No, you’re not, or you would not have posted even that dismissive response. The dissent troubles you, disturbs you, frightens you. The fact that not everybody to the left of the Pubs is falling in line behind HRC galls you. And not, I am quite certain, because you fear it will cost Clinton the election, you know it won’t; it runs deeper than that.
Because Cruz would have some real notion of how to get things done in Washington.
I have said before that I don’t want this attitude to infect people who are up and coming into the political scene. That part does concern me. But the fact that entrenched, hardcore lefties disdain mainstream Democrats and vote Green? No, I really don’t care, honest. Actually, I wish they would just stick with the Greens and not interfere with Democratic politics.
Perhaps because it bears too strong a resemblance to other posts for which you have been warned.
Why in the world should that concern you? Unless by “this attitude” you do not mean “progressive” but “intransigent and obstructive.” But, no, you mean “progressive.”
There is a party to go to for people who feel that other Democrats are too far to the left.
You don’t sound like a democrat to me. You’re a non-progressive democrat? It’s disappointing to hear a D calling out “lefties” as an epithet.
Yes. Thank you.
In Slacker’s defense, you have to look at it relatively. He’s talking about people who are pretty much at the left extreme relative to him (and most everyone else). I don’t particularly see that as an epithet.
Realistically, if they want to have any significant impact at all, they have to stay as D’s. Or move to Europe? 
I kid…
That’s not true. In fact, most of what Sanders is advocating is what the majority of Americans want. They are not leftist extremist ideas.
At the same time, some of Slacker’s views are outside the Democratic mainstream. What percentage of Democrats are military interventionists? Are against overturning Citizen’s United?
No, I mean an attitude that is holier-than-thou, makes the perfect the enemy of the good, and defames good center-left public servants as though they are dishonest, unscrupulous, corrupt, and only pretend to be at all progressive while they actually slavishly serve corporate masters.
Coincidentally, I just responded to a similar accusation in a Pit thread. So I’ll just quote myself:
Last I looked, total agreement isn’t a requirement for membership. Matter of fact, that’s what the Dems are supposed to be about anyway…the party of inclusion.
What’s that got to do with this? Clinton, while I wouldn’t call her corrupt, does slavishly serve corporate masters and does not even pretend very hard to be progressive.
I was responding to your positioning of alleged left extremist views.
If the Dems are a party of inclusion, why is Slacker so determined to exclude people he doesn’t agree with from the party? Their views are not incompatible with Democratic principles, and in fact more closely align with Democratic principles than some of Slacker’s views.
I’d put people refusing to vote for the Dem candidate and following a democratic socialist/social democrat/however he’s classified sounds pretty far left to me. He articulates some populist positions, but looking at his history it’s hard to put Bernie anywhere else.
Anyway, let me not speak for Slacker anymore… 
Denouncing most elected Democrats–and all party officials–as corporate stooges is “not incompatible”? Interesting outlook.
One may also point out that there are parties for people who think that Democrats are too far to the right. Just because they tend not to be successful doesn’t mean they don’t exist (also may cause some of those folks to think about how many people can they really count on in a Progressive Purity Test Party?)
If you’re suggesting that “My Party, Right or Wrong” is the correct outlook, you are definitely in the wrong party.
Bear in mind that Clinton is no more “the Dem candidate” than Sanders is. Once the nomination is made, and if Clinton gets it, then I’ll agree that refusing to vote for her in favor of some leftist independent (who will not be Sanders) is pretty far left. But for now, preferring Sanders to Clinton is not.
How exactly is that not a Democratic Party outlook? Democratic machine politics have existed much longer than Republican machine politics.
In the right sort of districts, it wouldn’t be that risky. The problem is that Green Republicans like Ralph Nader willfully refuse to grasp the fundamentals of our electoral system. Nor do they meaningfully push for proportional representation, where they might actually have a say. So it’s likely that we’d see primary challengers in swing districts because of insufficient savvy on the part of some progressives. The good news is that there are a lot of progressives like Bernie Sanders who understand politics.
Well, it’s getting near or past time to bring this shindig to a close. I recommended to a friend that she vote Sanders in mid March. I’m not sure that recommendation would extend to mid April. By June, I say rally around the flag and stomp on Trump/Cruz.
I’m rather unconcerned about SlackerInc or even camille. The Democrats would be center-right in Europe after all. Ditto in Canada/Australia. It’s not surprising that the Party of Science, Reason and Neurotypicality would have unwieldy coalition partners. A lot of us might be a lot happier if we could secure our own party labels in a coalition government, but the system isn’t set up that way.
Donald Trump has announced his foreign policy team and they are rather fringy folks. He hasn’t met with any of them for a briefing: Trump remains appallingly ignorant. Ted Cruz has a real foreign policy team, but they are pretty extreme. National security commentator Fred Kaplan: [INDENT] Anyone who hires Franklin Gaffney for his advice, as Cruz did (along with three of Gaffney’s think tank associates), should have his head examined. When Gaffney worked in the Pentagon during the Reagan presidency, he proved so hawkish and conspiratorial about the Russians—far outflanking his mentor, Richard Perle, on the right—he was booted out, his possessions boxed up by security. When the Cold War ended, Gaffney shifted his paranoia to Islam and now routinely rants that one-fifth of American Muslims support the use of violence to establish sharia law.
The intellectual on Cruz’s team, Elliott Abrams, the most fervent neocon in George W. Bush’s White House, seems moderate by comparison because he believes that most Muslims—here and in the rest of the world—are not radical and need to be courted, not rounded up, in the fight against extremism.
Cruz seems to be siding with Gaffney. [/INDENT] Whose foreign policy is scarier, Ted Cruz’s or Donald Trump’s?
It’s a very good thing if those in positions of responsibility have a grip on empirical reality. Because otherwise empirical reality has a way of biting you on the ass.