Bernie's in it to the convention, at the very least.

I think it was the whole ballgame this time.

control of the Party since Bubba was in office.

These people are the enemies of progressives every bit as much as republicans.

Just look at the trolling strategy on the dem boards. They're using paid posters to bully off progressives. They're unwilling to give an inch to progressives (out of Hillary's mouth directly at the last town hall). You can say 2016 isn't 1992, but the same people are still fucking over progressives at every possible opportunity. They'll give nothing to progressives. Nothing.

I just don't understand how you could possibly see things differently. That's all. I've enjoyed my interactions with you on here. I doubt I'll be around much longer. I'm just completely disgusted with the party.

People and better ideas why should we leave or lose heart? Don't buy their nonsense, it's poison.

I wish the genders could have been flipped because my issues with the front runner are purely issues based. Bernadette vs. Harold or something.

Why compromise in any way shape or form, if you think you can just play dirty and take it all?

I know what the polls say, but I don't think they're weighing millennials or Independents as strongly as they should. Something tells me a vote for Trump is going to be the ironic t-shirt of politics among young people in a few months time.

and clearly, they don't want anything to do with us, except they're happy if we just please vote for the them to be in the position to shaft us some more and like it, and we just can't seem get through the other side of that, It's obvious what progressives need to do.

It's like the abused wife who stays with her abuser.

This could be the election that's going to force that to happen I think.

For example, I believe single payer is the best solution. But, as Vermont found out, it's a hard sell. I believe in the Public Option will get us there faster than Sanders -- whom I admire too -- yelling about single payer.

I doubt we will ever "get what we deserve," but I've already been through a few landslide loses -- George McGovern being the worst case -- which set us back, rather than moved us forward.

Take care.

If she won't even campaign on it, she sure as hell is not going to fight for it.

You don't need to push for it, you need to quietly add it in there on some riders somewhere.

--are going to be doing to defeat the almost-single-payer that's on the ballot this fall?

I don't know what your problem is here, did you know it's possible for me to support single payer and the public option, too? Because it really is possible for a person to hold different opinions about different issues. The public option was always going to be the stepping stone to single payer.

It isn't something you can hide in an appropriations bill. The simple fact that she isn't campaigning on it tells us all we all we need to know.

The only way you can pass it is as a rider with something like "Medical Insurance Choice Amendment of 2018."

Clinton is not favored by independents, who are now 42% of the electorate, so that really limits the coat-tail effect necessary to change Congress.

And hundreds of Republicans and Democrats alike (whose states have big insurance company headquarters and whatnot) would be getting lobbied daily over it.

But you narrative build, openly, "This is about choice, freedom, more options!" and then you can get it passed. Probably have to give something for it, though, maybe bump the $450 tax bracket to $500-600k. And of course everyone would lose their minds over something like that.

Why would it work now? IMO, the best way to get a public option would be to push hard for single payer, for the same reason that if you want $3000 for your used car, you need to ask for $6000.

They aren't all secret socialists, free market conservatives, or whatever.

I have hope that a court case winding its way to the Surpremes which has a mathematical method to determine which districts are gerrymandered has a chance at success...Kennedy has always wanted a method to determine whether a district is gerrymandered or not. However, it won't be done by 16...hopefully by 18 or we take governorships and legislatures back. If the districts remain as they are , we are looking at a gerrymander until 2030. The census will be in 2020. My point is Hillary always wanted single payer but she knows how hard it is. And at the moment there is no way to do it...the house will remain in GOP hands barring a miracle. They don't care about public opinion, and they will never vote for even a public option much less single payer. If they were to win they would dismantle Obamacare...those are the facts.

... in like 16 or 17 states by 2017. That's going to leave a lot of states with NO competition in their exchange.

==================

Realized that there simply wasn't a large enough tax base to support it. VT is a small state and doesn't have a high percentage of u Ed wealthy.

Single payer is very much a doable and fiscally responsible way to provide health CARE but that's why it should be national. It needs a larger pool to draw funds from.

...but the single-payer system that Canada has was implemented at the provincial level. Just throwing that out there. There's sort of a split in strategy whether the implementation should be national or state. Maybe it can still be implemented on the state level with Federal subsidies.

But VT may not have been the best first state to try it in purely from an economic standpoint.

California, New York, or Texas (from a business-friendly perspective) would probably be better.

My worldview was shattered in the 2004 "election" when the ship failed to right itself and I realized that the cancer had metastasized. Now it has invaded the party is shutting down vital organs.

Sadly, that karma is comin' for all of us, not just those who so gleefully disparage progressive ideals.

since around 2012.

It coddles right wingers as long as they claim they vote democratic.

claiming democratic.

Meanwhile, the 13% want to purge this place. "Call it Skinner." Good luck to that. This place would be a ghost town.

HRC isn't going to be the Democratic candidate for President. Not once the Comey Report is released and finds she violated her signed classified information agreement. If the FBI report reflects the facts that have already been made public, she will be forced to release her delegates.

Just yesterday, it was reported:

Karma is comin' for Clinton too. She is probably working on strategies to try to get Republican hispanics and southern Republican women to vote for her to make up for the loss of us Bernie supporters. We're like an iceberg though--for every one of us enthusiastic Bernie supporters who surfaced at the caucuses and primaries, there are 10 more Dems in our families who were hidden, as they normally only surface at the GE. Clinton has so turned them off, that they will not be surfacing to vote for that race if she is the nominee.

Hope to see you at JPR working to get Berniecrat Progressives into all levels of government, and especially congress.

indirectly endorsing her.

If you told me 8 short years ago that a Presidential candidate could actually run on gun control I would've laughed in your face. I would've told you the country is too gun friendly, that the 2nd Amendment has to be pandered to, and so on. You would've called me a moderate, pragmatist, pandering to the NRA.

Go back, this is less than 8 years ago: http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/05/clinton-mailing-attacks-obama-on-guns-008390

8 years.

Now, as a "progressive" what do we do? We take a political ad like that, and we go "OMG, look at lying Hillary! Look at how horrible she was being! Now she's a flip flopper! OMG!"

But guess what, we as a country have shifted dramatically on gun control in 8 short years. Dramatically. All the mass murders. People's access to mass media. Internet penetration. A generation of kids growing up with gun massacres at schools. This shit wasn't happening before. And it needs to be fixed.

So we're progressing, very rapidly in that direction, with candidates running on gun control. Unfathomable 8 years ago. Like my candidate in Colorado, Mark Udall, who ran on gun control, but "progressives" threw him under the bus, because he was an evil Third Wayer.

Mike Malloy summed it up beautifully:

They use RW tactics.

Don't they feel slimy at the end of the day?

I think Mike Malloy answered that.

... some have, just as some have questioned the progressive nature of many Hillary supporters, suggested that black voters were low information voters, and launched sexist attacks against Hillary.

Yes, you label Hillary corrupt, pandering insincere, etc. and then expect people to treat Sanders with kid gloves. Perhaps some day you'll be able to look in the mirror and own up to your own hypocrisy. It certainly didn't help Bernie.

The OP sets themselves up as some beacon of progressive values ... and closes by openly hoping that bad things will happen to those who dared to support Hillary.

And Hillary is corrupt. You can't take tens of millions from corrupt banks and just say it doesn't matter. That money was meant to buy influence. It's soft corruption.

You can ignore and deny it but it's right in front of your face.

Do you think people are too stupid to notice?

Pathetic .

First, you take offense to ridiculous juvenile antics like free stuff ponies and unicorn crap. Yet in the same breath you convict Hillary of corruption with no evidence apart from a gut feeling that any judge or prosecutor would laugh at if you brought it to court.

If you come to DU with such thin skin to be outraged over extremely insignificant issues, then you have no ground to stand on when you make completely baseless accusations while claiming a moral high ground. Your act is a tough one to buy.

You can pretend that her actions don't matter and that she can do whatever she wants. That's why we get people like Eric Holder for AG.

Keep playing games. The rest of us can see how the corporate money plays out.

You can't take offense to baseless claims made by others when you spout baseless claims yourself. It's hypocrisy pure and simple except you have added a Republican level of moral indignation to it. It's disgusting and completely destroys any credibility for the points you're making.

Call me a hypocrite all you want.

Hillary chose to take the money from corrupt banks that are currently violating laws and known to spend billions on buying influence. Those are well known facts to people who read about it.

If you think that's wrong to call out so be it. You can wear your blinders.

If you think calling single payer the stuff of unicorns so be it. You can ignore the rest of the civilized world.

If you want to say Sanders voted for the Brady bill in the past guess what. That's a valid point and worth discussing. I can't wear blinders and act like it didn't happen. I can point out that he voted for the assault weapons ban many times since then though.

No. I can and will stand by both of my arguments because facts bear them out. Hillary took the money from corrupt banks. Can you deny that? I believe it will influence her decision making. it will CORRUPT her ability to act impartially. Historically we know this to be true. Her lack of support for Glass Steagall to break up criminal too big to fail banks and her unwillingness to even acknowledge the corruption speaks volumes.

PROVE IT is not a quality defense of soft corruption. It belies the very nature of the term soft corruption. If Hillary Clinton had been in office those paid speeches would have been hard corruption and she would be removed from office. Soft corruption relies on playing the loopholes in the law to circumvent the spirit of the law. Hillary has a LONG track record of doing so. This isn't about an isolated case of one speech for mass amounts of money. This is about a long stream of paid speeches to corrupt banks and corporations.

Single payer is not a unicorn and no amount of discussion will EVER make single payer a unicorn. It exists right next door in Canada. If you want to argue that single payer isn't the best route so be it. But mocking it and calling it a unicorn and free stuff is complete bullshit.

Your first post was filled with complaints about Hillary's supporters saying biased things about candidate you support. Then you started saying biased things about the candidate they support. It's hypocrisy to the core which you are completely oblivious to for some reason. That hypocrisy undermines any point you're trying to make as you come off as a creepy televangelist spouting moral superiority while being guilty of the sins you're preaching against. Now you're rambling on about issues require that collapse like a house of cards when any scrutiny is applied. You may think your actions resemble those of a a Republican.

At least you have proven my earlier post questioning your reading comprehension.

banks find favorable.

There are levels of corruption both illegal and legal. My distinction was that of a legal kind that exists called soft corruption. It's not against the law but it is what it is.

Maybe we should just call it a happy coincidence and leave it at that. One coincidence after another. Or is even pointing out this behavior hypocritical?

it is freaky, scary to live in a place were the law and the insiders pretend they can not see it

not surprised with that "answer"

Where is the friend button? Ha Ha.

" I don't agree with Bernie supporters tacit support for Islamo-fascist regimes ..."

"Castro economics, Paul foreign policy, Wallace race issues "

"18. Ah you would chhose a fascist then? Thanks. I was wodering if there were people like you, but honestly didn't expect them at DU."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=110836&sub=trans


And today's smearing, simmering bullshit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511854366

There are certainly questions why people would vote against their own self interest and with the history behind Hillary and her support of the Bill's welfare reform, I'd love to know why people who suffered through that would vote for her. Is that to say that an entire race is doing that? No.

As far as Hillary being corrupt, she is just that and that is one of the reasons why so many distrust and dislike her. We've show you, her supporters, the facts like the dirts weapons deals to Saudi Arabia which wound up benefiting the Clinton Foundation but it goes in one ear and out the other. The same can be said for the current FBI investigation. Can you imagine if any of us showed up to a job interview & stated "oh and by the way, I'm being investigated by the FBI......"?
On and on, you know the drill.

I don't know how many times I've asked the Conservative side to explain why they are bashing the Left. What specific issues do you disagree with. Never, ever got a response.

The Clinton Family has amassed $150 million not counting their Foundation Retirement Plan from what I see as graft. But somehow people still think she will help the 99%. Not a chance.

As its self-righteous double. I support Hillary, but I respect and admire Bernie, and many of his supporters who are serious about building an effective progressive movement, and won't quit after this or any other loss. But both Hillary and Bernie have their serious flaws, as we all do.

That was what amazed me the most.

======================
When the scales of politics fall too far to the right, you can't bring balance by putting your weight in the center.

And Harry and Louise were knocking her healthcare plan because it wasn't socialistic enough.

This is a problem with so many in the Sanders movement (though hardly exclusive to them), the detachment from reality necessary to preserve the narrative.

Are okay with voter disenfranchisement and don't push for universal healthcare is deflection? I think that your response illustrates my other point that you breezily dismiss!

Neither did Reply 19 of Beartracks, to which my post 30 replied.

to vote in Arizona for as much as 5 hours. Many got to the front of the line only to find out they couldn't vote as their registration had mysteriously changed. There is now a DOJ investigation into this.

Bernie called them out. Hillary? Crickets. Surely her supporters were also disenfranchised. But I guess winning by whatever means is all that matters to her.

So much for "falsehoods".

I'm laughing at the 'superior intellect.'

/ignore.

The hallmarks of Hillary supporters (or "superfans"?): bashing progressivism (as mentioned) and oozing smarmy condescension. Both of these things really surprised me.

====================

I don't have to care what they think.

It really is different than it used to be.
Everything we once fought against we are now standing for because of the Chosen one.
I imagine that I will fade away soon too. The Hillary fans can own it.
And they can own the loss in 2016 as well.
Your post is so much full of win.

As long as liberals were bashing Bushco and Republicans, it was all good. It was "bad" and (snort) "right wing" to stand up for liberal issues like sensitivity to gays, Medicare for all, a nominee like Rahm for chief of staff, etc. if so doing reflected badly upon a Democrat.

Owners

The website is owned by Democratic Underground, LLC (a limited liability company), and run by David Allen, who posts under the screen name "Skinner"[4] while on the boards and handles most of the issues relating to the forums. The other two administrators are Dave Allsopp, a co-founder, known as "EarlG" (of Washington, D.C.) and Brian Leitner, known as "elad" of Portland, Oregon. Allsopp and Leitner handle the articles and technical issues, respectively. Previously David Allen used to design websites for Blue Dogs/Third Way Democrats in Washington, D.C

It really is different than it used to be.
Everything we once fought against we are now standing for because of the Chosen one.
I imagine that I will fade away soon too. The Hillary fans can own it.
And they can own the loss in 2016 as well.
Your post is so much full of win.