Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

forjusticethunders

(1,151 posts)
65. The issue is less about Bernie
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 08:15 AM
Apr 2016

And more about the complete lack of organization that the left of this country has. Without Bernie Sanders, what the fuck is there? Just a gaping void. Bernie Sanders has had to cobble all this together, mostly by himself, because there was simply no organized movement for left-wing ideas until he showed up. There was nothing. Nada. Jackshit. And whose fault is that? The fact that Sanders is even still in a position to win at this point (even if it's like an 8% chance right now) is miraculous - but it also speaks to the fact that there is a vast untapped market for progressive ideas but no movement to harness it until now.

The left keeps looking to some messianic political figure to save them and then cries when it predictably doesn't work out. Even when the candidate does half the work for them (and politicians really shouldn't be in the business of building movements by themselves, they should be moved by the movement), it's still the same. Hell, you could probably build a SuperPAC off small donations to identify, promote and fund progressive candidates both as primary challengers against conservative Democrats but in races where Repubs run unopposed. Even if you can't elect a Kshama Sawant in Louisiana or Texas, running politicians like that nationwide changes the narrative, gets the foot in the door, and slowly moves the OW left. But the professional left in this country doesn't have the vision or the drive to get any of this done.

This is another great endorsement Gothmog Mar 2016 #1
Go Hillary!! n/t cosmicone Mar 2016 #2
Cue the "gays aren't real progressives anyway" attempt to throw them under the bus. CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #3
Post removed Post removed Mar 2016 #4
Your hatred of valid arguments shines through in your casual attempt to put words in my mouth. CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #7
"He couldn't have lost it without you" forjusticethunders Mar 2016 #58
I hope voters in the remaining primaries don't let anger overcome reason, I really do. CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #61
The issue is less about Bernie forjusticethunders Apr 2016 #65
Fair Wisconsin is a great organization. PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #5
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2016 #6
"most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate" PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #8
It was their PAC not the group or its members. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #11
Their PAC endorsed her, not the group. Why did you edit that part out? beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #9
PACs are typically the only arm of *any* organization who ever endorse. PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #12
It's disingenuous to say the group endorsed her. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #13
No, it's really pretty common. And it's the headline of the article in the OP. PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #14
Except the op deliberately left out the first two paragraphs. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #15
I posted the thread. And just stop it. kstewart33 Mar 2016 #26
You skipped the first two paragraphs. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #28
Not true. BlackCoffeeinNYC Mar 2016 #48
*Can*? Sure. Does? That's not typically how they work. PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #50
Yes, it is, especially social justice organizations. BlackCoffeeinNYC Mar 2016 #53
Duh! A nonprofit cannot endorse, so the PAC does the endorsement ... n/t Onlooker Mar 2016 #23
So the op misrepresented the truth by omission. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #25
Largest Peace Group Endorses Sanders Onlooker Mar 2016 #31
That doesn't prove I'm wrong, I said the op omitted the information. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #32
you certainly did attempt to imply the PAC dos not speak for the organization-- Sheepshank Mar 2016 #35
Nice try, SS. Unless you can link to my saying those words you're lying. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #36
and who's the liar now? Sheepshank Mar 2016 #37
That would be you. The PAC did endorse her, the group didn't. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #38
You implied much much more, and now walking it all back..weak n/t Sheepshank Mar 2016 #39
Maybe you should try addressing what I actually posted instead of using strawman arguments. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #40
Scottie, come on, avoid the personal attacks Onlooker Mar 2016 #56
No I clearly wasn't, I was posting the facts, how you feel about them is irrelevant. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #62
The PAC does not represent the opinions of its members necessarily. PyaarRevolution Mar 2016 #60
I doubt many groups are unanimous one way or the others Onlooker Mar 2016 #63
DING DING DING....winner n/t Sheepshank Mar 2016 #34
The c4 arm of nonprofits endorse all the time. BlackCoffeeinNYC Mar 2016 #55
just waiting for the inevitable "Stockholm syndrome" Bernsplanation nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #10
And HRC endorsed Ron Kirk... ibegurpard Mar 2016 #16
"most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate" PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #17
She was there alright, standing in their way: beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #18
"most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate" PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #19
Oh please, that's been debunked so many times, Bernie never opposed marriage equality. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #20
OK, I guess you didn't read what I posted. I didn't say that he opposed marriage equality PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #21
He didn't "evolve" because he always supported marriage equality. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #22
I took the poster all of 5 minutes to respond and probably took that long to riversedge Mar 2016 #29
"it"? Now Hillary supporters are using gender based slurs when they can't counter arguments? beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #30
I did not and do not know if you are male or female. "it' is gender neutral riversedge Mar 2016 #42
The correct pronoun is "they", "it" is used as an insult. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #44
Not playing coy. I gave you my reason. Simple as that. riversedge Mar 2016 #51
Oh and "she" is quick because "she" knows how to do a search. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #33
Then the compliments is yours. riversedge Mar 2016 #43
so now you consider all GLBT groups to be untrustworthy because of HRC? nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #24
Great! Democrats Ascendant Mar 2016 #27
Color me unimpressed. BlackCoffeeinNYC Mar 2016 #41
Do you know something about their 'political clout"?? riversedge Mar 2016 #46
Yes. BlackCoffeeinNYC Mar 2016 #49
REC. and Thank you. riversedge Mar 2016 #45
Maybe it was the Nancy Reagan comments that put her over the top EndElectoral Mar 2016 #47
I'm sure their members voted on it too right? nt revbones Mar 2016 #52
I can't find any account of whether members were consulted in any way. But this is interesting... obamneycare Mar 2016 #54
Yes, she used to be a Republican. So what? So was Elizabeth Warren. PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #57
Voting Republican is one thing. But RUNNING FOR CONGRESS as a Republican... obamneycare Mar 2016 #59
Five of HRC's endorsements voted in favor of the Anti-LGBTQ bill in NC....n/t pantsonfire Mar 2016 #64
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Wisconsin's largest LGBT ...»Reply #65