• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The bi-partisan effort to take down Nina Turner

ultmd

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
5,598
Reaction score
2,469
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I might as well accuse you of helping trump as much as any MAGA maniac - similarly false.
Yes, that would be false. We could both "accuse" each other of anything. Wouldn't make any of it true simply because we say it.

In my case, however, it's a objective reality that 220K Bernie supporters voted for Trump in MICH, PA, AND WISC in 2016...and that gave Trump the electoral victory. That 220K was twice Trump's total margin in those thee states, alone.

So when I say that Bernie supporters have done more harm than good, at times....I stand on very solid ground. it's a FACT (not an opinion) that they did. That's how much they hated Hillary Clinton, I guess. And, as a Democrat, I am completely justified in my disgust with that. Trump would not have become POTUS if a large minority faction of Sanders' supporters truly considered themselves to be part of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY in 2016. That's just a fact.

However, if you seriously suggested that I am "helping Trump as much as any MAGA maniac".....simply by stated the FACTS about Sanders' voters in 2016......that would be just baselessly, absurdly false.

But hey, if you say the same things to Sanders' supporters who attack other Democrats for being insufficiently "progressive"....then at least you're being consistent. If not....

Ya, Bernie supporters, not 'real' Democrats. Bernie, not a 'real' Democrat.

Garbage.
Well, I'm sorry, but the facts are the facts. No one is calling anyone garbage. That's just silly.

I wish I could agree with you, here. But the FACTS show that Bernie supporters are less committed to the party than other candidates' supporters.

If use of the term "real" is what bothers you, I'm sorry. But the point here is that if Bernie supporters were as loyal to other Democrats as they are to Bernie Dems, America would be in a very different place today.


Of course. Just as we supported Hillary - far more than Hillary supporters supported Obama or would have supported Bernie. Not because of 'party loyalty', but because basically any Democrat is FAR better than any Republican, and party power matters enormously.
We agree.

And, fwiw, about 16% of Clinton supporters voted for McCain in 2008. Of course, there were much different dynamics in play, obviously.

I'm not sure why you guys keep bring Clinton into this, though.
 

Linc

NIMBY
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
54,238
Reaction score
16,170
Location
IL—16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The only thing I got out of your post is that we need more Kirsten Sinemas and less Nina Turners.

Also, please tell me what is behind the gate the Dems are protecting. Seems to me like it's healthcare, a higher minimum wage, a sustainable green infrastructure, voting rights, etc.

Yes, Corporate Dems + Republicans, protect us from Nina Turner...
Leftards gave us Bush-43 in 2020. The rest is history.
 

GummyVitamins

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
3,983
Reaction score
1,747
Location
ve, ver, vis, vis, verself
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Don't know anything about either of these candidates...since I'm not a party animal...but it appears that some people...people with a lot of money and influence...don't think Turner is the right kind of Democrat.

So it goes...
I think many of the party elders are becoming upset that socialists are running on a DNC ticket. They don't always fall in line and treat some traditional Democratic principles as something that needs to be canceled and criticized. Democrats have a rift growing within their party just like the RNC has with some of the heavy Trump supporters. Hillary Clinton and her ilk are obviously going to be the most annoyed by it. The socialists, alt-left, and unions are obviously going to be in favor of it.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
So now Clinton gave "the signal", huh? Is that true, or is that your opinion?

That may be true. We all know the Clintons were a different kind of Democrat. I was certainly never in the Clinton camp of the party, myself. But, most of us tolerated them more than enthusiastically supported them. But from what I've seen and read, this is more about political payback for Turner being such a vocal critic of Clinton (and refusing to endorse her as the Democratic nominee against Trump) in 2016.

So I guess Ohioans can go **** themselves then I guess, since the polls showed a 35-point lead for Turner before the Clintons and right-wing corporate carpetbaggers got involved:

06.01.21_turnerpoll.png


And, from what I've read, Turner is still outraising Brown.

From THE PEOPLE OF OHIO, not Clinton's mega corporations and wall street billionaire businessman power elites.

This is true, but lacks some contest.

For example, it's also true that a very sizable minority faction (12-15%) of Bernie supporters abandoned the Democratic Party in 2016 and voted for Trump.....which AGAIN raises questions about how EXACTLY you guys define "Progressive". In FACT, there would be no Trump presidency if 216,000 BERNIE BROS hadn't switch parties to vote for Trump in Michigan, Pen and Wisconsin in the 2016 election.

The fact you and your ilk will obsess over a likely inflated slim minority of Bernie supporters before the right-wing extremists who stormed our capital, the police officers who execute black people in cold blood and racist neo-nazis like charlottesville racists and the rest of Trump's base says a LOOOOOOOOOOOOT more about your kind than you'd probably think it does.

So please, spare us all the high-handed "Progressive" talk, please.

This you:

:ROFLMAO:.....I'm not anti-progressive at all. I'm just questioning if "progressive" is truly what you are. You're not a progressive. You're something else....anti-Captialist.....Socialist.....etc. Who knows. That's fine. But Progressive doesn't mean "as far left on every issue as possible". You don't get to redefine words to suit your needs.

Yet that is exactly what you are doing here, disingenuously asserting that he/they are not are "real progressive" while simultaneously shitting on socialism and other traditionally-progressive values...

Really? That's funny, because I've seen plenty of scathing condemnation aimed at them both. And rightly so.

"Leave Sinema and Manchin alone but I get to make shit up to believe about Bernie supporters"

But I won't suggest you are being "disingenuous".

Yet you did.

And the FACT is that the last polling I saw noted that 15% of Sanders supporters were planning to vote for Trump after Biden secured the Democratic nomination.

And he won anyway, so what is the point of this self-righteous crusade against the "eViLbErNiEbRoS"

Kinda hard to rationalize that if (as you insist) Sanders people are the standard bearers for "Progressive" ideals, huh?

I actually don't trust Bernie or the Squad or even Nina really (I think she got a vocal support at least from the likes of Joel Osteen, and none of these two-faced politicians made even a WHISPER of support for the M4M4A, so I could give a **** less at this point, your people rig all the elections against your base with gigantic mega corporations and right-wing Republican associates.

We'll see. As I said at the very beginning, either would be an excellent Democratic congresswoman, imo.

You're so full of shit.

Both are on the same basic page on issues like race/racism, social justice, criminal justice/police reform, education, environment, government's role in society, etc. etc. Neither is a conservative/moderate Dem (i.e. Manchin, Sinema, etc).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I just... I don't even know where to start with such naivete. If anything, Nina Turner is the ****ing MODERATE here. How far up right-wing assholes can your head get?

Turner's refusal to endorse her own party's nominee in the past, is certainly fair game as well. You can't do that and then turn around for party support when it's your turn....and NOT expect it to be an issue.

Translation: **** the poor

06.01.21_turnerpoll.png


From what I have been able to gather, they are not much different on the issues. This is a classic intra-party contest and the winner is going to be a good, solid Dem caucus member.

Missing. The. Point.

CONT'D
 
Last edited:

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm just wondering what this "warcry" was all about. Seems to me that this thread is more a case of a Bernie supporter taking it to the extreme.

The fact that you think the centre of the country is the extreme makes you the extremist here buddy. There is the rest of the planet outside of the United States who we all look like a seething mass of racists, imperialists, warmongers and ultra-capitalist nihilists too. It is important to think about other people besides yourself for a change.

After all, it's not like both candidates didn't ask for endorsement from all the same people. Turner would have gladly accepted support from Clinton and Clyburn, if offered. The fact that she didn't get it is just politics. I'm sure she'll get plenty of party endorsements before all is said and done. As she should. As I said previously, I consider Turner to be one of the true rising starts on the left. She's brilliant and talented, and tough.

Then what is with this militant:

But the Bernie people need to stop whining and threatening to burn down the house every time they don't get their way. I'm with them on most issues, and that's just based upon where we are as a society right now. But where they lose me, completely, is when they go from "We're Democrats too!".....to....."F-those Democrats, I'm not voting for anyone!".....when/if their candidate loses a primary.

^frothing projecting bullshit?

Everyone here besides idiotic far-right trump supporters sees right through you dude you're not fooling anyone.

I'm for the Democrats, period, because (right now) they are the ONLY viable option to save American democracy. The Bernie Bros don't seem to get that....or care. Real "progressives" wouldn't leave the party and vote for Trump under ANY scenario.

THEN STOP TRYING TO PUSH THEM OUT OF IT BY DOING:

And yet, about 15% of Sanders supporters did just that.

^THIS FEARMONGERING BULLSHIT

Discredits me? Seriously? Discredits me...with whom? And why would I care? I've got 5000 posts over 4 years on this board. My views are pretty clear.

5,000 ultra-partisan shitposts does not a cogent or viable world view worthy of respect make

So that's just nonsense. You don't give me credibility, and you certainly can't take it away. Come on, now.

If your views have been disproven, which they have many atime from across the political spectrum, you don't get to dictate whether or not they have been disproven. Kick and scream all you want it doesn't change the facts or reality on the ground outside of your partisan echo-chambers...

If you want to ask me questions about my positions or ideology, just ask. I'm not shy and I'm not evasive. No need for that stuff between us, Craig.

This is a ****ing internet forum dude...

That said, "Bernie Bros" is a term that many Sanders supporters (and I know because I've worked and organized with many, including family members) embrace.

Incorrect.

It's not derogatory; and it's not just "bros" btw.

Which is why it is incorrect. Because:

Sanders' support was actually slightly more female than male in 2020.

Way to discredit and self-sabotage in one fell swoop, "comrade"

cont'd
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The point is that Sanders' supporters tend to be less reliable Democratic voters than others on the progressive/left.

Which is what makes you the extremist and hypocrite here.

That's a fact and it's a source of concern with the party.

'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. '”

It does no more harm than when Bernie supporters attack other Dems in the party.

If it does no harm then why you frothingbigbuttmad at Nina Turner-Sanders supporters right now?

All intra-party divisions and squabbles tend to approach that fine line between constructive and destructive disagreement/criticism.

Neither of which your discourse encapsulates, mainly just frothing partisan idiocy.

The difference is that some (NOT ALL) Bernie supporters are only supportive of "Bernie" candidates, not the Democratic Party as a whole. And in that way, THEY do more harm than good, at times. And the 2016 presidential race (when 220,000 of them switched and voted for Trump in Mich, Pa, and Wisc)....is the preeminent example of that.

You keep going back to this line of attack that a handful of Bernie supporters were the result of Trump, and not centuries of racism, imperialism, colonialism, sexism, elitism, and overall in general evil and dogshit.

Democrats need to support Democratic nominees, Period. Not conditionally.

Which makes you the extremist.

These are not the time for 3rd party votes, protest votes and/or votes (or non-votes) of conscience.

There never will be with you people, so if you will never compromise, don't kick and scream when those you misguidedly villainized defend themselves from you.

CONT'D
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yes, that would be false. We could both "accuse" each other of anything. Wouldn't make any of it true simply because we say it.

You say that and then go back to frothing rabid attack dog mode:

In my case, however, it's a objective reality that 220K Bernie supporters voted for Trump in MICH, PA, AND WISC in 2016...and that gave Trump the electoral victory. That 220K was twice Trump's total margin in those thee states, alone.

Do you always enjoy being such an acerebral frothing mad hyper-partisan political extremist, or is this just you on one of your bad days or something?

So when I say that Bernie supporters have done more harm than good, at times....I stand on very solid ground. it's a FACT (not an opinion) that they did. That's how much they hated Hillary Clinton, I guess.

Oh
my
god

See, THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. This is I]EXACTLY[/I] what this country was telling you people when we voted for a failed con-artist over your anointed one. This is what Ohio is telling you by supporting and donating to Turner over Brown. THIS IS WHAT WE THE PEOPLE ARE ****ING TELLING YOU:
GET
THE
****
OUT
OF
OUR
LIVING
ROOMS


The Clintons are like used car salesman/shitty mechanics that sell you a perpetually broken car so they can keep leeching off of you for consistent repairs, and talk shit about the guy across the street who's trying to get it all done in one fell swoop for a better deal. You are so selfish and bitter and hateful of anyone and everyone who is not at least a tepid Clinton supporter. Your project and point the finger in every direction but your own, blaming Bernie Supporters, Russians, "a vast right-wing conspiracy" and, yet, after losing not one - but TWO - presidential elections, after being rejected consistently, over and over and over again, by the people, Clintons keep digging and clawing their way mercilessly on their golden chariot of cultlike hyperprojecting hyper-partisan and intolerant following and their connections to big business and military contractor corporations and,
yes,
Donald
TRUMP
And, as a Democrat, I am completely justified in my disgust with that. Trump would not have become POTUS if a large minority faction of Sanders' supporters truly considered themselves to be part of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY in 2016. That's just a fact.

*points to the previous rebuttal*

However, if you seriously suggested that I am "helping Trump as much as any MAGA maniac".....simply by stated the FACTS about Sanders' voters in 2016......that would be just baselessly, absurdly false.

Almost as baselessly, absurdly false as your own projected extremism.

And, fwiw, about 16% of Clinton supporters voted for McCain in 2008. Of course, there were much different dynamics in play, obviously.

And you have proven yourself about as stupid as we all think you are with this post.

I'm not sure why you guys keep bring Clinton into this, though.

Maybe you should ask her that sometime buckaroo.
 

ultmd

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
5,598
Reaction score
2,469
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Corporate-backed politicians are generally not progressive, since they obey corporate funding and are not focused on the citizens who elect them.

Why do you think the corporate establishment prefers Shontel? Because she has a dollar sign on her. She can be bought. She is a vehicle for the highest bidder.
I think you have it wrong and you 're making a lot of assumptions.

Knowing the way campaigns and races work....and knowing that both candidates share the same general platforms...it's much more likely that the "corporate establishment" (as you call it) didn't prefer either candidate. Instead, what happened was that both candidates sought party endorsements AND the "accoutrements" that come with them. And Brown got them this time. And I'm sure Turner's history with Clinton played some role (understandably so, if you're Clinton and still bitter about the 2016 outcome).

I have no doubt that Turner will garner more than a few more high profile endorsements of her own.

No one, at the congressional level, is turning down campaign donations. It's insane who expensive it is to run (and win) a competitive campaign. Nina has better name recognition. Brown needed it more than Turner.

Wasn't Nina Turner like 30-50 points ahead of every other candidate before Hillary Clinton coalesced corporate funding around Shontel?
Turner was the known candidate in the race. She's a national name, based on her appearance and interviews over the last 10 years. She's a star, for sure. Of course the contest will tighten if an opponent gets the funds to run ads, etc.

Last I saw, Turner was still ahead. And that would be a good outcome, as far as I'm concerned.


You mean the corporate wing of the Democratic party, which I'll grant you is the majority.
Not necessarily. I'm certainly no "corporate Dem", myself. There's more to the party than just Bernie supporters and "corporate Dems".

Is Jim Clyburn your idea of a "corporate Dem"? Adam Schiff?

I love a lot of what Bernie stands for. He's really not a pure Socialist. He believes in "well regulated" Capitalism, as do I.

But I'm curious as to why so many of his supporters view the entire party as either "Clinton/Corporate Dems"....or "us". That's just nonsense.

However, it's corrupt bribery class of the Democratic establishment that propelled Trump to victory in 2016. Of all people, he was able to claim the title of an uncorrupted/unbought politician and sell it to millions of voters.
Trump was able to "claim" that "title", because the news media promoted it and because the Clinton campaign did a very poor job of refuting it.

And what the hell is this "establishment" nonsense about. There is not some mysterious "establishment" of Democrats out there pulling the strings on things. You guys sound like the Trump people with that.
 

ultmd

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
5,598
Reaction score
2,469
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
There's one candidate which fights for the people and one which fights for corporations, as long as they're paying.
Examples, please.

Do you have any evidence of that? Does it matter to you?


Shontel and the corporate machine that backs her have attacked Nina Turner RELENTLESSLY with lies and smears.
:rolleyes:....what "machine"? How so?

Lies and smears.....please elaborate.

Trailing candidates ALWAYS "attack" the front-runner. If Turner was trailing, she'd be doing the same. She's done it in the past. That's politics.

At the end of the say, I think Nina Turner is going to prevail. And she'll be GREAT at her job. She is (I'll say it again)....a future STAR, imo.


Anyone who looks at Shontel and Nina Turner as equal choices is not my ally.
:rolleyes:....see what I mean?

Sanders' supporters are always ready to blow up the train, unless their candidates are driving it. And in some ways, you come across (in terms of rhetoric) as the opposite side of a coin with Trumpsters on the other side. Everything is "the establishment...." and "they don't want....", etc. But you never can say who "they" really are. Well, I'm sorry, but everything isn't a big conspiracy against you. Not in my world.

As for being your ally....I'm not sure that I am. But I think it's more likely that you're not mine because you are not a real Democrat. I could support most Bernie candidates, because I understand there is a HUGE difference between them (and what they represent)...and the Trumpsters (and what they represent). Can you say the same?

I'm a supporter of the Democratic Party, and Democratic policies. I believe in:
  • -public education and student debt relief
  • -racial justice and equity
  • -progressive taxation
  • -police/criminal justice reform
  • -environmentalism and clean energy
  • -medicare for all (or a "public option" choice) and healthcare (not just health insurance) reform
  • -UBI
  • -SCIENCE
  • -GETTING THINGS DONE (as opposed talking and preaching about ideals with no plans)
  • -a national $15+ minimum wage indexed (by federal law) to inflation
  • -etc. etc. I could go on, and on

I am NOT a socialist or an "anti-capitalist", and anyone who believes that a socialist economy is best for America (or has EVER worked)...is not my ally.

So now....What are you "for"? What do you believe?

So again...Imo, either candidate in that race would be a great representative for that district. Both are good friends with Marsha Fudge, which tells me a lot about them both.
 

Surrealistik

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
7,694
Reaction score
3,491
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So now Clinton gave "the signal", huh? Is that true, or is that your opinion?

That may be true. We all know the Clintons were a different kind of Democrat. I was certainly never in the Clinton camp of the party, myself. But, most of us tolerated them more than enthusiastically supported them. But from what I've seen and read, this is more about political payback for Turner being such a vocal critic of Clinton (and refusing to endorse her as the Democratic nominee against Trump) in 2016.

And, from what I've read, Turner is still outraising Brown.
Yes, Turner is still outraising Brown, thank god, but that doesn't in any way obviate the fact that Brown was starving for funds and prominence and basically stood no chance until Clinton butted in which signaled the faucets to turn. That is the factual time line and is easily verified.

This is true, but lacks some contest...

...And, if the Bernie wing of the party holds true to form, we will likely see a lot of them NOT VOTING for Democratic candidates who defeated Bernie Bro candidates in primary races for 2022.
Again, Sanders' people overwhelming turned out for Biden and Dem candidates, so kindly shove off with this nonsense. Moreover, Clinton PUMAs in 2008 were more disloyal than Sanders supporters in 2016, but because Obama was a vastly superior candidate he won anyways. It should also be noted that the majority of Sanders Dem defectors in 2016 did not have a liberal leaning in a first place, and thus didn't really owe any kind of allegiance to the Dem party; their motive seems to be more anti-corruption/anti-establishment than progressivism or left wing policy specifically.

And there is no defending Manchin/Sinema if you meant to say 'lacks some context'. They're literally taking campaign cash from the US Chamber of Commerce to run interference, lol.

Really? That's funny, because I've seen plenty of scathing condemnation aimed at them both. And rightly so.
I'm not saying there hasn't been any, but it has been trivial and muted compared to the constant tiresome allegations of disunity and divisiveness arrayed against the left, while MSM voices try to make up excuses and carry water for Sinema and Manchin (while almost never coming to the defense of say AOC or Sanders when they're at odds with their party).

...I'm not anti-progressive at all. I'm just questioning if "progressive" is truly what you are. You're not a progressive. You're something else....anti-Captialist.....Socialist.....etc. Who knows. That's fine. But Progressive doesn't mean "as far left on every issue as possible". You don't get to redefine words to suit your needs...

...Kinda hard to rationalize that if (as you insist) Sanders people are the standard bearers for "Progressive" ideals, huh?
I don't know what trash poll you saw, but it clearly didn't align with reality. Even if true and accurate, which I doubt, it probably represented reactive anger rather than anything meaningful.

Second I'm essentially a Norwegian model European centrist, which last I checked, still believes in capitalism and mixed market economies, albeit heavily regulated and moderated with strong unions and social safety nets; that's not being 'as far left on every issue as possible'.

Since Shontel Brown fails a number of key litmus tests, no, she isn't a progressive. Moreover, if she was actually a progressive, Republicans wouldn't be funneling money to her, nor would she be the darling favourite of corporate cash and PACs: https://theintercept.com/2021/07/27/nina-turner-shontel-brown-ohio-gop/

We'll see. As I said at the very beginning, either would be an excellent Democratic congresswoman, imo. Both are on the same basic page on issues like race/racism, social justice, criminal justice/police reform, education, environment, government's role in society, etc. etc. Neither is a conservative/moderate Dem (i.e. Manchin, Sinema, etc). That's the most important thing.
Again there are massive and substantive differences in policy that matter which I articulated before, nevermind the people who support Shontel, and who Shontel embraces the support of which casts her legitimacy and sincerity into serious doubt. She is clearly and openly the pro-corporate candidate in this race. I have no interest in someone who evidently revels in corporate cash and GOP funds, and who is currently faced with a serious ethics probe.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
20,929
Reaction score
7,890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Are you saying that Dems (or those on "the left") who oppose any those polices are not progressives? Who made up that rule?

We each form our opinion, but the progressive caucus (which Clyburn won't touch with a 10 foot pole) gives some idea.

Besides that, let's take your first issue (Medicare for All). Jim Clyburn is FOR it, and yet he supports Nina Turner's opponent in that primary race. Does that make Clyburn a "progressive" (in your opinion), or something else?

Everything I've seen that says Clyburn is AGAINST Medicare for all, which he has spoken out against, not that one policy determines a faction. Here's what one random poster said about him:

All I came to say is that Jim Clyburn has taken more money from the pharmaceutical industry than anyone else in congress and endorsed a white man who said he doesn’t care about black issues over a black progressive. In the words of Pascal Robert

"Jim Clyburn is the epitome of...the Black mis-leadership class...This is the same guy who's talking abt 'I don't know no Black Socialist' w a statute of WEB Du Bois behind him"

He’s a tap dancing mouth piece for right wing democrats. That is all.

I happen to agree with him. Clyburn probably did more than any one person except perhaps Obama to derail what the country needed, a Bernie Sanders presidency.

And if "something else", please give me a term/label that you'd use.

How about "the epitome of...the Black mis-leadership class" or "a tap dancing mouth piece for right wing democrats" from the poster above. Or we could just call him a pro-corporatist Democrats leader with a focus on black voters.

Otherwise, I personally support the idea of student debt cancellation and decriminalization of MJ. And while I don't know the position of Turner or Brown on those particular issues, I know that Jim Clyburn supports both, and he's a rock solid liberal.

Issues which affect black people far more, which is Clyburn's focus, so yes he has some overlap with progressives on student loan cancellation.

ccf_20161020_scott-clayton_evidence_speaks_11.png



You and I have different interpretations of the term "progressive". Although I 100% support radical campaign finance reform (I believe all campaigns should be publicly funded after the primaries), I think "progressive" is much more than simply the "money in politics" issue. And not every progressive agrees on every issue. For example, it's easy to say "Housing is a Human Right"...but how do you create a workable state/federal policy around that ideal within a capitalist economy?

The more popular a label becomes, the more people will try to claim it wrongly, the more people will try to co-opt it (like Hillary did in 2016). Is everyone a progressive? How about Mitch McConnell? I mean, he's against the US being blown up by nuclear weapons, and so are progressives, so he's a progressive, right?

Like most Americans, I believe, whole-heartedly, that a mixed economy (i.e. Regulated Capitalism) is the best form of economy. The debate among patriotic Americans is with respect to HOW much regulation is appropriate, from issue to issue.

Not really. Republicans advocate for radical under-regulation for corrupt reasons, bought and paid for, I would not call that arguing with respect to how much regulation is appropriate being from 'patriotic Americans'.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
20,929
Reaction score
7,890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
But from what I've seen and read, this is more about political payback for Turner being such a vocal critic of Clinton (and refusing to endorse her as the Democratic nominee against Trump) in 2016.

It goes both ways. Clinton declared war on Turner, for example having the DNC block Turner from being allowed to introduce Bernie at the 2016 convention, barring her from a role. Bernie supporters were very mistreated by the Clinton campaign and the DNC that essentially worked for Hillary.


And, from what I've read, Turner is still outraising Brown.

Yes, Clinton's endorsement backfired.

For example, it's also true that a very sizable minority faction (12-15%) of Bernie supporters abandoned the Democratic Party in 2016 and voted for Trump.....which AGAIN raises questions about how EXACTLY you guys define "Progressive". In FACT, there would be no Trump presidency if 216,000 BERNIE BROS hadn't switch parties to vote for Trump in Michigan, Pen and Wisconsin in the 2016 election.

Boy, is that a false, distorted point.

There are a couple key things. The first is that while about 10% of Bernie's supporters did not vote for Hillary, 25% of Hillary's supporters did not vote for Obama in 2008. That's a relevant comparison that puts the issue in context.

Second, and this is the misleading part, is that because Bernie offers a uniquely uncorrupted candidacy, for just one example refusing all big donations all other candidates took to billions of dollars, Sanders attracted people from outside the Democratic Party more than any other candidate.

That doesn't make him not progressive - the man is the leading progressive in the country, extremely progressive on issues, he's co-created the Progressive Caucus - progressives polices have broad support among country even outside the party.

What it means is that a lot of people who won't vote for Democrats normally, supported Sanders first, and then someone else including many times trump, who was running to the left of Hillary dishonesty attacking her for 'corruption' as he promised to raise taxes on the rich and 'drain the swamp'.

In other words, those Sanders supporters were *never* going to vote for Hillary - Bernie did not cost her their votes - unlike the Hillary supporters who refused to vote for Obama, who were Democrats, and became known as PUMAs - "Party Unity My Ass". Given than, it's remarkable how many Sanders supporters DID vote for Hillary.

And, if the Bernie wing of the party holds true to form, we will likely see a lot of them NOT VOTING for Democratic candidates who defeated Bernie Bro candidates in primary races for 2022.

You are just spewing lies, and I've had it. Not gong to read the rest of your post.

You have been told you are, spewing 'bernie bro' garbage, and you continue to do it.
 

The AntiDonald

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
7,561
Reaction score
4,815
Location
N. Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Don't know anything about either of these candidates...since I'm not a party animal...but it appears that some people...people with a lot of money and influence...don't think Turner is the right kind of Democrat.

So it goes...
Well their you go. Pass HR-1 and get the vulgar money out of politics.

Do you think it should be up to the people or wealthy oil and gas special interests lobbyists who should decide an election?

Personally, I think the people should decide. I too know nothing of either candidate. But in todays atmosphere, big money decides our politics. It ain't right.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
20,929
Reaction score
7,890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So when I say that Bernie supporters have done more harm than good, at times....I stand on very solid ground. it's a FACT (not an opinion) that they did.

No, you do not. See my lengthy post previously.

However, if you seriously suggested that I am "helping Trump as much as any MAGA maniac"

Look, I do not want to accuse of being hugely dishonest. But you leave me no other option. When I said the claim that you are helping trump is false IN THE SAME SENTENCE and being made as a comparison for how false YOUR attack was, and you respond 'if you seriously suggested'... there is not to call that but you lying.

Well, I'm sorry, but the facts are the facts. No one is calling anyone garbage. That's just silly.

MORE dishonesty from you. I said that your attacks on Bernie and his supporters are garbage attacks. You dishonestly responded claiming I was talking about calling people garbage - while using that false deflection to stand by your garbage argument with the throwaway defense 'facts are facts'. Is it like arguing with a trump fanatic.

I wish I could agree with you, here. But the FACTS show that Bernie supporters are less committed to the party than other candidates' supporters.

I showed in the post above the opposite is true.

And, fwiw, about 16% of Clinton supporters voted for McCain in 2008. Of course, there were much different dynamics in play, obviously.

So you already KNEW that more Clinton supporters went for McCain than Bernie supporters went for trump AT THE SAME TIME YOU LIED THAT BERNIE SUPPORTERS VOTED FOR THE NOMINEE LESS - not even counting your numbers that understate the issue, I've seen 10% Bernie supporters for trump and 25% Hillary supporters not voting for Obama - and the other issues I listed in the previous post.

I'm not sure why you guys keep bring Clinton into this, though.

Because you frickin have made the attack over and over and over that Bernie supporters are 'less loyal' than other Democratic voters when the facts say the opposite, before we even account for the issues I listed in the previous post. I can see why you would want to make a false claim and then say you can't understand why anyone would mention the thing you made it about to correct it.

Your behavior has been despicable.

It's up to you to be honest and change it or to double down and show it's going to remain despicable.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,843
Reaction score
30,445
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well their you go. Pass HR-1 and get the vulgar money out of politics.
HR1 won't get money out of politics.

Do you think it should be up to the people or wealthy oil and gas special interests lobbyists who should decide an election?

Personally, I think the people should decide. I too know nothing of either candidate. But in todays atmosphere, big money decides our politics. It ain't right.
It's not "it should be up to the people"...it IS up to the people. But if the people allow their congressmen to work for the wealthy instead of for them, then there is no one to blame except the people.

We don't need laws to get money out of politics. We need people to get money out of politics.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
20,929
Reaction score
7,890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
From what I have been able to gather, they are not much different on the issues. This is a classic intra-party contest and the winner is going to be a good, solid Dem caucus member.

BS, but that's what corporatists who want to try to fool voters into not choosing anti-corporatists WOULD say. Nixon dismissed differences between him and Kennedy. Hillary claimed she was a progressive like Bernie. That's what people who don't want the voters to make the right choice do, deny the difference.

The fact that she didn't get it is just politics.

No, it was just the war between the corrupt corporatist side of the party versus the non-corrupt progressive side of the party. Which again you would like to dismiss.

But the Bernie people need to stop whining and threatening to burn down the house every time they don't get their way. I'm with them on most issues

You need to stop lying about the Bernie people. Most voters agree with them on the issues. This claim that they won't vote for the Democratic nominee which is a small minority of them is Hillary lies and propaganda to attack them that flies in the face of the fact it was HER supporters who were "Party Unity, My Ass" and Bernie working harder than anyone to help her win.

I'm for the Democrats, period, because (right now) they are the ONLY viable option to save American democracy. The Bernie Bros don't seem to get that....or care.

Yes, they do. You are lying about them and you don't seem to care. There's a reason Biden won after the party conspired to deny Bernie the nomination, and it's not because Bernie supporters did not vote for him.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
20,929
Reaction score
7,890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Real "progressives" wouldn't leave the party and vote for Trump under ANY scenario. And yet, about 15% of Sanders supporters did just that.

I explained that in a post above.

Discredits me? Seriously?

Yes. If you posted that 1/6 never happened, that would discredit you too. Now based on your recent posting I look forward to you falsely claiming I said you DID say that.

If you want to ask me questions about my positions or ideology, just ask. I'm not shy and I'm not evasive. No need for that stuff between us, Craig.

I can't get to positions when I have to correct so many false statements.

I'd hoped there wasn't a need either. But you have posted as you have.

That said, "Bernie Bros" is a term that many Sanders supporters (and I know because I've worked and organized with many, including family members) embrace. It's not derogatory; and it's not just "bros" btw. Sanders' support was actually slightly more female than male in 2020. You don't have to like it, or agree with it, but it's neither fake, nor "propaganda".

Maybe some embrace it much like some black people embrace the N word, but that doesn't change that for both it primarily IS derogatory and propaganda (from the Hillary camp). You're making a habit of disproving your own points - "Bernie bros" is meant to be a derogatory reference to a sexist 'boys club' culture to alienate women, but YOU point out that the term is undermined by Bernie having more female support.

Just as YOU pointed out that more Hillary supporters refused to vote for the nominee, Obama, than Bernie supporters refused to vote for the nominee, Hillary, in the same post you falsely claimed the opposite.

The point is that Sanders' supporters tend to be less reliable Democratic voters than others on the progressive/left. That's a fact and it's a source of concern with the party.

I've had to reference the post I made above several times both disproving that claim and explaining the bit that's true in it.

It does no more harm than when Bernie supporters attack other Dems in the party. All intra-party divisions and squabbles tend to approach that fine line between constructive and destructive disagreement/criticism.

Yes, it does. Bernie supporters' attacks are generally CONSTRUCITVE, pointing out corruption and where policies fall short, where attacks by the corporatists and by you are DESTRUCTIVE, typically false, pejorative, and not trying to do any good but only to poison the 'other side'.

The difference is that some (NOT ALL) Bernie supporters are only supportive of "Bernie" candidates, not the Democratic Party as a whole.

And as I said in the earlier post, that's a good thing. Because his enemies like you want to frame that as anti-Democratic Party, when in fact it is his positive ability to attract more voters from outside the Democratic Party who would not support Democrats otherwise. It's one thing to be a spiteful Democrat like Hillary's PUMAs, and another to be a person on the right attracted to Bernie's lack of corruption.
 

ultmd

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
5,598
Reaction score
2,469
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
So I guess Ohioans can go **** themselves then I guess, since the polls showed a 35-point lead for Turner before the Clintons and right-wing corporate carpetbaggers got involved:
Not sure what any of the above (or the graph) has to do with anything I said. Perhaps you could elaborate?

That said, the seat is for one congressional district, not the state of Ohio.

From THE PEOPLE OF OHIO, not Clinton's mega corporations and wall street billionaire businessman power elites.
Not entirely true, but still...good for Nina. She does get funding from out of state, and not all for "the people".

And who are these "mega corporations" and wall street billionaires you're talking about?
The fact you and your ilk
You mean "educated folk", I take it?
will obsess over a likely inflated slim minority of Bernie supporters
Pretty dumb comment. "Likely inflated"....how? According to whom? The data is the data. Data doesn't lie.

And would you care to address the FACT that 15% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump and in FACT provided the margins in MICH, PA AND WISC that put Trump in the White House?
before the right-wing extremists who stormed our capital,
:rolleyes:....wait.....what?

Who said anything about the failed white supremacist coup attempt on the US Capital? You have me mistaken for someone else. I suggest you review my post history and stop belching out stupid, empty talking points like the above.
the police officers who execute black people in cold blood and racist neo-nazis like charlottesville racists and the rest of Trump's base says a LOOOOOOOOOOOOT more about your kind than you'd probably think it does.
:ROFLMAO:....you're talking to an African-American man who. My guess is you're a white guy whose emotions have gotten the best of him, here. Everything you've said here is absolutely correct, but your problem is that NONE of it has ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING I've posted in this thread. So let's get back to that, shall we?

Trump's base did NOT get him elected in 2016. Bernie's "base" did. Those were the 220K Bernie supporters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Penn who hated Hillary Clinton SOOOOOOO much that they cast their votes for Trump....thus providing TWICE the margin of victory he needed to win those three states (and, as a direct result, the presidency).

That, along with a very poorly run Clinton campaign and a complicit national news media....are the reasons that Trump was elected. Trump's "base" did NOT win him the 3 midwestern swing states he needed to squeak out that Electoral College victory. Sorry.
Yet that is exactly what you are doing here, disingenuously asserting that he/they are not are "real progressive" while simultaneously shitting on socialism and other traditionally-progressive values...
Stupid comment. I'm challenging him (and now you) to define "progressive", because it's increasingly clear that some of you are confused.

And what "socialist" or "traditional progressive values" did I "shit' on? Be specific. Or stop lying. Your choice.

You people need to get your emotions under control, I think.
"Leave Sinema and Manchin alone but I get to make shit up to believe about Bernie supporters"
More irrational emotional nonsense.

The FACTS about 220K Sanders' supporters voting for Trump in Mich, Pa and Wisc....are not up for debate. And your inability to rebut them is your problem, not mine.

Yet you did.
Nope. But your opinion really doesn't matter in this instance. So...

And he won anyway, so what is the point of this self-righteous crusade against the "eViLbErNiEbRoS"
So....you're another Bernie supporter, I take it. Big shock.

I think you're playing dumb here. The point is pretty clear if you've been following: A sizable faction of Bernie's supporters chose to vote for Trump rather than the Democratic nominee. That's a problem if your argument is that Bernie supporters are reliable Democratic Party voters.

That said....who said you guys are "evil"? I have neither stated, nor implied, any such thing. What's with all of these irrational/emotional responses from you guys?

Honestly, if some Bernie supporters ever wonder why they have the image/reputation (as a collective group) that you do. It's not as bad, but quite similar to the stuff you see from Trump acolytes. Read your own stuff, for Pete's sake.
 

ultmd

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
5,598
Reaction score
2,469
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I actually don't trust Bernie or the Squad or even Nina really (I think she got a vocal support at least from the likes of Joel Osteen, and none of these two-faced politicians made even a WHISPER of support for the M4M4A, so I could give a **** less at this point,
This is just silly. Since when did that (M4M4A) become the measure of "true" progressiveness?

your people rig all the elections against your base with gigantic mega corporations and right-wing Republican associates.
There you go again with the simple-minded conspiracy theory b.s.

Who are my people? What's "mega corporation"? And why would "my people" work with rightwing Republicans?

On what planet does any of that nonsense pass for rational thought? Please elaborate
You're so full of shit.
Is that what you socialist/fake progressive/fake liberal types think of all intelligent, rational, educated liberals?

So who in the Democratic Party to you trust or respect? Anyone?
I just... I don't even know where to start with such naivete. If anything, Nina Turner is the ****ing MODERATE here.
You don't know either candidate, do you? If anything, Turner is slightly to the left of Brown. But their policy differences are largely semantic.
How far up right-wing assholes can your head get?
:ROFLMAO:.....typical. Like most of your ilk, everyone to the right of you is a rightwinger.

You people really are not much different than the Trumpsters. All emotion. No reason. Opinions = Facts. And facts be damned.
Translation: **** the poor
Translation: You're irrational and a bit of an ideologue.

The fact that you think the centre of the country is the extreme makes you the extremist here buddy. There is the rest of the planet outside of the United States who we all look like a seething mass of racists, imperialists, warmongers and ultra-capitalist nihilists too. It is important to think about other people besides yourself for a change.
:ROFLMAO:...this is a bizarrely disconnected response to what I actually said. Wow. You seem intent on injecting talking points into every response, without regard to the actual content to which you are pretending to respond.

Needless to say, you won't be anyone's arbiter of centrism.
Everyone here besides idiotic far-right trump supporters sees right through you dude you're not fooling anyone.
:ROFLMAO:What kind of moron thinks (or pretends) that he speaks for "everyone here"?

THEN STOP TRYING TO PUSH THEM OUT OF IT BY DOING:
Were you TRYING to prove my point with this, or what? Again, REAL PROGRESSIVES wouldn't be "pushed out". REAL PROGRESSIVES understand the elections are about choices, not fantasies. You and your ilk are clearly not REAL progressives. You are (I guess) leftwing extremists, who are (I'm quite sure) more trouble than you are worth.
^THIS FEARMONGERING BULLSHIT
Facts are "fearmongering b.s.", huh?

With seemingly every response, you help illustrate how you are really just the flip side of the Trump coin.
If your views have been disproven, which they have many atime from across the political spectrum, you don't get to dictate whether or not they have been disproven. Kick and scream all you want it doesn't change the facts or reality on the ground outside of your partisan echo-chambers...
Another strange non-sequitur from you, but apparently another case of you pretending to speak for others.

You talk a lot, but you don't say much.
 

ultmd

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
5,598
Reaction score
2,469
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes, Turner is still outraising Brown, thank god, but that doesn't in any way obviate the fact that Brown was starving for funds and prominence and basically stood no chance until Clinton butted in which signaled the faucets to turn. That is the factual time line and is easily verified.
No argument that Clinton has endorsed Brown. I'm just not sure why it matters. That's politics. If Turner could have gotten Clinton's endorsement, she'd take it in a heartbeat.
Again, Sanders' people overwhelming turned out for Biden and Dem candidates, so kindly shove off with this nonsense.
Again, Sanders' people LITERALLY handed the electoral victory to Trump by giving him those 3 midwestern states. I'm not sure why you refuse to address that reality.
Moreover, Clinton PUMAs in 2008 were more disloyal than Sanders supporters in 2016,
Negligibly so, if at all. 15% Sanders. 16% Clinton.

Luckily, Obama was wildly popular and won regardless. Clinton was not well-liked, and couldn't afford to have 220,000 Bernie's supporters abandon the party and vote for Trump.

Bringing Clinton into the discussion is just deflection from the bottom line: Sanders' supporters DID cost Clinton the election in '16. She certainly made it easy for them, but that doesn't excuse them. I don't know how ANYONE identifying as liberal or progressive could vote for Trump over ANY Democrat (Clinton included).
but because Obama was a vastly superior candidate he won anyways
Agreed.
It should also be noted that the majority of Sanders Dem defectors in 2016 did not have a liberal leaning in a first place, and thus didn't really owe any kind of allegiance to the Dem party
The data backs this up, to some degree. Of course, that also feeds into my original remarks questioning the degree to which some Bernie supporters are Democrats, or just Bernie supporters.
; their motive seems to be more anti-corruption/anti-establishment than progressivism or left wing policy specifically.
above....but again, you don't cast a vote for Trump if you are seriously concerned about corruption, etc. There's a faction of Bernie supporters that is something else. That's pretty obvious. And that means that the Bernie candidate is no longer an option, they are no longer Democratic voters. And it's entire fair for other Democrats to consider that and view some Bernie supporters with some concern. That's all I've been saying.
And there is no defending Manchin/Sinema if you meant to say 'lacks some context'. They're literally taking campaign cash from the US Chamber of Commerce to run interference, lol.
I'm not defending them in any way, under any context. Not sure what I could have said to convey that message.
I'm not saying there hasn't been any, but it has been trivial and muted compared to the constant tiresome allegations of disunity and divisiveness arrayed against the left, while MSM voices try to make up excuses and carry water for Sinema and Manchin (while almost never coming to the defense of say AOC or Sanders when they're at odds with their party).
Ok, well we see that differently. IMO, most of the "tiresome allegations" against AOC, etc. have been from the FauxNews crowd, not so much from legitimate news organizations.

But count me among those who think Manchin and Sinema are fos about the filibuster....especially Sinema. They will go down in history for their obstruction of the Democratic agenda, right alongside McConnell. Manchin is in the most pro-Trump state in the country but Sinema has no excuses. She needs to be primaried and defeated.
 

ultmd

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
5,598
Reaction score
2,469
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't know what trash poll you saw, but it clearly didn't align with reality.
According to whom? You?

Actually, several polls confirmed that Sanders voters put Trump over the top in those 3 states. And let's be clear, if those 220,000 Sanders supporters had just STAYED HOME and not voted....Clinton would have won each state. They AFFIRMATIVELY voted for Trump and put him in office. That's just a fact. Here are a few sources, each featuring different polling data.

NBS: Sanders voters helped Trump win the White House

2016 National Popular Vote Tracker

12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, voted for President Trump in the general election.
Even if true and accurate, which I doubt, it probably represented reactive anger rather than anything meaningful.
Well it's both true and accurate. And any "reactive anger" would be totally irrelevant to the FACTS. Sanders wasn't the first candidate to fall just short of a party nomination. But some of his voters sure do make a bunch of excuses for themselves.

The data is clear and really indisputable.

220,000 Sanders supporters gave Trump the 3 states he needed to win the 2016 election. I don't know why you guys can't admit it.

Second I'm essentially a Norwegian model European centrist, which last I checked, still believes in capitalism and mixed market economies, albeit heavily regulated and moderated with strong unions and social safety nets; that's not being 'as far left on every issue as possible'.
Well-regulated capitalism, as imperfect as it will always be...is the best economic model we humans have been able to come up with.
Since Shontel Brown fails a number of key litmus tests, no, she isn't a progressive.
Such as...??

She's taking money from gopers. So did Biden. So did Obama. So did Clinton. So does Sherrod Brown. So did, BERNIE SANDERS, btw. Some of Bernie's major donors were corporations like Amazon, AT&T, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Inc (Google), Kaiser Permanente, etc. etc. etc. I'm not endorsing it, but I'm old enough to not be surprised when politicians do what politicians do. I'm in favor of publicly funded campaigns with no corporate donation, myself.

As for Brown, she's behind a popular front-runner and running out of time. That's what politicians who want to win do. Turner would do the same (or similar) if the roles were reversed.

So... What else? Anything from a policy or platform perspective that leads you to be believe she's not a "progressive" (whatever that is) in your eyes?
Again there are massive and substantive differences in policy that matter which I articulated before
Not really. You mentioned Medicare for All...yet BOTH Brown and Turner support that. Both also support Universal Pre-K, tuition-free 4 year public college, paid family leave, student loan relief, etc. etc. etc. etc.

I'm trying to get you to offer specifics, but you keep deflecting. So far, it seems to boil down to her campaign donors and the fact that Bernie endorsed the other candidate. That's fine, but it doesn't back up your "massive and substantive policy differences" argument.

Simply put, the two are really not different from a policy/platform position.
I have no interest in someone who evidently revels in corporate cash...
Fair enough. You wouldn't vote for Brown over Turner.

But would you vote for Brown over her GOP challenger, if she won the primary? I would support either one over a republican. What about you? There is a sizable faction of the Sanders wing that would not. And that's a problem for the party. That's the point of the discussion. I don't think that's even controversial.
 

ultmd

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
5,598
Reaction score
2,469
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
We each form our opinion, but the progressive caucus (which Clyburn won't touch with a 10 foot pole) gives some idea.
https://clyburn.house.gov/member-caucuses

Everything I've seen that says Clyburn is AGAINST Medicare for all,
https://medicare4all.org/candidates/


I happen to agree with him. Clyburn probably did more than any one person except perhaps Obama to derail what the country needed, a Bernie Sanders presidency.
You think Jim Clyburn is a "tap dancing mouth piece"?

Or are those the words of Pascal Robert?

Either way, they are a ill-informed opinion; but I'd like to know whose words they are. If they are Robert's words, it makes sense, given the source. He's a socialist ideologue with a point of view. He's been verbally attacking and criticizing prominent African-Americans for a long time. But his audience is primarily white liberals. That says it all. .He's just a bomb-thrower who appeals to a certain crowd.

On the other hand, if those are you words.....please elaborate on that choice of phrase.

You're entitled to your opinion. But, as a black man, I am careful with that sort of phraseology. But Paschal Robert is hardly someone worth quoting on issues relevant to African-Americans

How about "the epitome of...the Black mis-leadership class" or "a tap dancing mouth piece for right wing democrats" from the poster above.
Those would be poor descriptive terms for Jim Clyburn, coming from source(s) that lack credibility.

How about using your own words rather than hiding behind "random poster's"?
Or we could just call him a pro-corporatist Democrats leader...
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/james-e-clyburn/summary?cid=N00002408

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/bernie-sanders/summary?cid=N00000528

Take a look through the public disclosures of Clyburn and Bernie Sanders....then tell me which of the two is the "corporatist Democrat". And, while you're at it, check out
the financial disclosures of each, and talk to me about which of the two has actually enriched himself over the last 20 years, ok?

Jim Clyburn's actual record is actually MORE progressive than Sanders'....because Clyburn has actually sponsored progressive legislation that has become law. Sanders has spent most of his career just preaching. To his credit, though, the country has moved to the left at the right time for him and his (potential) legacy.
... with a focus on black voters.
Gee...a senior-statement African-American Democratic leader in Congress who doesn't ignore black voters.

Heaven forbid that, huh?

I mean, you'd never see Latino, or Asian, or Jewish, or Catholic, or Evangelical, or WASPy members who focus on issues of importance to those community, would you? That never happens.

That's why it's only relevant when black members do it, right?

:rolleyes:
 

ultmd

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
5,598
Reaction score
2,469
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Issues which affect black people far more, which is Clyburn's focus, so yes he has some overlap with progressives on student loan cancellation.
So what issues of importance to you do NOT also affect African-Americans? Anything?


The more popular a label becomes, the more people will try to claim it wrongly, the more people will try to co-opt it (like Hillary did in 2016). Is everyone a progressive? How about Mitch McConnell? I mean, he's against the US being blown up by nuclear weapons, and so are progressives, so he's a progressive, right?
That's just silly. And I think you know it.

Unless your argument is that there is no difference between "progressive" and "conservative"...or "socialist" and "fasicst"....since everyone is against the US being blown up by nuclear weapons.

I keep asking you guys to give me your personal definitions of "progressive", but you keep deflecting in favor of silly stuff like the above. So is the real point here that "progressive" is whatever (and whomever) you decide? Clearly, it's not about policy positions. Clearly, it's not simply about money or corporatism. Every time I address an issue, you guys move on to another.

Not really. Republicans advocate for radical under-regulation for corrupt reasons, bought and paid for, I would not call that arguing with respect to how much regulation is appropriate being from 'patriotic Americans'.
I said PATRIOTIC Americans. Modern Gopers have no real allegiance to their country or the Constitution. They are a white-nationalist, pseudo-Christian movement with no real agenda other than maintaining the power to perpetuate white-nationalism and pseudo-Christianity.
 

Surrealistik

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
7,694
Reaction score
3,491
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No argument that Clinton has endorsed Brown. I'm just not sure why it matters. That's politics. If Turner could have gotten Clinton's endorsement, she'd take it in a heartbeat.
No she wouldn't, and that you believe she would clearly shows you don't understand Turner as a candidate.

And it matters because Clinton was the one signaling where and to who all that out of state and corporate PAC money should go; she is clearly still one of the prominent avatars of the establishment's will. Lo and behold the money from those sources poured in about immediately after. If you can't see the obvious causality and the relevance of Clinton's endorsement in this case, that's on you.
Again, Sanders' people LITERALLY handed the electoral victory to Trump by giving him those 3 midwestern states. I'm not sure why you refuse to address that reality.

Negligibly so, if at all. 15% Sanders. 16% Clinton.

Luckily, Obama was wildly popular and won regardless. Clinton was not well-liked, and couldn't afford to have 220,000 Bernie's supporters abandon the party and vote for Trump.

Bringing Clinton into the discussion is just deflection from the bottom line: Sanders' supporters DID cost Clinton the election in '16. She certainly made it easy for them, but that doesn't excuse them. I don't know how ANYONE identifying as liberal or progressive could vote for Trump over ANY Democrat (Clinton included).
It's not deflection because it goes to show that Sanders' disaffecteds are first of all in line with historical norms and indeed featured less treachery than Clinton supporters in 2008.

Second, I refuse to acknowledge the idea that Sanders 'factually' cost Clinton the victory because he simply didn't, or it's dubious at best, particularly because many Sanders primary voters weren't Dems or Dem aligned in the first place as any honest reading of the data shows. Basically it's too ambiguous and there's too many indeterminate ifs to walk away with the assertion that Sanders decisively cost Clinton the election, nevermind that even if he was A factor, Clinton being the historic disaster of a candidate she was, was the greatest one by far, who also ignored advice from the Sanders camp working with her post-primary about the vulnerability of the rust belt she and her team essentially took for granted:




above....but again, you don't cast a vote for Trump if you are seriously concerned about corruption, etc. There's a faction of Bernie supporters that is something else. That's pretty obvious. And that means that the Bernie candidate is no longer an option, they are no longer Democratic voters. And it's entire fair for other Democrats to consider that and view some Bernie supporters with some concern. That's all I've been saying.
Here's the thing; I don't think that typical voters are nearly as sophisticated as you give them credit for, and I think that there were plenty of people who were part of the anti-corruption and anti-establishment vote for Sanders during the primary wanted to just shake things up out of a desperate desire to get rid of a status quo that clearly wasn't working for them who also had no idea how bad Trump would be and believed his populist lies. I personally wasn't one of them.

I'm not defending them in any way, under any context. Not sure what I could have said to convey that message...

...But count me among those who think Manchin and Sinema are fos about the filibuster....especially Sinema. They will go down in history for their obstruction of the Democratic agenda, right alongside McConnell. Manchin is in the most pro-Trump state in the country but Sinema has no excuses. She needs to be primaried and defeated.
Mostly in agreement here but no, Manchin wasn't and isn't doing the will of his constituents, Trump country or not, so I can't even give him that. Virtually everything of significance he's opposed in the Senate he has opposed in contradiction to the will of his voters (COVID support, min wage, voting rights act, etc). He too needs to eat a primary, and his popularity has fallen off as a direct result of his unrepresentative, anti-democratic votation (meanwhile he's telling his donors to try to bribe Roy Blunt with a post-political appointment).
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
20,929
Reaction score
7,890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So what issues of importance to you do NOT also affect African-Americans? Anything?

You don't understand the difference between "affect African-Americans far more" and "affect Africans the same or at all"?

Unless your argument is that there is no difference between "progressive" and "conservative"...or "socialist" and "fasicst"....since everyone is against the US being blown up by nuclear weapons.

You seriously didn't understand my point? I wasn't arguing that they're the same because they both oppose nuclear war. I was showing that agreeing on some issue doesn't make them the same, to rebut YOUR argument that if they both agree on an issue such as student debt, they're equally progressives!

I keep asking you guys to give me your personal definitions of "progressive", but you keep deflecting in favor of silly stuff like the above. So is the real point here that "progressive" is whatever (and whomever) you decide? Clearly, it's not about policy positions. Clearly, it's not simply about money or corporatism. Every time I address an issue, you guys move on to another.

I'm not feeling it's worthwhile to spend much time on a definition. I think I can go with 'how I define it' for now, but yes, it's primarily about issues, which is a reflection of values and a world view. As I've said many times, I think the single most important issue facing the US is plutocracy, and that it should be for progressives.
I said PATRIOTIC Americans. Modern Gopers have no real allegiance to their country or the Constitution. They are a white-nationalist, pseudo-Christian movement with no real agenda other than maintaining the power to perpetuate white-nationalism and pseudo-Christianity.

We agree they're not patriotic Americans. My point was that you said the debate among patriotic Americans is how much regulation, and I wanted to point out that not everyone taking part in that debate are patriotic Americans. The debate is mostly between two sides, one of which are those unpatriotic Republicans.
 
Top Bottom