Home / General / #StupidestPresidentEver tries to box clever

#StupidestPresidentEver tries to box clever

Comments
/
/
/
822 Views

SAD!

TrumpPerez

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • brad

    I want a filter for Trump tweets that reduces him to his core.

    “Hey! Look at me! I’m an asshole!”

    • Nobdy

      “Nothing and nobody will ever fill the emotional hole my dad left in me, and I’m forever lashing out.”

      The Donald Trump story.

      If only there was some kind of adhesive he could use to glue the edges of the hole together and bottle his negative emotions up, like in a bladder…

      • muddy

        Personally I think it was his mother and not his father. He doesn’t try to emulate bald Daddy, but if you look at the hairdo his mother sported it is clear that he dearly wants to emulate her.

        • Morbo

          Maybe, but the way he wears his tie tells me his father never loved him taught him the right way to tie one.

      • rhino

        That emotional hole has obviously been filled.

        By an inexhaustible reservoir of hateful bullshit.

      • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

        Narcissism has one cure, and it isn’t pretty.

    • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

      My Election Night mantra was basically, “this country is full of assholes.” Since then I’ve pulled back my perspective and realized that every 4-8 years, they get really pissed at not having an asshole in charge, and work to nominate the biggest smelliest asshole they can find. And every 8-12 years they convince their sister or BIL to vote for the asshole and he wins.

      • Davis X. Machina

        Let’s look at this charitably. I remember when JFK was president. Every Catholic in this country was bursting with pride. One of our own had climbed the greasy pole to the top. Pictures of him everywhere, in stores and parlors all over Southie and Dorchester. The nuns were floating a hands-breadth off the ground (and it wasn’t Sally Field, neither).

        That’s what Trump is like, except for assholes.

        • The Dark God of Time

          When my parents got married 6 decades ago, my fathers’ Texas family was more concerned that she was Catholic than she was also part-Chinese. When I came along, my grandmother would take me to Sunday Mass when I would be staying with her. I like to think she was probably a bit surprised we didn’t burst into flames the first time around.

        • NewishLawyer

          I know people whose grandparents still have photos of JFK in their parlors. JFK and Jesus, right next to each other.

          • john fremont

            Yep. I remember talking to an Australian who grew up near Melbourne in the 1960’s. He said all of the families there from his Catholic parish had pictures of Pope John XXIII and JFK up on the walls at home. He told me “You Yanks didn’t realize how much that meant to have an Irish Catholic become the US President.”

            • muddy

              My mom would tell a story about when I was 3, and when she asked who was in heaven I said, “Desus, Pope Don and Pesiden Tennedy.” She made out like it was an amazing pronouncement, out of the mouth of babes such truth will flow.

              I think the fact that I was being asked at 3 who was in heaven showed I’d been well propagandized on this front. :)

          • Dennis Orphen

            I want one of these. Every home should have one. Poker game’s over, dogs.

            • muddy

              I have a Persian carpet that has the image of Kennedy knotted in in blues. It’s quite realistic, altho a little broad faced.

              eta: similar to this (https://www.etsy.com/listing/229720575/on-sale-15-off-14-x-18-46cm-x-54cm-hand)

            • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

              Why not both – Democratic Presidents playing poker?

              http://www.andythomas.com/true-blues.aspx

              This was hanging in a shop window near my house and my jaw just about hit the sidewalk. The painter has done a whole series.

              • Obama would clean up in that game, then Hillary would come down stairs and bust it up

              • Scott Lemieux

                Do you live in Troy? The gallery near the farmer’s market has this, and I am gravely disappointed that no reader has ordered a custom edition without Jackson and Wilson for me.

              • Abbey Bartlet

                I believe I have done that as a jigsaw puzzle.

          • Breadbaker

            I’ve noted this before, but when a whole mess of Mass. longtime pols ran for Tip O’Neill’s seat and earnest political commentators suggested newcomer Joseph Kennedy III had no chance against the experienced and better-known officials, I simply remembered all the photos of his uncle still up in bars all over the district and laughed. Who won again?

      • wengler

        I think this is a clearly established part of American identity. We are not a country that is incrementalist. We are the ‘get rich or die trying’ country. And part of that is fucking shit up.

        Remember when Obama started talking about ‘destroying and degrading’ ISIS? It was then that I knew the vicious stupidity on the right was just waiting to burst out. They don’t want smart strategy. They want dominance. Trump talking about looting the country he conquers? They are hoping it’s true.

        It’s one of the fundamental promises of this country. The point of existence is to get as much shit as possible and dominant those that tried to take your toys from you. You know like the blacks, the Communists, the Jews(aka Communists), the government, British primogeniture laws, the Mexicans, feminists and the Satanist Mohammedians.

        • BiloSagdiyev

          Actually, King Ronnie really figured it out — his base doesn’t want long, protracted real wars, they want Wiffle Bat Wars. (Grenada, and then, under Bush the Elder, sending F-117’s down the coast of Mexico to take a left turn in Panama and drop some 500 lb. bombs a half mile from the PDF barracks to demoralize them.))

          They would be perfectly content with the same level of drone strikes and SOCOM raids in Yemen, the Philpines, western Pakistan, and all sorts of places they don’t know about because the White House isn’t thumping its chest bellowing about it all. They want the theater and the bragging, so they can feel like they are part of mighty nation U S and A.

  • Nobdy

    Why are there scarequotes around “rigged”?

    • dsidhe

      I think he does that when he thinks he’s quoting himself.

    • StellaB

      Because he wanted to point out that the Clinton/Perez team doesn’t do a rigging job that’s nearly as yuge and classy as the Putin/Trump team.

    • Joe_JP

      Yes. Shouldn’t there be like “TM” or something?

      Didn’t he trademark it yet?

    • Davis

      Misuse of quotation marks drives me crazy.

      • (((Malaclypse)))

        I think you mean “crazy.”

        • Warren Terra

          You “think” so, do you?

          • los

            He meant misuse «quotation marks».
            He definitely meant some kind of abuse of «quotation marks».
            I’m certain he meant repetitiously snobbish globalist elite overuse of «quotation marks».
            It’s the type of sin that political insiders commit while jetting across the «flyover Atlantic Ocean» and «flyover Western Europe» to meet Vladimir Putin.

        • Dennis Orphen

          Cray-cray‘.

      • Dennis Orphen

        Has anyone ‘here’ visited the ‘blog of unnecessary quotation marks‘?

        • Howlin Wolfe

          I have, now. I think quotation marks suffer much more abuse than apostrophe ‘s.

          • Dennis Orphen

            For sure, Chet. For instance, the house mentioned above could ‘belong’ to the The Smith Family, hence ‘The Smith’s (home’.

            And this whole its vs. it’s. Its confusing. Or is it it’s confusing? Don’t bother answering me. I can google. Or bing even. That’s how I knew your real first name. Which I should not have forgotten, but at least I knew enough not to call you ‘McKinley’.

            • Howlin’ ‘McKinley”, Howlin” “McKinley,’ who”ll come a-howlin” ‘McKinley’ with me?

              • lizzie

                + a billabong

      • tsam

        How about “apostrophe’s”?

        • Dennis Orphen

          Watch out where those huskies go, Tsam.

    • Hogan

      “Fresh” Produce

      “Authentic” Mexican Food

      Big “Sale” Today–Great “Savings”

      • Davis X. Machina

        “Authentic” Mexican Food

        When even the authenticity is spurious…

        • Dennis Orphen

          There oughtta be such a thing as an authentic west coast hipster/hippie/cowboy/surfer. Then I can put all the sprouts and edamame on my ‘burritos’ (insert horrified and shocked and repulsed face here) that I want, and some Matouk’s Calypso Sauce too.

        • los

          It is “authentically” real “authentical” Canadian, when you taste the mold it accumulated while tunneling under the big beautiful wall.

      • PohranicniStraze

        I hear “Trump” Tower serves the “best”, most “authentic” “taco” “bowls” around.

        • los

          Trumpe Towere Grille serves the best “torts”.

          • Dennis Orphen

            I can serve tarts, if anyone is interested.

      • Davis

        Oy, don’t remind me. Or this: Try our “famous” apple pie. Or a house sign: The Smith’s. I think what annoys me is that the superfluous and incorrect punctuation requires effort.

        • vic rattlehead

          He’s a “legitimate” businessman.

          His “hands” are yuuge

          • Cheap Wino

            He’ll hire only the “best” people.

          • los

            And wears only the bigliest thickliest “glove”.

          • los

                  ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫

            “He’s wants the ******* and the ***** in his hands.
            He’s got the teensiest and the weensiest in his pants.
            He’s got the slimiest and the clammiest of any hands.
            He’s got the whole Tic Tac in his hands.”

            “All together now, but this time with more viagra!”

                  ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫   ♫

      • sharonT

        Oh, that’s the El Paso brand, in the freezer case…

        Oh, you typed, “Authentic.”

  • Harkov311

    It’s so cute how he pretends he would have been so happy with Ellison.

    Sadly though, some Busters will continue to believe that only conspiracy could possibly be in the way of everything they want.

    • True, and telling them (or anyone who claims there was rigging) to stop parroting tRump will be good for a few laughs.

      • permafrost

        They’ll just stamp their tiny feet and threaten to lose more elections.

        • TVTray

          Well, the Dems have been losing a lot of elections lately. Perhaps you should listen to them!

          • Dennis Orphen

            Last time I checked, the (state) house always wins in the end.

            P.S.: Thanks again for the band name, strain name and porn star name (as T.V. Trey). There aren’t many ‘hat tricks’ there. Hacks ‘copy’. Artists ‘steal’ (I stole that).

          • Little Chak

            Actually, since your faction is so into blackmailing as a tactic, I think I’ll take it up:

            If the Democrats nominate someone you approve of for President, I will leave the party, and vote for a third party.

            There. You happy, now? I can play the “I’m an authoritarian who wants it my way or the highway” game, too.

            (Just kidding. I’m actually smarter and more mature than a fifth grader, and I’d rather a liberal with whom I have serious policy and priority differences be elected than a Republican.)

            • TVTray

              Something tells me you won’t actually do that!

            • ColBatGuano

              Right. They’re not a jackhole.

    • Hercules Mulligan

      Of course, when Trump did tweet some sarcastic “admiration” of Ellison the other day, the moral equivalent of Busters (Peter Daou, etc) decided it was proof of Ellison’s flaws.

      • DrDick

        Sadly, too many both sides in this rivalry refuse to let it go (including some here). The primary is over and Clinton won. The general is over and Clinton lost. There is nothing to be gained by refighting these battles now or demonizing the other side.

        • Incontinentia Buttocks

          I think there are underlying divisions within the party that both last year’s primary and this DNC race reflected. And we shouldn’t be surprised by that. Big national parties always have factions. And both open presidential primaries and the state of being totally out of power (as the Democrats find themselves at the moment) encourage jockying for power among them.

        • Tom in BK

          Ehh, I dunno. If the Busters all leave the Democratic Party I don’t really see it as a loss. Better to focus on rallying all the people that Ellison and Perez want to get involved.

          Edit: which is why I’d have been happy with either one of them.

          • DrDick

            If the Busters all leave the Democratic Party I don’t really see it as a loss.

            That is frankly stupid. We cannot afford to alienate a significant of people who would otherwise vote Democratic. They are no worse than the Clinton supporters who continually demonize Sanders’ supporters and blame them for her loss.

            • Tom in BK

              This is Busters, not Bernie supporters writ large. That is, the folks who went from Bernie to Trump/Stein/Johnson.

              • efgoldman

                Good clarification; you got there first. I’d add: Or folks that stayed home, or wrote in Wilmer or some other non-candidate.

                • los

                  Fred was born in Canader, and Bang Bang is too young! Give it up, busters!

              • Exactly: Bernie or Busters put personal pique and affiliation with their chosen standard bearer over country and voted third party, or stayed at home. If I, as a person who votes Democratic and supported the nominee of the party in which I voted in the primary, choose to see these people as a danger to the country why is that a problem? I never withhold my vote against the Republican party, in all its avatars, because I didn’t get exactly the right flavor of Democratic candidate. And I never would. Why should I applaud, admire, or refuse to reproach the sliver of assholes who came and squatted in my party, pretended to fight for the nomination, and then rejected the eventual nominee?

                • Hob

                  Actual comment from a FB friend-of-a-friend: “Choosing anyone but Bernie is a horrible idea.”

                  The topic of that comment was the election for chair of the Democratic National Committee.

                  Yeah, that sure is a voter who’s paying attention and will be valuable to our coalition in the future……

              • DrDick

                They are no different from the Clinton supporters who continue demonize Sanders’ supporters and blame them for losing the election. They are all idiots who need to STFU.

                • I don’t see much blame of Sanders supporters in general, but I have seen suggestions that the faux-leftist purity trolls who kept attacking Clinton from the left after she had the nomination all sewn up might have contributed to depressing turnout among traditionally Democratic constituencies. Of course, #NotAllSandersSupporters (I myself supported Sanders in the primary), but I have seen little evidence to refute this hypothesis, and quite a bit to suggest that said attacks may have had an impact on the returns. Not as much as Comey or the media’s dishonest hackery in general, but given how narrow the margin was in several crucial swing states, it doesn’t take a large impact to have swung the election anyway.

              • Redwood Rhiadra

                Unfortunately, if the Busters leave the party, a significant number of leftist folks who *did* (reluctantly) vote for Clinton in the general will leave with them.

                And that would be a disaster.

                • Tom in BK

                  Again, I dunno. There’s certainly a vocal minority of Busters who pretend to be political activists (and who clearly only got involved this cycle), but if we can retain the Obama/Hillary coalition, and improve voter turnout, there’s no way we ever lose another national election.

                  edit: minus the fuckery Rs will engage in to suppress voting rights.

                • DrDick

                  I know some of those who are seriously thinking about it.

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  I know some of those who are seriously thinking about it.

                  Fuckwads.

      • nemdam

        Not only is Peter Daou not a “Buster”, I have not seen one person outside of Haim Saban and Alan Dershowitz say they have a problem with Ellison. Many obviously have expressed a preference for Perez over Ellison, but no Perez supporter I have read says they don’t like Ellison. In fact, Perez received universal praise that his first act was to name Ellison as deputy chair!

        This race only became a thing because the purity left decided Ellison was their champion and that Perez was the “establishment” choice. They are driving this division, they will continue to drive this division, and they should be fought at every turn because they do nothing to help the party. For goodness sake, even Trump knows they are bad for Democrats which is why he sent the above tweets!

        • Yeah, if the tiny-fingered, Cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing shitgibbon is publicly agreeing with you, you should probably rethink whether what you’re doing is actually helpful for the political cause you claim to be supporting.

    • DrDick

      There are definitely some folks on my Facebook feed feeling that way, even some who gritted their teeth and voted for Clinton in the general.

      • Incontinentia Buttocks

        I strongly supported Ellison and felt that Perez was the wrong guy for the job being supported by the wrong forces in the party. But the whole “that’s it…I’m done with the Democrats!” line is absurd. Some of the folks saying this are upset Dems and I’ve been trying to talk the ones I know off the ledge. But a lot of folks saying this are Stein-supporting trolls, who are best shunned and ignored.

        • DocAmazing

          My experience with my own political friends is similar to yours: “Perez is a good guy with bad supporters”.

        • DrDick

          I generally supported Ellison for a variety of reasons, but am perfectly happy with Perez. The folks in my feed are about evenly divided on their votes in the general.

        • efgoldman

          felt that Perez was the wrong guy for the job

          Perez is the right guy. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference in policy, but Perez showed at DOL that he’s a really good administrator, and that’s a huge part of the job.

      • Dennis Orphen

        I wonder what those people would think if there wasn’t a paid army of internet sock puppet trolls ‘confirming’ their biases. There’s a multiplier effect.

        In fascist Amerikkka, troll feeds you!

        • Prezackly. Perez is a great candidate and I don’t care if he does have some supporters that the purity police don’t like. The Democrats need every potential voter and donor too to fight back to the state houses and the white house. The solution–to keep Ellison in the house, where he is quite valuable, and also have him team with Perez, is fantastic. The people who are still whining about this do not have the best interests of the country at heart. They don’t understand how coalitions are built or what the work is really going to look like. They still think that if you get the exact right person and he says the exact right words and pisses off someone you hate that *magic* happens. Well, it doesn’t. We are going to need a lot of people to win back the white house. Not just one magic person who symbolizes whatever to some assholes.

          • efgoldman

            The people who are still whining about this do not have the best interests of the country at heart. They don’t understand how coalitions are built or what the work is really going to look like.

            As some of us old, boring farts said over and over during the primaries: They don’t do “politics”: they don’t know what it is and how it works. They are the left end counterpart to the RWNJ dead-enders who don’t do “government” and don’t understand how IT works.

            • Cheap Wino

              The tip-off being insistence that Obama and the dems sold out because no single payer. Anybody who believes this doesn’t understand how politics works.

              The right has their ‘tax cuts generate revenue’, the left has ‘anything but single payer is a corporate sellout’. Both bear no relationship to reality but animate the ignorant and stupid.

              • rhino

                Anything but single payer IS a corporate sellout.

                But the only way you can have anything in America is by selling out to corporations. That’s the unfortunate reality.

                Don’t ask why the ACA was a corporate gravy train. Ask why nothing else is politically possible. Much has to change before the USA starts giving more of a fuck about citizens than shareholders.

                • Dennis Orphen

                  We could make the citizens the same as the shareholders. I’ve always preferred
                  Andersen Windows to Overton Windows. But that’s socialism, which I hear is bad, although like most everything I hear (this blog excepted) no evidence or logical arguments are ever given.

                • One of my primary changes to the state of the world, if I were given dictatorial powers over it, would be to immediately turn control of all corporations over to their workers. My second would be to institute a mandatory universal basic income that would enable all citizens to afford the cost of living without working, my third would be to require access to birth control, abortion, and education across the planet for anyone who wanted it, and my fourth would be to end the drug war. I honestly would be fairly tempted to step down after that, because I do tend to believe power tends to corrupt (hence my overall anarchist inclinations), but I would fear that that someone else would step into the vacuum afterwards and screw things up, so I’d probably just stay in place as a hands-off Vetinari-type figure to make sure things ran as smoothly as possible, while also searching for someone of like mind and (hopefully) incorruptibility to appoint as a replacement in case something were to happen to me. Or I might just spend the rest of my life working on developing an AI to serve as a benevolent counterpart of Samaritan from Person of Interest (because recent events have convinced me that Decima had the right idea overall, but simply went about instituting it in an unnecessarily authoritarian and destructive manner).

                  Of course, none of this will ever happen, but basically, what I’m saying is that I completely agree that citizens should be the shareholders, and the fact that they aren’t is one of the fundamental injustices of our economy, and probably the root of most of the others.

                • Oh, and of course I left out “turn all authoritarian countries into democracies” out of that list, but that pretty much counts as waving a magic wand and I don’t have a simple answer on how to accomplish that. Hence the AI, I guess. If we’re waving a magic wand we might as well dissolve all authoritarian institutions period and turn the world into a benevolent libertarian socialist paradise.

                • Also, too, something about global warming and the environment. Really I’d probably just give managing education over to Diane Ravitch and the environment over to Bill McKibben, because they know way more about what makes those things work than I do.

              • los

                Cheap Wino says:

                tax cuts generate revenue

                Every year, you should gladly hand over 80k of your hard-earned tax dollars to the Koch brothers, and thank them for giving you a job!!!
                Remember, you weren’t never hired by no poor person!!

            • los

              efgoldman says:

              don’t understand how IT works.

              They don’t realize that Trump didn’t just babble nonsense over and over a lot at a bunch of “rallies”. The FSB “put in” a lot of unseen effort and very very very under-appreciated work.

              Real politics isn’t all just glamor and VX nerve agent, ya know!

          • Dennis Orphen

            The solution–to keep Ellison in the house, where he is quite valuable, and also have him team with Perez, is fantastic

            Yes, indeed. Inclusiveness and Cooperation are core Democratic values. The other side is all about hierarchy and authoritarianism, at best. It gets worse from there.

          • Abbey Bartlet

            Perez is a great candidate and I don’t care if he does have some supporters that the purity police don’t like.

            Said purity police would be screaming their heads off about Friend of Wall Street Chuck Schumer if he had supported Perez.

            • Dennis Orphen

              Hi, ‘Abbey’. Welcome back. How were your mimosas this morning?

              Everybody seems to hate Wall Street but want a 401k plan. Make up your minds people. Seriously.

              Bonus: A song for you, from the late great Clarence Carter. I used to the album it’s from on 8 track, and kept a player connected to my stereo system for years, just so I could listen to ‘Loneliness and Temptation.

              • Hogan

                Everybody seems to hate Wall Street but want a 401k plan.

                Everybody wants a secure retirement, and the options for that have been systematically reduced, largely by Wall Street. It’s not really a contradiction.

                • Dennis Orphen

                  A 401k plan is a secure retirement…..for the person managing your money.

              • tsam

                We hate Wall Street because that’s where all the pension money went.

        • Hob

          I don’t think it takes an army. I’ve got a lot of friends who fell pretty hard for the Perez=Satan thing (a few have since gotten over it… but only a few) and almost without exception, what they cited in support of their opinion was 1. that Glenn Greenwald article and 2. that New Republic article that Greenwald referred to. I mean, I’m sure it also makes a difference that a lot of their friends are writing the same stuff and reinforcing it, but those people aren’t trolls or sock puppets.

          • Dennis Orphen

            So Greenwald has some more stripes on his shoulders and medals on his chest, and a higher pay grade. Same diff.

            Also, while it may not take an army, warfare theory generally states that an attacker should have about 4 times the numbers of the defender if you want to have a reasonable chance of success.

          • EliHawk

            Given that the author of that New Republic article thinks Nomiki Konst and the Young Turks are the best source of info on the DNC race, that says everything about how terrible it is.

            • Q.E.Dumbass

              I haven’t watched a The Young Turks since the 2012 election, but:MICHAEL TRACEY.

  • cpinva

    on the plus side, when he’s spending time engaging in this idiocy, he isn’t doing something actually damaging to the country and world. small favors. very small, tiny almost.

    • NBarnes

      As small as a set of tiny fingers poking at a greasy Android screen.

    • The Great God Pan

      Wasn’t there a poll showing that a (slim) majority of Trump voters thought his Twitter account should be taken away from him?

      His tweets do more to harm him than help him. I think they’re more than a tiny favor.

      • vic rattlehead

        I’m trying to imagine how much more entertaining other administrations would have been with Twitter. Can you imagine Nixon with twitter? Of course he’d have enough sense to stay off it…except when he got hammered towards the end. Good lord a blasted Nixon ranting about blacks and Jews on twitter.

        Or Andrew Jackson “just beat the shit out of some prick with my hickory rod. Exhilarating!”

        • Dennis Orphen

          If Nixon were alive and in full posession of his faculties today, I like to think he would be here at LGM under a nym (like, oh I don’t know, Mr. Bartlett, or something, mostly on Sundays from the late summer to winter, where he would drunkenly argue football with Denverite. A boy can dream, can’t he?

          • I would definitely enjoy arguing politics with a shitfaced Nixon and am now disappointed that we lack the ability to do this. (I don’t know enough about football to argue about it, sadly.)

  • The fact that he puts quotation marks around the word “rigged” suggests maybe even he is aware that it’s utter bullshit.

    • N__B

      Hahahahaha.

      No.

    • Warren Terra

      Betting on Trump being aware of anything seems unwise.

  • Bitter Scribe

    President Fluke can preen and sneer all he likes. He’ll be out in four.

    • But in prison for life…

    • Q.E.Dumbass

      One, at most two.

      • efgoldman

        One, at most two.

        Lives?

        • Q.E.Dumbass

          Years.

          • los

            As the results of klepto legislation begins stomping hard on WWC, GOP plan to have President Pence pardon Trump to a convalescent home.

            The MSM will blame the mess on Trump’s senility and will “urge Bipartisan Cooperation with the Pence administration’s Wise Leadership to Carry the Nation Through this Troubled Time.”

            Shortly before RNC Cleveland, the GOP probably worked out retirement deals (with contingencies) with Bannon, Kushner, the Juniors, Ivanka, Mercer, Mnuchin, DeVos, Flynn…

            (“Voting rights? What you think this is 2002 now?”)

      • vic rattlehead

        I see we have an optimist. What does the oracle known as Karen24 think?

  • Cheap Wino

    #StupidesPresidentEver

    Thanks, Shakezula!

  • Cheap Wino

    I’ll bet Trump thought he was being oh so devilishly clever. The Venn diagram of the intersection between Republican and Humor is still vanishingly small.

    • Hogan

      Homer’s Brain: Use reverse psychology.

      Homer: Oh, that sounds too complicated.

      Homer’s Brain: Okay, don’t use reverse psychology.

      Homer: Okay, I will.

  • funny how the Ellison-or-bust whingers are unbothered by being so blatantly pro-Trump …

  • vic rattlehead

    I bet he thought this was really smart. Can’t blame him, the rigged bullshit was a nice talking point for him during the election. Anyway, being a purity prick means never taking yes for an answer. At this point I’m just embarrassed to admit I voted for Sanders in the primary.

    • I could not vote, but if I could have I would have voted for Bernie (my wife did). I’m not embarrassed by that in the least, but as early as a year ago I had became painfully aware of the fact that many of those who were most vocal in supporting Sanders were not the sort of people I wanted as my allies, and this is even more true today. I prefer to think though, that those people were, and are, a noisy minority.

      • Right, it’s like 2008. The vast majority of Clinton supporters weren’t PUMA/Clinton or Busters (thank God) and no-one with any sense would conflate the average Clinton supporter with the PUMA types.

        • nemdam

          The difference from 2008 is that the PUMAs basically shut up after the convention and they didn’t keep finding excuses to relitigate the primary after the election. Compared to the purity left, the PUMAs are a model of good behavior.

          • At this point I think the label “purity left” is too generous to them. They aren’t actually doing anything constructive to move the country leftwards; their politics are mostly based on spite and resentment, which, ironically, makes them little different from shitgibbon supporters. But yes, the PUMAs are a model of good behaviour in comparison.

            • Abbey Bartlet

              The difference from 2008 is that the PUMAs basically shut up after the convention and they didn’t keep finding excuses to relitigate the primary after the election. Compared to the purity left, the PUMAs are a model of good behavior.

              It helped that the person the PUMAs wanted gave them an actual concession speech and cut off the roll call and never attacked the legitimacy of the party and/or process.

              • nemdam

                Why, it’s almost as if a candidate can police the behavior of its worst supporters!

                I forgot to add the PUMAs also didn’t become Hillary’s delegates in any meaningful number and attempt to boo Obama’s acceptance speech. How terrible do you have to be to do that?

                • The Bernouts also booed John Lewis, if memory serves. If you’re opposing John Lewis, that’s a likely sign that you’re objectively wrong.

            • nemdam

              I stopped saying BernieBros cause that term just pointlessly sidetracks into a discussion about which Bernie supporters are BernieBros, blah, blah, blah. So I say “purity left” instead because for those it applies, they demand every politician fully meet each arbitrary standard they set or else they claimm they won’t join the party. In essence they want to purify the party. And they apply their purity to the left wing party, so they think they are representing the left.

              But I should probably use shitgibbon supporters instead. Whatever they are called, I do know they aren’t doing a damn thing to advance any agenda you could even vaguely call left wing and if anything are just stopping it.

              • TVTray

                Keep us updated on the cutting-edge nomenclature, nemdam!

          • Not really. A chunk of them went full-on wingnut and became Palin boosters, but a lot of them ended up as firebaggers and advocated against the ACA.

            • Porlock Junior

              Thanks for this. Really, has everybody else forgotten the firebaggers?

              (It pays, I keep telling myself, to hang on and read the thread before jumping in, because somebody has probably done it better already; pretty soon I’ll believe myself. My reply would have been less cogent: mostly what Homer said when Marge reminded him that he had enjoyed Rashomon.)

            • rachelmap

              Ah yes, the firebaggers. I wonder what their stance on “kill the bill” is these days.

              • I just saw one of those “5 years ago” photos on my facebook feed of a ‘kill the bill’ protester. Memories.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      o hell, don’t be sorry you supported Sanders. A long time ago this thing took on a life of its own transcending both Sanders and Clinton

      what it reminds me of more than anything else is a Donald Westlake short story http://www.donaldwestlake.com/starship-hopeful/dont-you-know-theres-a-war-on/

      (politics is really making me question why I’m online at all these days but being able to get hold of things like this makes the internet bill worthwhile)

      • Dennis Orphen

        Knowing that there are good, decent people like yourself out there in middle-america makes my internet bill worthwhile. Of course, my internet bill is effectively zero, for perfectly legal and legitimate reasons which I can discuss, if anyone cares to ask me.

        • vic rattlehead

          I second this sentiment. jim you are not just some guy, you are a class act in Iowa!

          • jim, some guy in iowa

            you guys are way way too kind- it works both ways though

      • tsam

        I can’t stand berniebros, but there’s no shame in supporting Sanders. Don’t let the bros paint Sanders with that garbage

  • Like they always say — with Republicans, it’s always projection. Which suggests that Trump and his gang would be fooled by a similar gambit. And that means it’s never been more important for Obama, Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Pajama Boy to plead with Republicans not to throw themselves into wood chippers.

    • Q.E.Dumbass

      Pajama Boy?

      • The Great God Pan

        A name given by right-wingers to a young, bespectacled, pajama-clad, cocoa-drinking hipster depicted in some pro-ACA ad from 2013.

        Republicans were absolutely enraged by the sight of the guy, and he instantly became an emblem for everything they hate about liberals (young, “effeminate,” possibly Jewish). As recently as December, Seb Gorka tweeted that Trump’s election means the age of Pajama Boy is over and the alpha males are back in control.

        • Harkov311

          Oh Jesus, Gorka is one of those guys who buys into that whole alpha bullshit?

          He’s even worse than I thought, then, amazingly.

          • Dennis Orphen

            ‘You’ve Got Alpha Male!’

            Go ahead and steal it. I’ve gotten a good 20 years of use out of it and really need to move on.

          • Little Chak

            NPR piece on Gorka (YouTube)

            (@ 0:37: “The era of the Pajama Boy is over January 20th, and the alpha males are back!”)

    • vic rattlehead

      it’s always projection

      Exactly. Or as I like to say-every accusation is a confession.

      • Dennis Orphen

        I google “‘every accusation is a confession'” (in qoutes, Pro-Tip: Use ‘logical operators’ in your searches when necessary) and only received 11 results.

        Excellent work Vic. A+.

        • vic rattlehead

          Heh. I’m sure someone’s said it before but I am flattered. Unless you’re mocking me in which case SCREW YOU PRICK. Just kidding.

          • Dennis Orphen

            Not mocking at all. Pithy and truthful slogans are hard to find. It has only been used 11 times, possibly by the same person a few of those. Good work. Everyone should use it. ‘Always Projection’ is starting to get a few miles on the odometer.

            Oh by the way, the internet tradition here is (or should be) ‘Go Fuck Yourself’, in honor of this blogs favorite TV show (favorite that is, until you mooks pick up on Peaky Blinders).

            • vic rattlehead

              Please use it. Spread it far and wide. It’s one of the sharpest observations someone made about Republicans and let’s update it (was it Pierce who first said it’s always projection? I forget).

              Never seen Peaky Blinders, but people keep telling me to watch.

  • feebog

    The second tweet is neither clever or funny. As usual, he mistakes crassness for humor.

  • Dennis Orphen

    ‘Your arms fingers are too short to box with pickpocket God The FSM!”

  • Owlbear1

    Yeah it is becoming very clear the Republican party is in collusion with Russia. From Putinfluffer’s constant bragging that Russian interference won him the election to CPAC this past weekend.

    “The way he has people killed who talk shit about his business skills? So manly.”

    “No talk, just march in and start killing. That’s how to run a country!”

    • efgoldman

      “No talk, just march in and start killing. That’s how to run a country!”

      But if Citrus Cankersore were ever actually in the same room with real blood being shed, he’d toss his last three Big Macs and run away screaming.
      Pootie-Kazootie, on the other hand….

      • Dennis Orphen

        He’d toss those Big Macs quicker than you can say (here goes, from memory, no digital aids):

        Two all beef patties lettuce cheese pickles special sauce on a sesame seed bun!

        How did I do? Did I forget onions? No onions is a dealbreaker for me.

        • President Putinfluffer

          Your “special sauce” is in the wrong place.

          • Dennis Orphen

            Figuratively and literally, I’m certain. I’m not sure how I get to a ‘hat trick’ from there.

        • randy khan

          Two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese pickles onions on a sesame seed bun.

      • President Putinfluffer

        Actually, Vlad never has to use either hand.

        • Dennis Orphen

          …just a glance and a bro nod……

      • Porlock Junior

        [ETA: supposed to be a reply to efgoldman and Pootie-Kazootie.][Shheeesh, why did it lose this ETA?

        I love the name! So very Forties, I think, and I have a certain nostalgia for the first decade I experienced. I suspect you could identify with the reaction.

  • nemdam

    I just want to warn people that this is only the latest battle in endlessly relitigating the primaries. The purity left has taken this personally, they have declared the leadership of the Democratic party the enemy, and they will absolutely find another cause to use to relentlessly attack the Democrats. The faster we understand this, and the quicker we unite to keep these people away from the party, the better equipped we will be to fight Trump as it is easier to fight on one instead of two fronts.

    • Dennis Orphen

      Which is why exactly why I think the purity left is a big sock puppet army, with a few BernieBxxxers receiving a health dose of confirmation bias, and probably a bias towards ideas the same sock puppet army planted in the first place.

    • Sure, but I’m not convinced that an Ellison win would have made a difference. Either he would have done something that they considered a betrayal or they’d find something else to shout about.

      • This.

        I mean, the folks who are moaning about this are the same who’ve been moaning about how awful the Democratic Party is forever. I have my own criticisms of the party, but it is because I have an understanding of its systemic problems and limitations I know full well that Ellison becoming the DNC chair would not have magically transformed the party. Those who do not understand this would have been disillusioned with Ellison soon enough.

      • Harkov311

        I agree. The personality of the sort of person who becomes a Buster is the sort which, in a sick sort of way, likes feeling wronged and betrayed. It makes them feel more righteous and pure, I suppose.

        The tell is that they complain more about their fellow liberals than about anything conservatives are doing. This is a pretty good indicator that they either don’t realize how bad conservatives really are, or that this is just a tribe affiliation to them, void of any substance otherwise.

        • Brien Jackson

          The bigger tell is that as progressives ideas get more and more accepted through the Democratic coalition, they make the parameters smaller and smaller for what constitutes tribal affiliation…so that they can keep feeling as though they’ve lost and been wronged.

      • nemdam

        Agree 100%. To the tiny extent I cared, I wanted Perez to win just to shut these people up. But then a commenter pointed out that they will turn on Ellison right after he wins and find something new to bitch about because that’s what they do. So in terms of dealing with the purity left, it didn’t matter who won because they will keep throwing a tantrum regardless.

        • Too your point however – Yes, it is important to remember these people exist and despite the repeated insistence that Democrats are Rotten & Corrupt, they aren’t going away.

          • They do exist, but I suspect most of them aren’t even Americans, and that an awful lot of the ones who are will actually turn out to be on Moscow’s payroll. Taking our direction from them is neither productive nor actually constructive to leftist or liberal goals. They aren’t interested in liberalism or leftism; they’re interested in conflict and resentment. Full stop.

            e: wait, I may be misunderstanding whom you mean by “they”. I was referring to the faux-leftist purity trolls, obviously.

    • TVTray

      Actually, it was the leadership of the Democratic party who declared the activist wing the enemy! Otherwise Perez would have never ran!

      • Because Ellison would have totally transformed the Dems into a socialist party, and so had to be stopped?

        Caricatural politics is worse than useless.

        • NoMoreAltCenter

          If the Purity Left is willing to settle for a very minor symbolic victory, are they still the Purity Left?

          • A very minor symbolic victory like having Perez appoint Ellison as his deputy? That kind of very minor symbolic victory? Because all of the faux-leftist purity trolls absolutely refuse to acknowledge that this even happened.

            • NoMoreAltCenter

              I mean, it happened. And it speaks to the friendship between the two men, sure.

              • Perez was under absolutely no obligation to appoint Ellison as his deputy. The fact that he did so despite the vitriol with which some who purport to be on the left were attacking speaks to a level of benevolence and willingness to put the party’s interests above himself that frankly, I’m not certain I would have possessed in his position. The fact that many people are unwilling to acknowledge this without being prompted says rather a lot about them, I feel.

                There is no meaningful ideological difference between the two men, and both seem to be clearly dedicated to improving the Democratic Party and helping it win elections again. So the question for people still arguing about this is: do you want to work on improving the Democratic Party, which is the only meaningful political party opposing the Republican Party in this country right now, or do you want to keep arguing about a primary contest that is already over and that ended with both its primary contestants in places of senior leadership within the organisation? Because I know which option is objectively more sensible, and it’s not the one an awful lot of posters here have been following.

                You can focus on nursing your grievances with the Democratic Party, or you can help resist fascism. If you’re focusing on your grievances, you aren’t contributing to resisting fascism. I suppose it’s possible to do both at once, but many of the people still complaining about the primary haven’t posted much, if anything, suggesting that they’re actually constructive participants in the struggle against fascism. This is a point in history that is going to show a lot of people’s true colours: are they more interested in continuing to relitigate a primary election that ended more than half a year ago, or are they interested in helping stop the overreaches of an administration that has already announced its intention to ethnically cleanse the country? I feel a number of commenters here need to do a significant amount of self-examination right now. The reason I’m even engaging with you at all is because, unlike a few of our other trolls, you actually have participated in discussions that weren’t directly about intra-Democratic Party politics (e.g., the punching Nazis debate). But this is a crucial point in history where posterity is going to ask a lot of people what they did. I suspect an awful lot of people may end up looking back on their actions now with regret.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “You can focus on nursing your grievances with the Democratic Party, or you can help resist fascism.”

                  What you deliberately do not seem to understand is that resisting fascism cannot be done by electing more center-Leftists across the country, and if it can, then that means that it is not fascism we are fighting.

                  “This is a point in history that is going to show a lot of people’s true colours: are they more interested in continuing to relitigate a primary election that ended more than half a year ago”

                  It seems completely insane to me that, in the course of this “conversation” on LGM, no one has meaningfully acknowledged that Perez entered the race specifically because the Obama White House wanted to keep Ellison out. The “battle” wasn’t started by the Left. Pointing out the basic dynamics of what just happened is treated as Purity Leftism because people are insane.

                  ” If you’re focusing on your grievances, you aren’t contributing to resisting fascism.”

                  Nonsense. The ineffectiveness of the Democratic Party is a massive reason that the so called “fascists” have achieved power in this country. Think structurally instead of in a partisan way. Any critique of the Democratic Party that can move it left in a productive way will be helpful in the future in reducing the reactionary tenor of the opposition in this country.

                  People who want the Social Democratic Left to abandon the field in favor of a unity dominated by Centrists who have no intention of doing the same in intra-party struggles are being disingenuous.

                • What you deliberately do not seem to understand is that resisting fascism cannot be done by electing more center-Leftists across the country, and if it can, then that means that it is not fascism we are fighting.

                  It absolutely can be resisted by putting centre-leftists in charge across the country, unless you think that there is no meaningful distinction between centre-leftists who have no desire to ethnically cleanse the country, acknowledge queer rights, and aren’t openly antisemitic, and Republicans who want to ethnically cleanse the country and are openly hostile to queer people and openly antisemitic. And if that’s the case, then you are not an ally of mine, and all your posturing as a leftist means nothing.

                  I would prefer to have leftists in charge, but last year’s returns suggest that they are not capable of being elected in this country right now. Feingold isn’t even a leftist and ran well behind Clinton in WI. Teachout might charitably be described as a leftist, but also floundered. We’re stuck with the centre-left until the country moves further left, and the centre-left is still vastly superior to Republicans to anyone with half a functioning brain. Luckily, when the Baby Boomers die out, maybe the people who weren’t raised in the era of the Red Scare will be open to electing leftists. But that’s not going to happen if our country’s democracy gets destroyed first. That is a very real threat right now, and posturing like this does nothing to help avert it.

                  It seems completely insane to me that, in the course of this “conversation” on LGM, no one has meaningfully acknowledged that Perez entered the race specifically because the Obama White House wanted to keep Ellison out. The “battle” wasn’t started by the Left. Pointing out the basic dynamics of what just happened is treated as Purity Leftism because people are insane.

                  The possibility that the White House may have wanted Perez to run the vast bureaucracy of the DNC which will have a major role in fighting voter suppression because he has experience running the vast bureaucracy of the DOL and fighting voter suppression appears to have escaped you. In other words, it’s possible that the encouragement was based on qualifications, and not political positions. You have provided absolutely zero evidence that the two men’s political stances differ in any meaningful way, and the fact that they are working closely together even as we speak now suggests the opposite.

                  Nonsense. The ineffectiveness of the Democratic Party is a massive reason that the so called “fascists” have achieved power in this country. Think structurally instead of in a partisan way. Any critique of the Democratic Party that can move it left in a productive way will be helpful in the future in reducing the reactionary tenor of the opposition in this country.

                  People who want the Social Democratic Left to abandon the field in favor of a unity dominated by Centrists who have no intention of doing the same in intra-party struggles are being disingenuous.

                  Where is the evidence of an appetite for openly leftist policies? Because from what I see, politicians to a certain degree past a certain degree left of the Overton window routinely lose elections except in certain areas like Seattle and Vermont.

                  There are a lot of reasons we lost the last election. Comey, the media, Russia, and vote suppression all had their part to play, but the roar of attacks on Clinton from faux-leftists also undoubtedly didn’t help; natural Democratic constituencies were depressed in turnout and while some of that was a result of vote suppression, some of it may have been a result of “they’re all corrupt, so why bother”, which is not a message that helps our side. The Democrats are an imperfect party, but they are far superior to Republicans in every possible way.

                  You still haven’t actually provided any meaningful suggestions for how to resist fascism beyond “run more candidates I’m willing to vote for”. This isn’t about you. This is about millions of people whose rights are under siege right now, and the next election is still forty-seven months away. You can keep carping that the country isn’t as far left as you like, or you can actually take constructive steps to drag it left. But I’ve got news for you: What you’re doing now is having the exact opposite of the effect you purport to want it to have; it is doing nothing to help resist Republicans.

                  On the other hand, this is the first thing I’ve seen you post in months that hasn’t been a dull one-liner, so progress, I guess?

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “It absolutely can be resisted by putting centre-leftists in charge across the country”

                  What you are describing is fighting reactionary, activist social conservatism, not fascism. Fascism is a different animal.

                  “The possibility that the White House may have wanted Perez to run the vast bureaucracy of the DNC which will have a major role in fighting voter suppression because he has experience running the vast bureaucracy of the DOL and fighting voter suppression appears to have escaped you.”

                  It is pretty clear, given that the Dem donor base sent out letters smearing Ellison as a black radical and anti-semite, that that was at best a minor factor if one at all in what happened.

                  “Where is the evidence of an appetite for openly leftist policies?”

                  I am not sure there is an appetite for “openly leftist policies” per se, but I believe that there is an appetite for the effects those policies would have once you get past people viewing the Dem/Rep split through their own preconceived political identity.

                  ” but the roar of attacks on Clinton from faux-leftists also undoubtedly didn’t help”

                  Seems more assumed than proven. I doubt Black turnout was depressed because they thought Clinton was corrupt.

                  “You still haven’t actually provided any meaningful suggestions for how to resist fascism”

                  Actual fascism is resisted through working class unity, organization, and force of arms. Period.

                  “You can keep carping that the country isn’t as far left as you like, or you can actually take constructive steps to drag it left.”

                  The insane thing is – that is exactly the goal of the “Purity Leftists” everyone here derides.

                • What you are describing is fighting reactionary, activist social conservatism, not fascism. Fascism is a different animal.

                  Ethnic cleansing and overt antisemitism have nothing to do with fascism. Thus spake NoMoreAltCenter.

                  It is pretty clear, given that the Dem donor base sent out letters smearing Ellison as a black radical and anti-semite, that that was at best a minor factor if one at all in what happened.

                  I really don’t care what the motivations of the Dem donor base were. Their actions were odious, but my concerns are for what benefits the party going forward. Putting a solid left-liberal with experience running a vast bureaucracy and fighting for voter rights and having Ellison serve as his deputy does not strike me as the sort of thing that is going to destroy it. There are certainly people still carping about it, but I see no reason to believe most of these people were ever meaningful, productive members of the Democratic coalition, nor that they ever will be.

                  I am not sure there is an appetite for “openly leftist policies” per se, but I believe that there is an appetite for the effects those policies would have once you get past people viewing the Dem/Rep split through their own preconceived political identity.

                  Perhaps there is, but you have yet to provide a blueprint for how this would be accomplished. What you are proposing right now is roughly like the Underpants Gnomes’ guide to profit.

                  Step 1. Run leftist candidates.
                  Step 2. ?
                  Step 3. America becomes a socialist paradise!

                  There are steps missing. If you can get leftist policies enacted, sure, they’ll be very difficult to dismantle. The ACA was initially unpopular, but it turns out voters don’t want most of its provisions repealed. This can be repeated, but first we have to elect officials willing to do it. You haven’t provided a single concrete suggestion for how to get there.

                  Seems more assumed than proven. I doubt Black turnout was depressed because they thought Clinton was corrupt.

                  First of all, African-Americans weren’t the only core Democratic constituency with a notably reduced turnout; this happened across the board. Some of it in African-Americans’ case can be attributed to the fact that the first black president was no longer on the ballot, and more of it perhaps can be attributed to voter suppression, but that also doesn’t explain the diminished enthusiasm from Democratic voters across the board. There were no doubt multiple causes for this – the Comey letters almost certainly didn’t help either. But dismissing the possibility that faux-leftist attacks of the sort Obama never got could possibly have had an effect is unreasonable. The number of voters who would need to have been persuaded to stay at home or vote third-party in three crucial states is five digits’ worth, and I might note that third parties alone got more of those votes than the margin of victory in those states, and if memory serves, the number of Sanders write-ins in either MI or WI alone was also larger than the shitgibbon’s margin of “victory”. Dismissing the possibility that faux-left attacks on Clinton could have had an effect on these results is simply not being objective.

                  Actual fascism is resisted through working class unity, organization, and force of arms. Period.

                  I don’t see you posting anything about how to accomplish those things. Just a lot of slogans. Feel free to prove me wrong going forward.

                  The insane thing is – that is exactly the goal of the “Purity Leftists” everyone here derides.

                  If that’s their goal, then they are hilariously inept at it. I am probably to the left of all but a few people at this blog, if not all of them, but I also recognise the need to work with people to bring them over to my side. That’s not going to happen by shouting slogans. You have to build coalitions and convince people that you have constructive answers. In other words, the normal, dirty day-to-day business of politics. The unwillingness of so many people who posture as leftists to engage in the actual business of politics may be one reason the left in this country has withered on the vine.

                • Fascism was defeated last time primarily by center-left and authoritarian left regimes. And in both Italy and Germany, disunity of the left and center-left provided a massive opening for the fascists to exploit centrists and monarchists to gain power.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “Ethnic cleansing and overt antisemitism have nothing to do with fascism. Thus spake NoMoreAltCenter.”

                  Cause neither of those things have ever been enacted under “normal” Right wing governments.

                  “I really don’t care what the motivations of the Dem donor base were. Their actions were odious”

                  It was wrong, but Leftists are bad to complain about it, iow.

                  “Dismissing the possibility that faux-left attacks on Clinton could have had an effect on these results is simply not being objective.”

                  You don’t get to assert the thing you are meant to prove.

                  “I don’t see you posting anything about how to accomplish those things. Just a lot of slogans. Feel free to prove me wrong going forward.”

                  Everything I posted is actionable.

                  But, even beyond that, the very nature of our voting system makes electing Leftists in the Bernie mold possible. This election cycle proved that – if you can get someone to the Left to the general election with a D next to their name they have a VERY serious chance of becoming President.

                  “If that’s their goal, then they are hilariously inept at it.”

                  If getting elected is the goal, Dems are hilariously inept at it.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “Fascism was defeated last time primarily by center-left and authoritarian left regimes.”

                  It was defeated primarily by Soviet tanks and manpower.

                  But, more importantly, in countries where there was a Popular Front that defeated Fascism, that popular front didn’t take the form of the Left kowtowing endlessly to the Center-Left. It involved working together and mutual concessions. The Left should never concede its interests to further the goal of unity to the point that they are rubber stamping bourgeois politicians.

                • Cause neither of those things have ever been enacted under “normal” Right wing governments.

                  I’m pretty sure committing crimes against humanity disqualifies you from consideration as “normal”. The more you go on about this, the deeper a hole you’re digging yourself.

                  It was wrong, but Leftists are bad to complain about it, iow.

                  That… is not an accurate restatement of what I said. Feel free to attack the donors’ motivations; I don’t care. The party, however, is not equivalent to its donors. You are equating them.

                  You don’t get to assert the thing you are meant to prove.

                  It’s a good thing I didn’t assert that the attacks on Clinton definitely, inarguably depressed turnout then. One can’t provide inarguable proof for a counterfactual, because it’s a statement about something that didn’t happen. You chose to ignore all the circumstantial evidence I did provide suggesting that my speculation was likely, though. That doesn’t speak particularly well of your intellectual honesty.

                  Everything I posted is actionable.

                  You have a very strange definition of “actionable”.

                  But, even beyond that, the very nature of our voting system makes electing Leftists in the Bernie mold possible. This election cycle proved that – if you can get someone to the Left to the general election with a D next to their name they have a VERY serious chance of becoming President.

                  Facts not in evidence. The fact that Sanders performed well in early head-to-head polls matters little. There were reams of opposition research that the public never saw; Clinton barely attacked him because she didn’t want to upset his supporters, and the Republicans didn’t attack him much because they thought he would be an easier opponent to beat. None of this suggests to me that he would have had an easier time of it than Clinton in the general; he has barely ever faced serious political opposition in a head-to-head race and there is no sign that he would know how to handle it if he did.

                  This isn’t to say that I wouldn’t love for someone with Bernie’s political inclinations to be able to win an election. I just don’t see any sign that the country is ready for it yet. If it were, people who identify as socialists or at least as social democrats would be winning elections around the country. As it stands, these cases tend to be rare, and many of the Senate and gubernatorial candidates who ran to Clinton’s left ran behind her, while candidates such as Kander in AR and Cooper in NC who ran to her right ran ahead of her or, in Cooper’s case, even won. That, to me, suggests the opposite of the idea that the country is ready to elect someone like Sanders.

                  If getting elected is the goal, Dems are hilariously inept at it.

                  And yet nothing you’ve provided here is a clear path towards improving this. This “hilariously inept” party also won nearly three million more votes than its primary opposition in the last presidential race in conditions extremely unfavourable to the incumbent party, and was likely only stopped from winning more by unprecedented and illegal last-minute FBI ratfucking, unjustifiably hostile media coverage, foreign hacking, and an outdated, undemocratic system meant to favour white supremacy. The fact that you seem to accept the framing of this as legitimate rather than working to attack the unjustness of this arrangement says rather a lot about your priorities, I feel.

                  For a person to have a very serious chance at becoming president, they need to be able to win an election.

                  Well, yes. Sanders didn’t do that, at least not for president. Indeed, he ran four million votes behind Clinton. If he can’t even win a majority of Democratic voters, you need to provide a strong case that he would be able to do so for the rest of the country, and thus far, you haven’t begun to do so. I’ll accept that there were certain states where conditions were unfavourable to him, such as NY with its ridiculously early party registration date, but this seems to me balanced out by other states which had conditions more favourable to him, such as caucus states.

                  It was defeated primarily by Soviet tanks and manpower.

                  The United States under Roosevelt was a solidly centre-left country, despite indignations such as the internment of Japanese-Americans and the firebombing of Dresden.

                  But, more importantly, in countries where there was a Popular Front that defeated Fascism, that popular front didn’t take the form of the Left kowtowing endlessly to the Center-Left. It involved working together and mutual concessions. The Left should never concede its interests to further the goal of unity to the point that they are rubber stamping bourgeois politicians.

                  And yet it also didn’t involve the centre-left kowtowing to everything the left demanded either, yet it appears being asked to concede anything whatsoever is an act of grave indignation to you. The fact remains that the left’s refusal to work with the centre-left allowed fascists to take over Germany and Italy. There is a lesson to be learnt here, and many people still insist on not learning it.

                • It was defeated primarily by Soviet tanks and manpower.

                  There were two fronts, and the Germans would not have collapsed without pressure from the west. And I mentioned the Soviet Union.

                  But, even beyond that, the very nature of our voting system makes electing Leftists in the Bernie mold possible.

                  Bernie Sanders isn’t a leftist. But sure, let’s elect more people like him, I’m all for it. Pretending that this involves some sort of ideological compromise doesn’t help. Sanders is a New Deal Democrat. He is entirely within the historical mainstream of the party. Warren votes to his left and she is certainly not a leftist.

                  If Perez vs. Ellison was a proxy for Obama-Clinton vs. Warren-Sanders, it’s a factional struggle with multiple factors — personal loyalty, messaging, tactics, as well as ideology. But the ideological split there is between shades of center-left, not the center-left and the left. Casting it as a fundamental struggle between reformism and radicalism is a crucial error.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “There were two fronts, and the Germans would not have collapsed without pressure from the west.”

                  That is not the historical consensus.

                  “And I mentioned the Soviet Union.”

                  Germany was not defeated primarily by Center-Leftists and Leftists. It was defeated by a Communist nation with economic and minor military aid from a Conservative run Britain and Democratic US.

                  “Bernie Sanders isn’t a leftist.”

                  Depends on how strict one is on defining a Leftist. Sanders is best described as a Right Social Democrat.

                  “Sanders is a New Deal Democrat. He is entirely within the historical mainstream of the party.”

                  “Historical” in the sense of “past.” Not historical as in “continuing to this present day.”

                  “If Perez vs. Ellison was a proxy for Obama-Clinton vs. Warren-Sanders, it’s a factional struggle with multiple factors — personal loyalty, messaging, tactics, as well as ideology. But the ideological split there is between shades of center-left, not the center-left and the left. Casting it as a fundamental struggle between reformism and radicalism is a crucial error.”

                  I actually don’t disagree, but I fail to see the large point of this digression.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Center-leftists, of course, having done more to fight fascism in the last 100 years than ANYONE else.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Germany was not defeated primarily by Center-Leftists and Leftists. It was defeated by a Communist nation with economic and minor military aid from a Conservative run Britain and Democratic US.

                  This is utterly absurd. The Soviet army was eating American produced rations and marching in American made shoes, running supplies and moving troops in American manufactured trucks. A counterhistory where Britain makes peace with Hitler in 1940 and America never becomes involved is one in which the Soviet state is somewhat easily overrun by Germany’s vastly superior manufacturing capacity, engineering, and ability to supply its army.

              • NoMoreAltCenter

                “I’m pretty sure committing crimes against humanity disqualifies you from consideration as “normal”. The more you go on about this, the deeper a hole you’re digging yourself.”

                Ethnic cleansing and anti-semitism absolutely were “normal” on the Right for centuries in Europe. Your attempt to paint me as insensitive here is try-hard as hell.

                “The party, however, is not equivalent to its donors. You are equating them.”

                Wealthy political donors have more influence than anyone else on the politics of this country. Your argument here is really unconvincing.

                “Facts not in evidence. The fact that Sanders performed well in early head-to-head polls matters little.”

                I am not arguing that Bernie could have won the Primary (and for a group of people supposedly averse to relitigating it, you sure as hell have your talking points ready to go.) I am arguing that a Presidential candidate representing the Democrats who emerged from the Primaries and was solidly to the Left would have enough structural benefits in modern America that he would likely win the presidency. Trump is strong evidence towards this.

                “You have a very strange definition of “actionable”.”

                Not really. It is just that your entire vision of politics is marching and electing Democrats.

                ” The fact that you seem to accept the framing of this as legitimate rather than working to attack the unjustness of this arrangement says rather a lot about your priorities”

                Right, I am not willing to accept Dem apologetics that deny any place to blatant incompetence and that makes me a hater. The simple fact is that Hillary’s appeal as a candidate was supposed to be based, in large part, on her quiet competence. She was supposed to be electable.

                “The United States under Roosevelt was a solidly centre-left country, despite indignations such as the internment of Japanese-Americans and the firebombing of Dresden.”

                The US also was a minor player on the ground in terms of numbers engaged and casualties.

                “And yet it also didn’t involve the centre-left kowtowing to everything the left demanded either, yet it appears being asked to concede anything whatsoever is an act of grave indignation to you”

                Nonsense, considering this entire thread started as a discussion of how the “Purity Left” was willing to accept what most here would describe as a purely symbolic victory. Your arguments aren’t coherent – you are just shifting around and spitting wordy talking points.

                “There is a lesson to be learnt here, and many people still insist on not learning it.”

                If the lesson is “While Trump is President, criticizing the Dems is evil”, yeah, no. We aren’t gonna “learn” that.

                • Depends on how strict one is on defining a Leftist. Sanders is best described as a Right Social Democrat.

                  …which is a strange definition of a leftist. Sanders is solidly within the mainstream Democratic Party tradition, as are Elizabeth Warren, Keith Ellison, Tom Perez, and a number of other figures mentioned within this thread. Indeed, the political differences between them are largely trivial and probably undetectable to people who don’t obsessively follow politics. The Democratic Party has never been a leftist party; since Roosevelt’s time it has ranged from centrist or possibly centre-right at furthest right to solidly left-liberal at its furthest left (the New Deal, now).

                  “Historical” in the sense of “past.” Not historical as in “continuing to this present day.”

                  The only thing that makes him stand out from the left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party is his bizarre insistence upon calling himself a democratic socialist. His political stances fall within the same New Deal Democratic tradition that other figures on the left of the Democratic Party follow.

                  I actually don’t disagree, but I fail to see the large point of this digression.

                  The point is that this entire struggle is about optics and has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. Perez’ and Ellison’s politics are essentially identical, and one being in charge of the party rather than the other will have no noticeable effect on the ideological direction of the party, particularly since the former immediately appointed the latter as his deputy.

                  Ethnic cleansing and anti-semitism absolutely were “normal” on the Right for centuries in Europe. Your attempt to paint me as insensitive here is try-hard as hell.

                  Ah, yes, historical occurrences from another continent centuries in the past can certainly be used to describe “normal” politics in this country. Who’s exactly being a try-hard again? Trying to handwave away the overt threats others have been making against the lives of everyone sharing my ethnicity as “normal” is, in fact, the very definition of insensitivity.

                  Wealthy political donors have more influence than anyone else on the politics of this country. Your argument here is really unconvincing.

                  It’s a good thing I didn’t make the argument that political donors have no influence on the party then, or else you might have had a sliver of a point here. I said the donors are not equivalent to the party. Next time maybe try responding to that. Moreover, if the donors had that much influence over the party, then why exactly is the person they didn’t want in charge the deputy chair of the DNC?

                  I am not arguing that Bernie could have won the Primary (and for a group of people supposedly averse to relitigating it, you sure as hell have your talking points ready to go.) I am arguing that a Presidential candidate representing the Democrats who emerged from the Primaries and was solidly to the Left would have enough structural benefits in modern America that he would likely win the presidency. Trump is strong evidence towards this.

                  The election of a fascist is strong evidence that the Left can win a presidential election? Where do you come up with these strange ideas?

                  In any case, I agree that a candidate who had solid backing from the entire party would have a decent shot in an election. Which was not the case last year. I don’t believe it could be the case with any candidate of Sanders’ background, either. It is certainly possible that other candidates from the left of the party would be able to have a better chance.

                  Not really. It is just that your entire vision of politics is marching and electing Democrats.

                  That is far from my entire vision, which makes me wonder if you’ve even been reading my posts. If you have been, you certainly haven’t been absorbing the right lessons from them. A large part of the reason “marching” is important is not for the sheer power of the demonstration, although that is important, but because forging connections on the ground is important to political organising, and getting people together on the streets helps forge those connections. The right does this these days through churches and other similar institutions. The left used to have labour unions, but these have withered. Moreover, the purpose of this is not merely to turn people out to vote, but also to put pressure on elected officials (much as was successfully done to Clinton during the primary election cycle, something I’ve never seen any of her detractors ever her credit for) and generally influence the direction of the country’s politics.

                  There’s a lot more here, but I’m not going to summarise all of Zinn and Alinsky and the other important tacticians the left has had.

                  Right, I am not willing to accept Dem apologetics that deny any place to blatant incompetence and that makes me a hater. The simple fact is that Hillary’s appeal as a candidate was supposed to be based, in large part, on her quiet competence. She was supposed to be electable.

                  And, without the unprecedented historical intervention of the FBI two weeks before the election, all available evidence suggests that she would almost certainly have been elected. Because she did not count on a historically unprecedented event giving a significant advantage to her opponent, she was unable to plan her strategy accordingly.

                  Moreover, being able to run a successful campaign and being able to run a government successfully are two separate skill sets that do not necessarily fully overlap, or in some cases at all. George W. Bush was a highly skilled campaigner, but… not so successful at governing.

                  The US also was a minor player on the ground in terms of numbers engaged and casualties.

                  I’m fairly sure the forces on the ground at D-Day would take issue with this statement. In any case, stepped pyramids’ statement explicitly acknowledged the Soviets’ contribution, so this entire discussion is a diversion.

                  Nonsense, considering this entire thread started as a discussion of how the “Purity Left” was willing to accept what most here would describe as a purely symbolic victory. Your arguments aren’t coherent – you are just shifting around and spitting wordy talking points.

                  …and yet most of the pseudo-leftist purity trolls here are entirely refusing to acknowledge the fact that Ellison has been given significant influence in the party when they did not need to give him any influence at all, thereby entirely refuting what you’re saying.

                  If the lesson is “While Trump is President, criticizing the Dems is evil”, yeah, no. We aren’t gonna “learn” that.

                  That isn’t the lesson anyone is proposing. It is “While the shitgibbon is president, focusing on comparatively minor transgressions by the Democratic Party is counterproductive and destructive to one’s own political goals”. You can still try to influence the Democratic Party to a certain extent. This is not what most of the purity trolls have been doing. They contribute to no discussions whatsoever about the work of meaningful leftist political organising; they simply throw invective at the Democrats and have provided no useful commentary whatsoever on resisting Republicans.

                • Depends on how strict one is on defining a Leftist. Sanders is best described as a Right Social Democrat.

                  …which is a strange definition of a leftist. Sanders is solidly within the mainstream Democratic Party tradition, as are Elizabeth Warren, Keith Ellison, Tom Perez, and a number of other figures mentioned within this thread. Indeed, the political differences between them are largely trivial and probably undetectable to people who don’t obsessively follow politics. The Democratic Party has never been a leftist party; since Roosevelt’s time it has ranged from centrist or possibly centre-right at furthest right (the DLC years) to solidly left-liberal at its furthest left (specifically, the New Deal and now).

                  “Historical” in the sense of “past.” Not historical as in “continuing to this present day.”

                  The only thing that makes him stand out from the left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party is his bizarre insistence upon calling himself a democratic socialist. His political stances fall within the same New Deal Democratic tradition that other figures on the left of the Democratic Party follow.

                  I actually don’t disagree, but I fail to see the large point of this digression.

                  The point is that this entire struggle is about optics and has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. Perez’ and Ellison’s politics are essentially identical, and one being in charge of the party rather than the other will have no noticeable effect on the ideological direction of the party, particularly since the former immediately appointed the latter as his deputy.

                  Ethnic cleansing and anti-semitism absolutely were “normal” on the Right for centuries in Europe. Your attempt to paint me as insensitive here is try-hard as hell.

                  Ah, yes, historical occurrences from another continent centuries in the past can certainly be used to describe “normal” politics in this country. Who’s exactly being a try-hard again? Trying to handwave away the overt threats others have been making against the lives of everyone sharing my ethnicity as “normal” is, in fact, the very definition of insensitivity.

                  Wealthy political donors have more influence than anyone else on the politics of this country. Your argument here is really unconvincing.

                  It’s a good thing I didn’t make the argument that political donors have no influence on the party then, or else you might have had a sliver of a point here. I said the donors are not equivalent to the party. Next time maybe try responding to that. Moreover, if the donors had that much influence over the party, then why exactly is the person they didn’t want in charge the deputy chair of the DNC?

                  I am not arguing that Bernie could have won the Primary (and for a group of people supposedly averse to relitigating it, you sure as hell have your talking points ready to go.) I am arguing that a Presidential candidate representing the Democrats who emerged from the Primaries and was solidly to the Left would have enough structural benefits in modern America that he would likely win the presidency. Trump is strong evidence towards this.

                  The election of a fascist is strong evidence that the Left can win a presidential election? Where do you come up with these strange ideas?

                  In any case, I agree that a candidate who had solid backing from the entire party would have a decent shot in an election. Which was not the case last year. I don’t believe it could be the case with any candidate of Sanders’ background, either. It is certainly possible that other candidates from the left of the party would be able to have a better chance.

                  Not really. It is just that your entire vision of politics is marching and electing Democrats.

                  That is far from my entire vision, which makes me wonder if you’ve even been reading my posts. If you have been, you certainly haven’t been absorbing the right lessons from them. A large part of the reason “marching” is important is not for the sheer power of the demonstration, although that is important, but because forging connections on the ground is important to political organising, and getting people together on the streets helps forge those connections. The right does this these days through churches and other similar institutions. The left used to have labour unions, but these have withered. Moreover, the purpose of this is not merely to turn people out to vote, but also to put pressure on elected officials (much as was successfully done to Clinton during the primary election cycle, something I’ve never seen any of her detractors ever her credit for – politicians are rarely as directly responsive to the concerns of her constituents as she was, and yet faux-leftist purity trolls rarely if ever acknowledged this about her) and generally influence the direction of the country’s politics.

                  There’s a lot more here, but I’m not going to summarise all of Zinn and Alinsky and the many other important tacticians the left has had, particularly when Loomis alone regularly makes informative posts on this very topic on a routine basis.

                  Right, I am not willing to accept Dem apologetics that deny any place to blatant incompetence and that makes me a hater. The simple fact is that Hillary’s appeal as a candidate was supposed to be based, in large part, on her quiet competence. She was supposed to be electable.

                  And, without the unprecedented historical intervention of the FBI two weeks before the election, all available evidence suggests that she would almost certainly have been elected. Because she did not count on a historically unprecedented event giving a significant advantage to her opponent, she was unable to plan her strategy accordingly.

                  Moreover, being able to run a successful campaign and being able to run a government successfully are two separate skill sets that do not necessarily fully overlap, or in some cases at all. George W. Bush was a highly skilled campaigner, but… not so successful at governing.

                  The US also was a minor player on the ground in terms of numbers engaged and casualties.

                  I’m fairly sure the forces on the ground at D-Day would take issue with this statement. In any case, stepped pyramids’ statement explicitly acknowledged the Soviets’ contribution, so this entire discussion is a diversion.

                  Nonsense, considering this entire thread started as a discussion of how the “Purity Left” was willing to accept what most here would describe as a purely symbolic victory. Your arguments aren’t coherent – you are just shifting around and spitting wordy talking points.

                  …and yet most of the pseudo-leftist purity trolls here are entirely refusing to acknowledge the fact that Ellison has been given significant influence in the party when they did not need to give him any influence at all, thereby entirely refuting what you’re saying.

                  If the lesson is “While Trump is President, criticizing the Dems is evil”, yeah, no. We aren’t gonna “learn” that.

                  That isn’t the lesson anyone is proposing. It is “While the shitgibbon is president, focusing on comparatively minor transgressions by the Democratic Party is counterproductive and destructive to one’s own political goals”. You can still try to influence the Democratic Party to a certain extent. This is not what most of the purity trolls have been doing. They contribute to no discussions whatsoever about the work of meaningful leftist political organising; they simply throw invective at the Democrats and provide no useful commentary whatsoever on resisting Republicans.

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  In any case, I agree that a candidate who had solid backing from the entire party would have a decent shot in an election. Which was not the case last year. I don’t believe it could be the case with any candidate of Sanders’ background, either.

                  Certainly not the part of his background where he actively refuses to be a Democrat for several decades.

                  It’s quite clear he could have taken the D label and had virtually the same political career. He didn’t. Strangely enough, that hurt him as far as getting party support.

      • nemdam

        It’s weird how the activism of the activist wing of the party has never achieved anything.

        • TVTray

          Good lord nemdam, do you really mean that?

          • nemdam

            Maybe they’ve won a few local races and minor victories here and there. But the Democratic party, the opposition to the so called activist base, is the organization that has won all of the major liberal achievements in at least the last generation.

            But I’m a Russian member of the activist base will tell me why I’m wrong.

            • TVTray

              Gay marriage? Marijuana legalization?

            • TVTray

              Black Lives Matter? Fight for 15?

              • fatvalkilmer

                I’m a Sanders supporter and an activist, and I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about when you bring up the “activist wing” of the Democratic Party. It’s a meaningless phrase. Do you mean Sanders-style Democratic-Socialists?

                If you’re talking about Sanders’ cohort, it’s laughable to put credit for those things solely–or even primarily–in our camp. And even if you’re talking about a different group, it’s hugely reductive and condescending to put all of those achievements–especially BLM–under the banner of some ‘activist wing’. Based on my own experiences within those movements, I can assure you that they’re built out of folks that fit into the whole gamut of liberalism and leftism.

                Black Lives Matters’ successes, especially, are–frankly–not because of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, Keith Ellison, Tom Perez or Bernie Sanders, but in spite of them.

                And in spite of most of us.

                • Spoiler alert: TVTray doesn’t have any idea what he’s talking about either, and almost certainly has never actually done a single bit of political activism in his life.

        • tsam

          I don’t think you meant to say that the activists never achieved anything, right? That collective action is a LOUD speaker broadcasting popular support for change.

  • rhino

    I don’t understand why everyone is relitigating the primaries, rather than asking why the entire selection process produced a socialist who isn’t even a party member, the most disliked candidate in many years if not ever, and some guy who nobody could pick out of a lineup. And nobody else.

    • Abbey Bartlet

      #ChafeeWouldHaveWon

      • rhino

        Seems doubtful.

        • N__B

          I’m in favor of metrication and willing to argue about the topic until my booze runs out.

          • (((Malaclypse)))

            Postal Banking would have brought a landslide.

            • N__B

              I don’t have that much booze.

              • rhino

                Nobody does.

            • rhino

              It does seem like a good idea, though…

      • vic rattlehead

        #FeeltheChafe!

        • Dennis Orphen

          As a person who rides a century or so in the Sierra Foothills every couple of days, often dressed like Dennis Weaver as McCloud, I can say that I am definitely feeling the chafe. But we call it ‘the boon’ around these parts, and it’s a boon that nobody craves, believe you me.

    • rhino

      The purity assholes do have one point. The party establishment was shown to be dangerously incompetent and clueless throughout out primary and election.

      The fact that these idiots are even dumber and more out of touch with reality than their opponents notwithstanding.

      • Davis X. Machina

        The party establishment was shown to be dangerously incompetent and clueless throughout out primary and election.

        Hence the blowout…

        • TVTray

          Donald Trump is president!

        • rhino

          It’s Donald Trump. It shouldn’t have been possible to lose to him.

          I mean really.

          • Abbey Bartlet

            It’s Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and James Comey.

            • rhino

              Look, even so. Donald Trump was a goddamned dumpster fire. And please note that Comey’s trick doesn’t work on something without the same baggage.

              We needed better candidate, and we will need a better candidate by next election, because all the same shit is going to happen.

              The system needs to produce better candidates.

              • Brien Jackson

                You missed the part where the media turned John Kerry’s distinguished military service into a controversy, then?

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  You missed the part where the media turned John Kerry’s distinguished military service into a controversy, then?

                  We should have known they would do that, because of his baggage.

                • tsam

                  What baggage did Kerry have? Or was this sarcasm?

              • tsam

                There’s a few more problems here than out of touch elites–

                The media’s fascination with Donald Trump that didn’t turn into the requisite horror until they themselves were attacked by the fucker after he got elected,

                The fact that Republicans have no fucks to give about free and fair elections, the future of the nation, or pretty much anything besides permanent rule and getting richer than a Russian oligarch.

                Voter suppression is paying off for them big time

                Right media is still becoming more and more dominant

                A worldwide turn toward right wing authoritarianism that finds common cause with the worst kinds of people and empowers and emboldens them

                Again–the media’s constant pants shitting about ISIS and other right wing terror groups, and their complete inability to analyze right wing American terrorism as ISIS’s little American brother

                Hillary Clinton’s inability to campaign her way around 30 years of right wing zeitgeist surrounding her name, making her into some kind of anomaly among American politicians, and a FBI director that took a shot at her knees right before the election

                We have more work to do than bitching about Hillary Clinton’s negatives and the screaming about where our candidates and party officials lie on the political spectrum. The whole party is shifting left, and they’ll follow the electorate–so aim your “center-left is dumb” shit at the electorate. The politicians have to get elected before anything happens besides the train wreck unfolding now.

  • NoMoreAltCenter

    And the award for “Hive Mindiest Thread On LGM 2017” goes to:

    #StupidestPresidentEver tries to box clever

    • And the award for “Most Tedious Troll on LGM 2017” goes to:

      urd

      Shit, you’re going to have to try harder!

      • NoMoreAltCenter

        “In a world gone mad, telling the truth is trolling.”

        • There would have to be some actual content to your comments to be eligible to be “the truth”. Instead it’s just “hive mind fart fart fart”. You make mouth noises like you’re a leftist but there’s no substance behind them. If you’re not a troll, you’re just a radical-chic automaton.

          • NoMoreAltCenter

            That is a mean thing to say

            • And calling everyone here a “hive mind” isn’t? You sit here for weeks and weeks insulting everyone here and now you complain about getting the same in return? Give me a break.

              • NoMoreAltCenter

                Is there a better description for “I hate BernieBros!” “No, I hate them more!” “Not as much as I do!” “They are probably Russian agents!” ad nauseum for hundreds of posts?

                • That’s a puzzler. Why don’t you come back in a year or two and maybe I’ll have an answer for you then?

                • Cheap Wino

                  Either you’re a really smart paid troll or a really stupid ideologue. Both those possibilities earn you the rank of dumbshit PITA.

                  Either keep sucking money from whoever is giving your life a speck of meaning and move on or tire of your Sisyphusian effort to seek confirmation of your views idiocy and leave.

                • tsam

                  This is a hard headed ideologue

                • tsam

                  Defend yourself instead of ripping off cryptic, creepy one liners.

      • rhino

        They’re just sock puppets of each other, man.

    • Hogan

      Such the Trump fan you are!

      • NoMoreAltCenter

        You guys need better lines

  • Brien Jackson

    A thought on the Bernout problem: I think it’d do us well to drop the “re-litigating the primary” framework of thinking about this question. That’s part of it, but it’s larger than that. The Sanders campaign, for the Bernouts anyway, was just a particularly large battle in a fight that’s been ongoing since at least 2009. These are the same people shouting KILL THE BILL and DROOOOOOONES! and calling Obama a sellout for trading an extension of the Bush tax cuts for an extension of long term UE benefits in 2010 etc. What makes them difficult to deal with is that they don’t have a “normal” conception of political goals. To most of us activists, politics is about affecting policy change, and one way to do that is to move the center of gravity towards us. So from our persective, the left looks downright ascendant: The Sanders campaign was a huge step forward for left-populist concepts and rhetoric, as was the Clinton campaign on race, gender, LGBTQ rights, etc. The 2016 platform was the most progressive in history. The “establishment alternative” to Ellison’s supposed insurgency campaign was a very progressive and activist Secretary of Labor. For the moment, progressive/leftist ideas are about as heavily represented in the core of the Democratic Party as they’ve been in a looooooooong time.

    But this isn’t what Bernouts care about or how they view politics. Their intellectual brethren are reactionary conservative activists in the talk radio model, and their primary goal is their tribal domination of the Democratic coalition and nothing else. So it’s not a victory that “the establishment” has moved dramatically leftward and backed Perez for the DNC chair position…Perez becomes defined as a non-progressive to the Bernouts because he’s opposing the tribe. “Single payer uber alles” is just the flip side of Ted Cruz and Sean Hannity ranting about how Obamacare repeal is there IF REPUBLICANS WANT IT even though Obama was still President. I mean, these are people who didn’t count a massive expansion of Medicaid in the ACA as a “public option” for healthcare.

    You can see this in the pro-Ellison rhetoric they used. While Ellison was supposed to be a “unity” candidate, scratch a quarter inch below the surface and you can see that unity here means total acquiescence to the Bernouts demands, and anything short of that is further grounds more more screaming about the establishment and leaving the Democratic Party blah blah blah. This while the overwhelming consensus of just about everyone was that both Perez and Ellison were great candidates, and ultimately we were going to get one as chair and one as deputy chair regardless. That sure looks like unity to me!

    So yeah, Bernouts need to be beaten back and delegitimized as a form of progressivism because they’re toxic to the coalition, and toxic to progressivism itself. And that’s especially true of their iterations in lefty media like Greenwald & Co., Kilpatrick, Bruenig, etc.

    • Abbey Bartlet

      This is a v quality comment.

    • tsam

      This is a Fucking awesome comment.

      I suppose it’s worth noting at he hard right idealogues won their fight, didn’t they?

      • Abbey Bartlet

        But that’s easier for them, because of (a) the right’s authoritarian tendencies; (b) the right wing media bubble; and (c) probably something else that’s not coming to mind.

        • tsam

          Definitely–that same tactical toolbox might not work on the left. But then Bernie Sanders happened, so there’s been something happening.

      • Brien Jackson

        But the far right did it with the exact opposite strategy. When the GOP establishment moved towards them they welcomed it.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      “from our perspective the left looks downright ascendant”

      yes and no, it seems to me. I am never quite sure how much the line “the party is more left than ever” means when the party is only capable of being a boat anchor- if that- on the R majorities in Congress and the state legislatures

      a lot of the reason the left is ascendant within the party is because so many centrists/moderates got wiped out during the ’10 and 14 midterms. People like to say “you can’t beat a real republican with a fake republican” but that doesn’t hold up here- in the big picture of IA politics we aren’t *running* fake republicans

      maybe it’s just the natural cycle of things, that we’re in the trough after the 2008 wave- but there is *something* wrong with how the Ds do things. Look at Minnesota, where after five years of patting themselves on the back for how good they look compared to WI, the voters have given both houses of the state legislature to the Rs

      (don’t have time to make the well-thought-out reply Brien’s comment deserves, on the whole I agree but…)

It is main inner container footer text