Jesus fucking Christ you people are exhausting.
The feeling is mutual.
This is TCP report level corruption and it‘s mind-numbing that you keep pretending it has any significance. The scandals you all cling to in order to swallow Russian and GOP narratives is that *gasp* people support candidates who contribute to the party and form coalitions within their political networks and *bigger gasp* don’t put in the extra effort for people who sabotage the party, do nothing to help others, and refuse to join it. Stop the fucking presses. The DNC did not then (and does not now) have the power to sabotage a campaign and it’s embarrassing that you feckless morons (1) don’t know that and (2) keep pretending it does to fulfill your fantasies of having some big bad Dems to fight. Sanders was not sabotaged by the DNC. Sanders made himself a non-starter because he ignored the black vote, dismissed their importance in the South, and made a number of huge missteps with their concerns he‘s done little to correct since. He has only 20% support of the black vote now and he’s been running continuously since 2016. The DNC didn’t do that. He did. And while polls since have shown black voters will accept him if they have to (I know pragmatism is a dirty word for y’all, but you’ll take it when it benefits you, I’ll bet) the only enthusiastic support he has is within younger demographics which are less numerous and traditionally do not turn out to vote.
For someone who is so certain that vague Russian memes about racist issues had a significant and/or decisive influence on the electorate, you are very dismissive of the very harmonious way that the media blacked out coverage on him and gave far more negative coverage. There are very obvious ties between a lot of people in the media and the party leadership. That MSNBC, the so-called left channel, had and even now has more negative coverage of Sanders (and also Gabbard and Yang) than Fox is telling.
I'm not going to blame the lack of black support wholly on this. He was not widely known, being from a small state. But he was starting to draw immense rallies and they didnt' cover it from the start. He had more work to do and couldn't ride on the fact that he fought for civil rights in the 60s, too. Something other people can't credibly say that they did. The reparations smear against him is funny, because most of the people lobbing that smear don't believe in it either. Yeah, that "pragmatism."
I pointed all of this out when I was still supporting Sanders before he went full chaos agent grifter, and you know it, so all your attempts to paint me as some Clinton-loving stooge are both deliberate lies and painfully stupid. The only difference between my views and education levels between 2016 and now is I’ve stopped giving any space in my head to white dudebro media and their fauxgressive left counterparts. Now I focus more on getting my information from boots-on-the-ground activists and organizers who get shit done. Spoiler alert: these are largely black women and other WOC who drive Dem engagement. But please keep posting your Ken Vogel articles and acting like you’re the one with the greater understanding lol.
You mean you listen to the people too busy measuring drapes instead of getting Clinton out to Wisconsin and Michigan? The people who holed her up for weeks doing fundraisers in late August/September instead of getting out among the people? The people who just assumed that Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were a given, a "blue wall"? The people who were party to the loss of 1000 seats at the state and local level over the course of the last decade? Yeah, those are the people to listen to!
This "chaos agent grifter" thing is trash. He pushed her to the left on a number of issues, that, without them, may have ended up costing her the popular vote as well. And when he went out to stump for her, he went guns blazing and endured the humiliation and rebuke of his supporters. That part is conveniently forgotten.
The *actual* modern rigging has been going on by the GOP since 2000
I have said this before, that GOP voter suppression had more effect on the race than vague Russian memes.
and is now being aided by Putin without the GOP or Sanders giving much of a fuck.
The GOP obviously does not care, but saying Sanders doesn't care is just a lie.
But the collective Mommy issues of the people who hate Clinton turned that narrative into the old white dude with no accomplishments being the real victim. Not that black voters rejected him. Not that he doesn't bother to even act like he gives a shit about racial or gendered justice. Nope. The fact that Dems want to elect other Dems is the *real* evil. Meanwhile, the fact that Bernie rigs (and has for years rigged) his own elections with the Dem party by y’all’s definition to hold his own seat flies over your fucking heads. Because you’re the enlightened ones. Saints wept.
Ah, the "no accomplishment" theme. Yeah, there's emails showing that narrative, too.
It's not "mommy issues" why people didn't vote for her. She was a deeply flawed candidate and she lost. She came with decades of baggage that she never successfully fought off, and that brief period when she was popular as Secretary of State was only a rebuke to Obama. I remember seeing Republican friends in my feed saying how they wished she won the primary once Obama was in office. I voted for her, and though I did it with no enthusiasm I cried on election night when I saw the results. I don't hate her, but that doesn't mean that I trust her or like her very much or have "mommy issues" to explain that.
He's rigged his own elections? You mean, played by the stupid rules the party and the state allows? I'm sure he didn't wipe voter rolls or send out racist memes. Yeahhhh, no.
The "real enemy" to progress is the people under the control of the money. That happens to include a significant part of the Democratic establishment. If you think that people love the Democratic Party, you should think again. They need to stop smelling their own farts and realize that platitudes and bromides and flimsy tax credits are not going to cut it. People say they are moderate but on the issues, they want meaningful change. 2008 was a change election and so was 2016. How else do you think we got a black guy with an Arabic-sounding name and little experience into office, and then an orange reality star charlatan? Why would people be crazy enough to give the system a middle finger like that not once, but twice? It's not "dudebro media." Your friends need to figure that out and react accordingly.
As for Tulsi: again, I don't think anyone here is going to vote for her. And she's said/done some things that raise some eyebrows lately, things that don't help her and I am not going to defend her there. But the main smears, I didn't let go.
1, regarding the LGBTQ issue which she got past and apologized for, and has a sterling voting record for, I wouldn't let that go unchallenged. That is an unfair criticism to me. Whether or not other people would want to forgive is a different issue, some people won't. But I think that there should be room for people to grow and evolve. Most everyone else up there aside from Sanders was against gay marriage at a time when he was advocating for gay people. Biden certainly wasn't for gay marriage in the 80s, and Warren was a Republican. I'm glad they came around, but to single Tulsi out on this issue is trash. She's much younger and made the turn at a much earlier point in life than those people, but she's smeared and made a pariah for being raised in a conservative household? Nah, that doesn't fly.
2, regarding Syria. This "Assad toady" smear is just bollocks. The conversation on this subject is so deranged, that so-called leftists and liberals are being tricked into supporting eternal war just astounds me. It makes the opposition to Iraq look like a partisan exercise. Using diplomacy instead of bombs is considered isolationist and helps the Russians, even though there is no military solution to the problems in the Middle East. That's inane.
A second whistleblower is out now saying that the OPCW Douma investigation was compromised. I can't believe that asking for evidence on that particular issue before launching military strikes is something that is controversial.
Nancy Pelosi met with Assad and got a warm welcome. Lots of photos out there of them being chummy and having a delightful exchange. Why isn't she being called an Assad toady? Because she did it when Bush was president?
3, the "Russian asset" thing. Or "Republican asset" since she had to walk it back, even though "the nesting doll fits." She's said multiple times, long before this smear came out, that she wouldn't run third-party. Despite the fact that this is a democracy and she's entitled to do that, she has said that she would not. But the media tools keep putting those smears out! It's only helping her. She's up to 9% in some of the early state polling. Whichever Democratic strategist thought that smearing someone who at the time was so low in the polls was a good idea ought to be fired. But hey, it works with the party faithful, so they have a lock on those people. Way to cover your base.
Your friends and the DNC's friends in the media are just making payback hell for Tulsi for stepping down from the DNC and supporting Sanders. Van Jones got that right.
