wrong to post it because it did unintended harm-I'm sorry I posted it, but it was a mistake, not malice.

I don't "attack Democrats".

It's not attack to disagree with some things people in the party do and to respectfully call for change-that's just dissent and ant party needs that. It couldn't be in any way a good thing for their never to be public disagreement with anything n this party. We couldn't be a living party if we ran everything on the basis of just leaving political decisions to our leaders. Leaders, whoever they are,

I said some tough things in the primary-as people equally said on both sides[-neither side was the sole or primary victim. I also spoke out when people on my side said things that were out of line and do so still when I see it.

All I'm doing now is calling on us to work together and accept that 2016 is the past. That doesn't mean not fighting defensive battles, it doesn't mean not standing up to hate-we are all doing that-it doesn't mean not being angry that what happened happened.

It means accepting that the Clinton/Sanders rivalry is done with, that the supporters of both candidates should be equally welcome here as groups, should be in dialog with each other and address each other with respect. And it means a future where social justice and economic justice are BOTH part of our party, and both are seen as going together, since they aren't in conflict.

What, in any of what I posted in those in those last two paragraphs, do you have a problem with?

Your own reason for saying you posted it.

"I was just riffing off of the delusional idea that ANY party would or could always be right."

You then completely deflect from that and go back to making it about individuals.

"I don't attack Democrats".

Not one single person believes that. Not one. Really petty, personal, and unattached from reality attacks on Democrats as well. Some of your attacks on Harris and other Democrats have been flat out unhinged. Did you really say "I don't attack Democrats"?

You are observant and correct. I appreciate your insight and input.

I've simply made suggestions about what we need to do to win.

I had nothing to do with the anti-Kamala groups and I condemn them.

Do you not even remember apologizing months after the fact for some of your most offensive attacks? Months. Would you like for me to highlight your own comments about Harris?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10029406789

I would be more than happy to copy and paste them here.

"I've simply made suggestions about what we need to do to win. "

Wow. Simply wow.

It was in the heat of the moment, when her endorsement of Hillary was being used to pressure Sanders supporters to switch to Hillary in the primary, to imply that it was racist and sexist not to vote for Hillary in the primary when it never was. I hadn't posted about her since then.

I'm not against Kamala. I praise her for supporting single-payer. I'd support her if she was nominated.

You really want me to link to your NUMEROUS comments? Why such a level of deception? Anyone reading only has to click the link already there to see that this "I said one thing about her one time" is not an honest statement.

I'm not in an anti-Kamala cabal.

Why does what I said ages ago still matter?

I'd campaign for her if nominated. If she was the most progressive person in the 2020 primaries, I'd support her in the primaries.

What more do I need to say?

What you said before was highly inaccurate. Your claims had no basis in reality.

I take your comments here, which are much different, at face value.

She wasn't my favorite(I prefer Barbara Lee-type Dems)but I don't understand why you are fixated by, at most(look I'd forgotten I'd posted about her at all when you started confronting me on this)a handful of comments, things that don't reflect my views of her now.

And I think I've said I'm sorry for what I said then, but if not than I am. I shouldn't have said those things.

I have changed my way of communicating. I don't attack Democrats.

I backed HRC all the way in the fall.

I'd back Kamala if nominated.

My priority until the convention will always be on supporting the most progressive candidate, whoever that may be.
That's the way to make us most electable.

Last edited Thu Sep 7, 2017, 08:10 AM - Edit history (1)

A joke must be based on truth to be funny. Yours wasn't. The idea that Democrats are some sort of cult of "The Party Is Always Right" is ... I don't even know what that is. Why not compare the Democratic Party to North Korea while you're at it? Oh well, mission accomplished, right? Tomorrow is another day!

n/t.

It was legitimate to say I didn't mean the comparison that was taken.

A person can say that and still fully admit wrong.

... it was a self-serving "mistakes-were-made" kind of politician's apology. I strongly recommend that you quit now... while you're even... before you fall-behind again. You've just BARELY managed to climb out of that hole you've been digging for yourself, and now you're intentionally jumping back in??? For the love of pete!

I think I now better understand the observations being made by others participating in this thread.

I've said everything I had to say.

Why can't you let this go already?

I'd give it a B-plus. (It might have scored higher, but you turned it in a day late.)

That's good. It took you long enough, but I'm glad you finally realized that you couldn't rationalize or negotiate your way out of this. That tells me you're growing. Congratulations. My opinion of you just went up a notch.

Done.

n/t.

Yes you did. It's right there for the whole world to see. Why else would there be FOUR different versions? (You do understand that we can look back and actually SEE the edits and changes, right?)

I do no such thing, and you know it. Frankly, it's very difficult to take that accusation seriously... especially after how you were complaining that the "hi" emoji was offensive to you.

To be honest, I think you're just upset with me because I recognize what you're doing and because I don't let you get away with it (for example: the original version of your "mistakes-were-made" non-apology bullshit.) I can understand that it may not be a pleasant experience to be scolded for things like that, but... be honest now... it's a far cry from being "harassed".

All I'm saying is that you're overreacting. I'm just being honest with you, and I hope you'll take what I'm saying to heart. Try not to be offended because what I'm saying is coming from a place of concern.

And, as I look around inside this thread (and others for that matter) it becomes evident that I'm not the only person who recognizes what they're observing and isn't afraid to point out the wrong-headed behavior. It' clear to me that they also want to help, so try not to be angry with them either.

We care.

I have no idea what you suspect me of, or what you think you need to stop me "getting away with".

All I know is that we supported different presidential candidates in the primaries (after which, I wholeheartedly supported the nominee0.

For once, just once, say directly what you believe I'm guilty of.

Just say it-because I truly don't know what it is that you feel you have to follow me from thread to thread derailing.

I've said nothing of the sort. I've commented on the exaggerations and the overreactions... I've criticized the non-apology-apology, and that's all. I've never, NEVER, accused you of having any sort of "horrible agenda".

Well, "suspect" is certainly an odd way of describing it. But I think it's fair to say that people are noticing things they'd describe as anti-social (not my words, just things I've seen) or irrationally aggressive (again, not my words, I'm just telling you what I've heard... and only because you asked.)

And then there are the exaggerations. Others have noted the hypersensitivity and overreactions about insignificant and harmless things. (The "hi" emoji thing comes to mind... that was just silly, don't you agree?)

All I'm saying is that my comments and suggestions (and criticisms) have been rather tame and friendly (and I hope, helpful)... yet you take such great offense. While others (in this very thread) have been much more direct and blunt in the things they've said... yet you say nothing to them in response. Why is it that my gentle and kind words are so offensive to you? Why are my posts the only ones that you have a problem with?

Well, that's nice, but it really has nothing to do with the price of tea in China... or anything that we've been discussing in this thread. Fact is: I never said anything about that, did I? So why are you bringing that up?

I don't know how I could be any more direct than I've already been. I've been nothing but honest and straightforward with you every time we've interacted, and you know this is the truth.

Nobody is following you from thread to thread. We're obviously interested in the same subjects and we often cross paths in the forums we visit, and on the threads we participate in.

We both play here. You can't bully me and try to drive me away from this site by constantly (and falsely) accusing me of "stalking" you or "following" you from "thread to thread".

What do you think I'm trying to get away with?

My response since November has simply been to suggest positive change. I haven't insulted or attacked anyone in those OPs.

What is it about the suggestions I've made that you find so "aggressive"?

You always seem to be doing this "we all know what you're up to" thing when I'm not up to anything.

I've explained everything already. I've told you everything you need to know. Re-asking the same question/s over and over again (with slight word variations) won't change my response. Please see my previous response/s if you need additional information.

It isn't that they would accept anything the party does because thankfully they would not. But it is that because they don't currently have a problem with how the party leadership functions, they insist that nobody else criticize it. But that doesn't change the ridiculously conformist tone of that authoritarian approach to party preservation. They should find better ways to articulate their grievances with the criticisms, maybe by actually deconstructing the criticisms themselves rather than attacking that they are criticisms.

So its big of you to apologize, but as you've already seen, what you can expect from a sign of "weakness" to people who just want to win, is a brutal dressing down at the first mention that you made a mistake. There seems to be no capacity for reconciliation here, or at least no interest in it.

Who posited the sentiment that the party is always right?

n/t.

It's so consistent, one might think it's intentional.

I call for change in the party-why is that a terrible thing?

Some of the stuff that gets argued about here is getting increasingly obscure from a quasi-outsider perspective.

SEVEN!