General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs Bernie trolling in NH for Koch dollars to finance his presidential bid?
What is his message, I'm afraid to run as a party hack, so I'll be a spoiler.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)The Wielding Truth
(11,415 posts)radiclib
(1,811 posts)Keep trying, though.
radiclib
(1,811 posts)I was quite wrong. How very sad.
Wounded Bear
(58,698 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)brush
(53,840 posts)money from the extreme right wing Koch brothers?
Links or some kind of proof other than your word please.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie's never done anything to hurt any past Democratic presidential ticket.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)She's Hillary, of course.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Hillary is pretty good at it. Hillary also has nothing to do with the op that I am aware of. The op is weak and has nothing to back it up.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...trolling in this thread...I'll give you a hint...it isn't Senator Sanders..
hlthe2b
(102,347 posts)a complimentary time out from DU... Geebus.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)So to threaten a fellow DUer for having the unmitigated gall of criticizing Independent/Socialist Bernie Sanders on a DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING SITE THAT SUPPORTS DEMOCRATS is out of line.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)but he's more of a real Democrat than 90% of the ones who do have the "D" next to their name.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And for the record, he votes with Democrats on all the important issues - even the dreaded PPACA, so that alone should tell you that it doesn't make him 90% better than any other Democrat since he, clearly, agrees with them and their policies.
But fact remains, he's NOT a Democrat out of choice, but this IS a Democratic Party supporting community. Just in case you'd forgotten.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that contributes to the Democratic caucus and aids in them maintaining their majority under the bus because you don't like the letter behind his name
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And I know, or would like to think, that you're smarter than that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic Party's enemy. And we don't have to settle for HRC or Biden as the nominee. Neither of them care about the 99%.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Senator Sanders cares as much for the 99% as HRC and Biden. It's up to YOU to ensure that the Party that gives more to the 99% as opposed to the rich, are supported and kept in power in Congress, not the White House.
You don't like the lackluster performances by some Democrats? Get off your duff and - to borrow from President Obama - ORGANIZE. Kvetching on Democratic Party supporting websites is NOT organizing. It's just whining.
And so far, those claiming to be more of the Senator Bernie Sanders ilk have failed to get a movement going to have any influence on other Democrats and "Red" State constituency. So get to work!
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)What with the daily pictures of Obama, shaking hands, Obama playing with the dogs, Obama getting off the plane, Obama meeting some foreign official, Michelle in her new dress.. Yeah this is a Democratic supporting website. In spades.
However, it's a pretty sad state of affairs when you consider the Republican ideals of "my party right or wrong" as your mantra.
IMHO (before you go getting all "IT'S NOT A FACT" on me) Sanders is way more liberal than most of the Democrats sitting in Congress and The Senate. You can make of that what you will. Sander "agrees" with Democratic policies because they are the lesser of two evils. It's people like you who insist that we must "stay with the party" because actual liberal ideas are too far to the right.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I am a Democrat. So are President Obama, FLOTUS, even their Portuguese Water dogs. This is a Democratic Party supporting partisan site. Of course you going to see daily pictures of them on this site. Why does that irk you so?
It's astounding that any mention of anything positive about this president (as you've so clearly demonstrated) is immediately ridiculed and/or vilified - but don't you dare speak a negative word about an Independent or you'll attract a swath of criticism from self-proclaimed Liberals around here whose sole purpose, it seems, is to discourage support for Democrats.
No. It's a sad state of affairs when we have segments among us who are counter-productive members of the Party Unity My A** group that have given Republicans more power in past elections than they will ever begin to understand. Their mantra appears to be "We must ALL burn down the village in order to save it!".
For the record, NO ONE, least of all me, is questioning Senator Sanders' liberal credentials. But again, and it appears I need to continuously repeat this, he's NOT A DEMOCRAT and that makes a whole helluva difference when tossing one's hat into the presidential campaign ring. Any support by self-proclaimed Democrats on this site for an eventual Bernie Sanders candidacy is a show of willingness to undermine a Democratic candidate who isn't, in their myopic view, "liberal enough", and they play right into the hands of Libertarians like the Koch Bros and Sheldon Adelson who will happily toss a few million to a "spoiler" in order to undermine a Democrat's chance of winning the WH.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)be cheering team blue? If Democrats were the racists, the haters of the poor?
If you answer no, then presumably the reason you support Dems is because of their positions, not simply because they have a (D) label.
So why castigate other people who actually openly admit they support *positions* and not simply the (D)? I vote for Democrats not because they're Democrat, but because of the positions they support.
If Bernie Sanders were running in 2016 against, say, Max Baucus, would you support Baucus (D), or Sanders (I)?
If Bernie Sanders had run in 2008 against 'born again Democrat' Arlen Specter or back then Dem Joe Lieberman, who would you have voted for?
I support Dems. *BECAUSE* of the good policies they supposedly champion. Not simply because of a single letter behind their name on a ballot. If there is a candidate who better embodies the Democratic platform on the ballot than does the 'actual' Democrat running, then I'm voting for the person who will best put forward the ideals and policies.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)The topic here is not about blue vs red team. It's about the upcoming presidential elections and whether or not Senator Sanders, a staunch Independent, will toss his hat into the ring and run for the presidency and whether or not he'll be used as a spoiler by the pro-Republican and newly empowered (thanks to the CU and McCutcheon rulings) money-masters.
Whether we like it or not, accept it or deny it, fact remains unchanged that our election system is still winner takes all. It's how our Constitution has set it up, and tossing in a third Party candidate will either hurt the Democrats or the Republicans (in this scenario, it'll hurt the Democrats and benefit the Republicans).
As I've been pretty clear in my post here, I don't question his liberal credentials (although bills drafted under his name and passed in Congress are nonexistent despite his many terms in the House and his first term in the Senate) and I don't have any doubt that he has his heart in the right place for all of us, but should he toss his hat into the ring as an Independent - like Ralph Nader had done - he'll lose my respect because he'll actively undermine everything he's ever held dear and worked hard for regarding equality for ALL people.
All he has to do is look back to the 2000 and 2004 elections to see how Ralph Nader lost his mantle as a champion of the people when he took corporate cash to run against Democrats and how that has hurt us and this country. He'll easily see that a potential Sanders presidential candidacy can almost guarantee Jebbie wins the WH.
So do I. That's why I'm against splitting the Democratic vote. Until we've ratified an amendment that allows a parliament rather than a two-party system of Congress, I and you have no choice than to vote Democratic. Because for all our incredible ideals, fact remains, none of them will ever see the light of day as long as Republicans continue to win power. None.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative).
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I simply won't post on who I'm supporting in those periods if it turns out it's not a Dem. I read the TOS, and I'll try to stay on the 'legal' side. But it's an unenforceable TOS in making the claim that you 'must' vote for a Dem, or support a Dem in your real life. All the site can really do is prevent you from talking about it onsite. I think it's a silly part of the TOS as well, in that it seeks to 'shrink' the Democratic 'big tent'. Rather than accepting even people who vote 99% Dem, the site would run off people who vote for even one non-Dem among many races? Hell, I don't know of a single elected Democrat who even comes close to living up to that standard. Every single one has voted with Republicans in Congress at one point or another in their elected life. So the TOS is demanding a far higher standard of potential voters than it does of the very people it's asking them to vote for.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I live in blood red Ohio, where even half the Democrats are corrupt, and every so often the better or best choice in a given election isn't a Dem. I prefer not to vote for corrupt Dems, who then end up resigning in disgrace midway through their term, or arrested. I tend to feel that putting Dems like that in office actually works against the long-term interests of the party.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)You continue to vote for the person you think has a chance of winning, and I'll continue to vote for the person I think will best represent me. That should make me happy and give you another opportunity to tell me how horrible I am for voting for the person I think belongs in office instead of the one you tell me belongs in office.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)You know? The people who are fans of splitting the Democratic vote and who believe that the world evolves solely around them and to HELL with democracy (that inconvenient aspect that the majority wins thing).
Sorry for the late response. Was in Tennessee to see my ill sister.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you didn't even say anything negative about Bernie ... pointing out the fact that he is not a Democrat is not negative or positive ... it's a fact.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and made them lose all reason.
You'd be amazed how many so-called Democratic Undergrounders are actually Obama-Haters of the Teabagger kind.
*Edited for spelling correction.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... and then run it as you see fit. As for now I've been here for 12 years and your interpretation of the TOS is way off in practice, I can promise you that.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Democratic Party supporting site. The ToS is pretty clear what its mission is, and if that's too hard for you, read the name of this Democratic Party supporting and partisan site. That should be easy enough to understand even for you.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why does it matter?
He organizes with us and he's never hurt us...Why is the lack of a "D" by his name such a big deal to you?
It just means that Bernie gets to keep his principles.
It would serve no purpose for DU to shun Bernie...and nothing would be better if he sat in the senate as a "D" rather than an "I".
Are you really that angry because we won't all give up our souls and back Hillary?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Senator Sanders has every right to remain true to his ideals and his own Party affiliation - as long as he remains Senator. I've got no beef with that. But I'll have a problem with him should he try and toss his hat into the 2016 presidential election as an Independent and attempt to split the Democratic vote. We've seen how that turned out for us in 2000 and 2004 and unlike some people, I do learn from past experiences.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Oh...and it's not like we're ENTITLED to the votes of everybody who doesn't like the GOP. We do have an obligation to actually show those people that voting for us is worth it. Nobody needs to vote for our ticket to "do penance".
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Don't put words in my posts, Kenny. I'm quite capable of doing that myself - and I do it better than you.
But nice try. HUGE fail, but nice try.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)That makes him a de-facto member of the Democratic Party as it comes to legislation and duties.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Probably not worth engaging.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I literally just hopped on DU for the evening (browse on my phone but don't reply often).
Might want to edit your post in case of late night jury baiting.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But the OP has already survived at least one alert, so I'm not sure any jury's gonna care at this hour.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Calling people names, especially undeserved ones of the Republican kind on a Democratic Party supporting site, says more about you than it does about me, Kenny.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)about Dems who'd support Bernie.
And that you're implying that Bernie's planning to run a wrecker campaign in 2016 when you know perfectly well he would never do that.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)what I've been implying. I've put forward a hypothesis based on the 2000 and 2004 election debacles. If you can't see that, than it's because you don't want to which says more about you than it does about me.
Just can the name-calling especially when you have to reach into the Republican cesspool in order to do it against a fellow DUer while gossiping about said DUer with another DUer. That's pretty low.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Most people who had voted for him in 2000 voted for Kerry next time. Kerry's loss had nothing to do with the actions of anyone to Kerry's left.
And we both already know that Bernie wouldn't pull a Nader and run third-party in 2016, so your fears are groundless-and nobody here would back him if he did anyway,
AND we both know(and the OP knows as well)that Bernie would never, NO MATTER WHAT, collude with the Kochs-so there was no reason to even imply that he'd do anything like that.
Bernie is NOT Ralph...can't you just accept that already?
The lesson of 2000, btw, is NOT that progressives are obligated to take whatever the Democratic offers as a presidential ticket(though that would be, agreed, the more prudent choice)-it's that the Democratic Party was WRONG to ever go as far to the Right as it did under Clinton and Gore...the party was wrong to ditch labor, throw the poor under the bus, and tell progressive activists they'd no longer matter. It's up to the party to keep people from feeling that alienated...and there's no one to the right of most Democrats who'd even consider voting Dem anyway, so that strategy was never necessary and didn't gain us any votes(Dukakis took 46%...Clinton took 43% and 49%-NO significant difference in popular vote total).
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)But that's got NOTHING to do with the OP or the topic of this thread, although you Democratic-Party vote-splitters keep changing the subject in order to, I dunno, maybe get some sort of "win" in this argument? If that's the case, it's pretty sad, really.
Senator Sanders can be a "de facto" Democrat all he wants - IN THE SENATE, but if he decides to pull a Ralph Nader in 2016 and run for the presidency as an Independent (and it appears he'll either do that or look like a sell-out should he suddenly change his Party affiliation after he's staunchly claimed he never would), he'll be splitting the Democratic vote and he'll aid the Koch Bros and Adelsons in this country to ensure that the election goes to Jebbie Bush. That's what the subject of this thread is about - even though you and your nay-saying pals on this DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING SITE wish it weren't.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Va Lefty
(6,252 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)hlthe2b
(102,347 posts)Perhaps you need to read a bit more slowly and carefully and take a long step back before such accusations.
Bernie Sanders votes with the Democratic Caucus and is more a TRUE Democrat, in terms of his philosophy and actions than a lot of those registered with a "D" beside their names. Further, Admins have long made it clear that until the primaries decide on a candidate, your idea of party purity is not applicable.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Lemme make it easier for you:
a complimentary time out from DU... Geebus.
So, what does the above mean if you're not lobbing off a threat of expulsion in defense of a NON-Democratic Senator?
It's not Party purity. It's educating you to stand up for DEMOCRATS on a DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING SITE instead of the real threat that the Independent from Vermont, Sen. Sanders, can impose on a DEMOCRAT (have you already forgotten Corporate-backed Ralph Nader?) who just might wanna run for the WH in 2016 to carry on President Obama's agenda. Why does that bother you so much?
hlthe2b
(102,347 posts)But, since you ask, I'd not shed a tear if you joined him for a flame-baiting time out.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I'm sweet like that.
hlthe2b
(102,347 posts)I'll wait for a TRUE Democrat/Progressive
Your thinking will have Republicans in power for the next century.
I actually SUPPORT Democrats and I don't hold purity tests. Try again.
hlthe2b
(102,347 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)signature blazing big as day and I was still accused of being a "Democratic Party disruptor" as though I don't support ... um, Democrats.
hlthe2b
(102,347 posts)what the hell the motivation would be for self-proclaimed Democrats to denounce and deride him so.... Hmmm...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not "standing up for DEMOCRATS" to bash Bernie. Bernie is never gonna be Nader...he won't run third-party in the fall...and you damn well know it.
And it's not as though the only kind of nominee that can win is a bland centrist corporate power appeaser like HRC or Biden. ANY Dem can win if the party gets behind him or her.
(Hint: If you're really obsessed with stopping Bernie...back Elizabeth Warren. She's about the only other possible Dem candidate who's worthy or progressive support before the convention.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and aids in maintaining their majority.
The day support for Sen. Sanders and his policies becomes a bannable offense, is the day that I'll take a tombstone as a badge of honor.
You are out of line, because you don't seem to realize that he aids Democratic senators.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and that's by CHOICE.
If he decides to run in 2016 for the WH, we ALL should be afraid. Have we forgotten 2000 so soon? Even Teabaggers are smart enough not to vote against or not vote for the chosen Republican candidate. Their Party unity kicks our butts in each and every election, and I hate, absolutely HATE, losing to those racists and bigots.
And no. I'm not "out of line". I damn well realize that Senator Sanders caucuses with the Democrats (unlike his wide-eyed, unrealistic flock who'd rather excoriate them) because he's a smart man, but again, THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIM A DEMOCRAT but it does make him a viable threat to a potential Democratic presidential candidate and keeping a Democrat in the WH, as the clever Kochies and Adelson all too well know.
With Justices Kennedy, Bader-Ginsberg, and Alito ripe for retirement, do you really want a Republican in the WH in 2016-2020 just so you can vote for a candidate who has NO chance in Hades to win but who makes you "feel good"? Think about it.
You might've forgotten 2000 and the horrors that the Nader candidacy sprouted from that debacle - Cheney/Duhbya - but I won't. Ever.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and votes 90% of the time with them, then you aren't very politically astute.
I mean seriously "NOT POLITICALLY ASTUTE" and shouting Nader isn't going to eradicate that opinion from the majority of politically astute folks on DU that understand how the Senate works.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)to chance the subject. Can't win on the reasonable merits presented, so change the subject!
The reason why I claimed that I don't care if he caucuses and votes with Democrats 90% of the time, is because I made the argument that it still doesn't make him a Democrat.
If Bernie Sanders decides to run in 2016 as the staunch Independent that he is (and I highly doubt it, but still) then he IS a potential threat to a true Democratic Party presidential candidate, and his candidacy will ensure that we have another Bush in the WH - or worse.
So you're wrong. I'm politically astute enough to know exactly how the Senate works and how politics work, and so do the majority of DUers. YOU, on the other hand, I'm not so sure of.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Nice. Now I'm a "Democratic Party disrupter" because I pointed out that caucusing with the Democratic party helps to maintain the Democratic majority in the Senate.
I think there are more problems going on in this thread than "Democratic Party disrupters".
Anyone defending an Independent's candidacy for the WH over a Democrat is a Democratic Party Disruptor and even though they don't know it (and that's possible in Purity Land) they're helping Republicans gain more power. It's just the way the cookie crumbles in American politics.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)"Democratic Party Disruptor" if you think my support of Bernie Sanders is in some way a detriment to the Democratic Party.
It's not like attacking Democrats and people that support Democrats is in ANY way detracting from Democratic Party ideals. At all.
The tent is so small, only purists get invited in, right?
P.S. Genius. Look who I support for President.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And yes, if you support a candidate who isn't even a Democrat on a Democratic Party supporting site for president, you're a Democratic Party disruptor. And I'm certain Teabaggers and other assorted RWers are comfortable, if not PROUD, of that label, too.
The Democratic Party tent is huge. Even you should know that. As for Purists, well, that would be people who don't believe any Democrat other than the one THEY choose, is good enough. Of course, that's just being willfully naive, but there you have it.
P.S. Einstein, Senator Warren has already SAID over and over again, that she's not running for president. Clicking your heels and designing Warren for President banners isn't going to change her mind. She just doesn't have the same charisma as Barack Obama or the big contributors like Hillary Clinton. Besides, she's much more effective and powerful in the Senate, and she should remain there.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)We are back to Hillary or nothing. There are PLENTY of qualified people to run for POTUS besides Hillary. A) Hillary has merely said she is thinking about running, not that she is running. B) 2016 is fairly good way off, and there is plenty of time for EW or anyone else, for that matter, to change their minds (including Hillary to decide not to run). C) Attacking people as disruptors isn't going to exactly win friends and influence people on a Democratic website when those people are, in fact, Democrats.
But carry on.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We both know he's never gonna run as a third-party candidate and it doesn't harm anything for him to seek the Dem nomination.
And it can't be worth trying to hold the White House if we nominate HRC or Biden, like you'd prefer.
You're stirring up shit here for no reason.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"Gay marriage is for me unthinkable, but Civil Unions have my 100% vote. I believe that marriage is something done in churches, and the Bible does speak negatively about homosexuality."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1352110
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Direct link to post. What a "courageous" "big-tent" Dem we have on our hands here.
Choice quotes from that post:
"Gay marriage is for me unthinkable, but Civil Unions have my 100% vote."
"My husband and I, 22 years ago, never married in a church, but in front of a legal civil servant back in the Netherlands, since he was Netherlands Reformed (Catholic lite), and I, Protestant."
Isn't that sweet and arrogant?
QC
(26,371 posts)to refer to gay men by women's names.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)"Real Democrat" indeed.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)site for Democrats.
Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)It's as if it's always "anything but a Democrat" with these disruptors. They're starting early on in this election year in order to claim they're not "breaking any ToS rules" since the primary season hasn't kicked off yet. So they're getting in their disruption early and often.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And NO ONE has put Bernie Sanders and "asshole" in the same sentence. Well, except you.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)if you lose you donate 10 bucks to Bernie. if not, i'll donate to the Dem of your choosing.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)are okay with that? My, how rules can change just as long as the candidate of your specific choice is the beneficiary of it. Typical.
And no. Even if he'd sell out and run as a Democrat, I wouldn't send a penny to his campaign. He has zero chance of winning against a Republican on a national scale.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why are you being McCarthyite?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And how does that make me "McCarthyite"?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You have no justification for your hostility and suspicion to Bernie...Nothing he's done has ever hurt the Democratic Party.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And he's not our enemy just because he's not a registered Dem.
A centrist like HRC wouldn't be "true Democratic party" presidential candidate anyway(I assume she, or the even more pro-corporate Biden, is the sort you'd want to saddle us with).
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Yes, Bernie Sanders is a de-facto Democrat, this is without question. This is in stark contrast to Lieberman who stopped caucusing with the Democrats and who endorsed McCain. The Democrats allowed him to caucus with them before his retirement, though, but it's likely because behind the scenes he was going to introduce the DADT repeal, etc.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)made in the past, calling gay marriage unthinkable and calling gay men by female names and thinks it is funny, I'm pretty comfortable with her disagreeing with me. Considering the other people in this thread that ARE Democrats and getting attacked by her, I'm in very good company .
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I would think "gay marriage is unthinkable" is an instant ban.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Like Obama?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)but I do support him more than I'd support any Republican or any candidate that could help another Republican into the WH. I dunno. I'm realistic rather than idealistic in that way.
Unless and until the ultra-Left put forward a candidate who can actually WIN a national election, Obama is as good as it gets but he's a helluva lot better than any Republican. Right?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I don't vote for brands just because I'm a registered Democrat. I vote for or against policies and principles.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Because you know what? My wants and needs are trumped by those of the greater majority in this country, and if you haven't seen or noticed the disastrous policies of Republicans - and what Democrats have fought and struggled to counter and deconstruct - then you're living in a rainbow-covered bubble.
The thing is, you'll have a better chance at seeing liberal policies and principles come to fruition with Democrats in power than you have with Republicans in power. Sorry, but this is a winner-take-all government system. Don't like it? Amend the U.S. Constitution. Good luck with that.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, I suppose drones fall under the same rubric. Charter schools? Conservative judges appointed by a Democratic President?
I'd love to see a parliamentary system instead of what we have. Do you think that Democrats will sacrifice their power to attain it?
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)if ever.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I'm a Democrat and believe I have a right, if not an obligation, to "hold their feet to the fire" when they stray from the principles that gave me reason to join the party in 1965. Get over it.
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You can't really believe we should settle for HRC or Biden?
By the way, who do you mean when you use the McCarthyite term "the ultra left"? Do you mean anyone that Rahm would call "fucking retarded"?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Are you saying he is to be treated as an enemy to Dems and that people should be allowed to attempt to discredit the man with no proof to back it up?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And if you carefully read my post instead of seeing red right away, you'd know that.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)stuck his hand far up his butt and pulled his speculative Fox News type question from it as he posted no supporting evidence what so ever to back it up.
I do consider myself a Democrat. I support the president and I admire Bernie Sanders. What bothers me is people posting crap (and it was a crap post) with nothing to back them up, then seeing others come here to defend it.
That's when my red flag goes up.
As a Democrat you should surely know that a strong character trait of Democrats is to question everything. It's a Republican trait (aka intellectual laziness) to behave sheep like and go with whatever program their told to go along with.
You have a nice day now.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)seem to think that is not an important matter. It IS. Because when it comes down to politics, people care about what effects THEM the most, and the Dem Party leadership needs to remember that.
How did you feel, eg,, about the Dem Leadership and a majority of elected Dems in NJ supporting the REPUBLICAN over the DEMOCRATIC candidate for Governor? See how that worked out for them?
I guess we are seeing over the past few years a case of 'what's okay for the Dem Party Leadership, supporting Republicans when they please eg, is NOT okay for the 'little people'.
'Do as I say, not what I do' sort of thing.
We have yet to get an explanation from those who believe that D after someone's name as all that is needed to gain support from voters, as to why it hasn't mattered too much for the Party leadership more than once.
Bernie is a Democratic Socialist who more than represents Democratic principles.
If the party has a candidate that has that kind of appeal, they will have nothing to worry about even if he ran as an Independent. I can't imagine why there is all this concern about whatever decision he makes, unless they have something else in mind.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie Sanders isn't the enemy of the Democratic Party. It's enough that he organizes with us in the Senate(at least Bernie won't ever cross over to the GOP caucus, like some sitting Democratic senators have done.
If Bernie were replaced by a Dem in Vermont, we can assume that Dem would be a wishy-washy centrist sellout. Would you really prefer that, just for the sake of having the "D" by his name?
And are you this self-righteous about Angus King not being a Dem?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We all know the Bernie would never take money from the Koch Bros. to go third-party. Why defend the spreading of something you know is totally bogus?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)You don't have to be a Democrat to post here. Baseless slander against a good person is a Democratic ideal all of a sudden?
I've been here for over ten years, don't lecture me on the terms of service.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)He also has more integrity on left-of-center issues than what constitutes a majority of the Democratic Party at this time: neoliberals.
Some Democrats, like myself, still support those left-of-center issues, whether party power-brokers want to acknowledge that or not.
Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #10)
demwing This message was self-deleted by its author.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Attack Bernie Fucking Sanders as a corporate sellout? Try again, and put some effort into it next time.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Seriously? Neither has even announced...
Pre-emptively blaming candidates?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)You think we got Steve Douchy posting here now?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)To attack a possible primary run by Senator Sanders. You are free to draw other conclusions.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and despised by the Republican base too...
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)LIKES the Kock brothers. Taking money from them wouldn't be a negative in their eyes.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and frankly they don't care...
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)want to discourage his potential primary run? Do tell.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)why else do YOU think they would want to discourage it?
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Or maybe you don't. There is no Republican that has even the most basic grasp of politics that would want to discourage a primary challenge from the left against Senator Clinton.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)there are A LOT of Libertarians voting in the Republican parties....Bernie would appeal to some of them...and they MOST certainly cannot afford any bleeding at this point...
Besides....the SINGLE person the republicans WANT to run against is Hillary!!! Hillary riles up their base!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)In addition to the fact that McCutcheon has made her old claims of financial advantage over other candidates meaningless.
But that's another discussion.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Your side needs to quit spreading lies about the next probable Democratic Candidate:
Hillary Clinton is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.
Click here for explanation of political philosophy.
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)sat on the WalMart board of directors(you know where THAT puts a person on class issues-pushing for women managers was vaguely nice, but it's impossible to make WalMart a company with a humane corporate cultures and HRC knew that from the start)and was clearly involved in the right-wing coup in Honduras in early '09. As SoS, she was always hostile to Venezuela and the liberation movement in Latin America.
And she never did anything to challenge Bill on any of his right-wing choices as president(she did nothing to ever try to change his mind about signing the Newt Gingrich welfare "reform" bill-a bill only people who HATE the Democratic Party and all it stands for wanted him to sign-an issue on which she sold out her friend Marian Wright Edelman and proved that neither she nor Bill ever cared about any of the people Bobby Kennedy died fighting for).
Which matters more...position papers or history?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)read the link and you will see why....ALL of her positions are there...
I am not buying this "centrist" crap! (this is how the Teabaggers work)
On the issues....ALL OF THEM.....she is a populist leaning Liberal.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that has to be one of the stupidest insinuations I've seen in a long time.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I will ask you the same think I asked the op: Show something, even small, that your claim has any merit at all.
"Is that really the Clinton game plan?"
I see no mention of the Clinton's in the op at all. Not one. I am a huge Clinton supporter. I welcome Bernie in the race as an independent or Democrat. If he ran as a Democrat I would vote for him over Clinton in the primaries. He would be a huge benefit to the party if he was to run. Please show me where you even got the notion that this is Clintons plan. A news story, blog post written by someone with brains, anything. The lack of effort here seems to be both on the part of you and the op.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its a baseless assertion....and purely conjecture.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)but who exactly, other than a Clinton supporter, would launch such a misguided attack on Bernie Sanders?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)To think that it could only be one thing is kind of funny. I am a Clinton supporter, so are almost every one of my friends, yet we love Sanders. My point stands and is backed up by the "but" in your reply. Sorry that is all you can think of. Some people would be much better off if they didn't obsess over the Clintons. You have still failed to back up your assertion, as has the op.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Really? I'm not "obsessing" over anything. What "back up" should I have? It's like Lenin said, you look for the person who will benefit, man. If you have a plausible motive for "Fox News" to discourage or attack a Sanders primary bid, I'd love to hear your reasoning.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Well we should remove him from office immediately.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And the Kochs will happily donate to his campaign in order to lure Non-Democratic Party Leftists who, on occasion, vote for a Democrat in presidential election years. They hope for a 2000 do-over in order to get another Bush in the WH. See, unlike the Non-Democratic Party Leftists, the Koch Bros are smart enough to understand how our elections are run - it's still winner-take-all, and they'll happily donate a couple of million to push another pro-corporate-ONLY Republican into the WH and hand pro-corporate-ONLY Republicans the Senate, thanks in part to the passion on the Non-Democratic Party Left who are useful to their agenda.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie running in the Democratic primaries would not be the same thing as Nader running third-party.
Stop with the paranoia already.
It's not as if we ave no choice but to back HRC or Biden.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)so there is no chance of that happening....Bernie IS third party...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nobody has any basis for acting like Bernie's planning to be a Nader-style wrecker.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)He won't switch parties....
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The guy knows that standing on a third-party ticket in the fall would be a disaster for him.
So can everybody just give that a rest?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)He left it pretty much open.
And for the record, it's not paranoia. It's outright FEAR, based on recent history, that he'll toss his hat into the ring just as Nader had and siphon off enough votes to split the Democratic Party vote just enough to bring Republicans close enough to steal another election.
I'm not overjoyed with an HRC or Biden candidacy, either, but I am absolutely terrified of another Republican presidency especially now with Justice Bader-Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Alito ripe for retirement in a few years. We can't afford more Alitos and Roberts into our SCOTUS. They've done enough damage already and we need to reverse those decisions because we're steadily marching toward a fascist-style State where the wealthy and well-connected get to decide everything. We need to stop them and reverse the recent pro-corporate rulings, but we won't be able to do that with a Republican president ready to replace those three with more extreme Republican corporatists.
That's what I'm terrified of.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And do all you can to make sure the party doesn't run on a bland centrist platform and silence debate.
Bernie is NOT Nader...he never has been. Comparing the two is a cheap shot.
We don't have to settle for another nominee who defers to corporate power.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Sorry but if he runs it WILL be as a spoiler...Bernie has ALWAYS caucused with Democrats...why would he wait until now to switch? YOU are dreaming....
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its a pipe dream...
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Vermont Progressive Party nomination
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)By STEVE PEOPLES
Associated Press
BOSTON (AP) - U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is set to appear in New Hampshire this weekend as he weighs a run for president.
The two-term Vermont independent has two events scheduled Saturday, including a stop at the Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. The institute is a regular stop for politicians on the state's presidential primary circuit.
New Hampshire traditionally hosts the nation's first presidential primary. Prospective Republican candidates have been visiting for months ahead of the 2016 contest.
http://www.wcax.com/story/25192056/bernie-sanders-to-nh
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its just as likely....
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I agree that he would be a long shot to win the nomination. It would not be a long shot for him to mount a credible campaign that influences the range of discussion. That would be not only possible, but probable.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Would you vote for Hillary if Bernie was her running mate....yes or no?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)why don't YOU just accept THAT?
What will you do if Bernie ran as Hillary's VP pick?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He's already proved he's not a Nader-type spoiler, so why are you belaboring this when you know there's nothing there?
If he became HRC's running mate(not that that's going to happen)I'd look on HRC more favorably(and I've already said I'll support the ticket).
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)If so, why didn't you put it in your initial statement?
Bryant
CK_John
(10,005 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)You smeared someone with an accusation disguised as a question.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)this even being plausible...that he's in NH and looking for Koch funding. Yeesh!
arcane1
(38,613 posts)The OP doesn't even link to any evidence that Sanders is even in NH.
Shameless flame-bait.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)"Is Obama a Muslim?" "Should Obama be impeached?" "Is the ACA a plot to bankrupt the government?"
Hey, they're just asking questions, right? After all, some people are wondering.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Just asking a question! No need to be defensive. Or do I suspect you will either deny it or not answer? That would be revealing, wouldn't it?
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Is President Obama a muslim? Just a question! geez!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)"Just Asking Questions"
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The op being the worst of them. It truly is the Beck game plan. He is simply asking a question.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 9, 2014, 03:16 AM - Edit history (1)
There's no good reason for anybody on the progressive side of the spectrum to be talking smack about Bernie.
Oh, and I read the OP...it says nothing and proves nothing.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Put up some fucking evidence.
Hekate
(90,779 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)It's "unthinkable". Why do you think bashing Sen. Sanders is above her tactics?
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Has this poster apologized for this comment? Gay marriage is "unthinkable"? And then citing the Bible? That is borderline hate speech. I guess the big tent means we have to accept and work with bigots.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)I don't know what all the fuss is about. He was in Congress for 16 years prior to being elected to the Senate in '06. He says all the "right" things, but his list of actual accomplishments doesn't match the hype.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)<-- kick boxin' !!1
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)Hey Dion.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Bernie Sanders or Max Baucus?
I know who I'd rather have.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)speeches, but apart from that? Meh.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)than one Max Baucus. That's all I'm going to say about that. And in case no one in this thread noticed, who I would like to have as President is plain as day if you bother to look at my sig.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)my best
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)JI7
(89,262 posts)and he is no ralph nader. in fact nader has been attacking sanders .
you do know that sanders votes for the Dems to lead the senate ?
hlthe2b
(102,347 posts)WHich only underscores the question of why some are flaming the flames in this manner.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Bernie Sanders would never run as an Independent or Socialist or whatever as he caucuses with the Democrats and is a statesman.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)snorting, dropping, running up, hitting, huffing, etc
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Not boring.
Not ethical either.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Doesn't seem to have much substance or facts... just like my reply.
But that is the kind of reply you get when you post bait.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)New Hampshire's importance in the presidential election cycle stems from its first-in-the-nation primaries. To someone looking to run third-party, it has about as much importance as, say, Idaho. To me, this is a clear indication that he plans to run in the Dem primaries, rather than third-party.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And he's always caucused with us. Why are you trying to get people here to see Bernie as the enemy?
It's not like anything would be better for us if Bernie wasn't sitting where he is as what he is.
If you want a bland, centrist Dem instead of Bernie, just campaign for one...don't smear a guy who's done nothing to deserve being smeared.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Into the trash this thread goes.
Squinch
(50,993 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)trash thread or ignore? that is the question.
ignore.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Like the person upthread that claimed that Sanders caucusing with Democrats and voting with them 90% of the time was "irrelevant". I mean what in the hell!?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)in order gain the nomination as an independent - just like Nader did -
Ohio Joe
(21,761 posts)It is not Bernie doing the trolling though.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)SalviaBlue
(2,918 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)he has my vote.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)H2O Man
(73,594 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Enough already.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not nonsense for DU'ers to want Bernie to run for president.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Hekate
(90,779 posts)Kee-riste
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I am seriously wondering where this is coming from. What the ever loving fuck?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Those people feel their candidates are simply entitled to be awarded the nom.
Or it's a 'pug infiltrator spreading schiesse.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)But his voice needs to be heard so I encourage him to run and hope for an upset. Also, Reich should run even if Bernie runs, because I'm sorry, he will be really waffling on his promise to run if Bernie runs and it gives him an "out." He will know that Bernie is not a threat. (Reich basically said an uncontested Third Way candidate like Clinton would prompt him to run, he and Bernie need to tag team this shit because Clinton is the clear front runner, no other candidate in modern history is more qualified; you can dislike her politics, but she's the most qualified candidate in modern history.)
Bernie, Reich, Biden, Clinton. That's what I'm expecting so far.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The people who want either of those two feel that their candidate is ENTITLED to an uncontested nomination, and see even a nominal progressive challenge as an affront.
This is also about trying to establish a "Bernie is anathema" mindset in the party, possibly in the hope of pushing the Vermont Dems to nominate someone against Bernie for the Senate next time(they know that whoever was nominated would be a bland, passionless dead loss, but they don't care).
You're probably right about the possible line-up of candidates. I still with Elizabeth Warren would run, but I think the establishment, corporate-backed wing of Democratic feminism is high-pressuring her to stay out on the argument that HRC is entitled to be the ONLY woman in the race.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I want them both to run because I want Biden (if he runs, which he has no reason not to) and Clinton (who is absolutely 100% running there is no question, she can waffle on answering, but she is running) to actually be contested.
If it's just Sanders and some other small timers (perhaps Ron Wyden who no one knows shit all about; who btw, I support most of all as he's the most liberal Senator bar none, if he runs, I am going to support him unequivocally) then Clinton walks into the white house. Reich needs to be there, that's a 2-3 tier attack on her policies. At the bare minimum it makes Clinton move to the left, hard. If she was then half as consistent as Obama with her policies, she'd be more liberal than anyone since Carter (I know this probably makes you almost puke here, but I'm just saying; she won't be able to be pro-MIC if we have Reich, Sanders, and Wyden attacking her on that; same with TPP, etc).
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You're not a liberal when you help lead the fight(as Wyden did)to take the public option out of the ACA.
I could back Reich...but I'm interested in why you think(as you appear to)that he'd be a stronger candidate than Bernie.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I am not sure where this public option nonsense comes from. Warren is about as liberal as third way Udall...
Reich would not be a better candidate...
djean111
(14,255 posts)Remember, campaign blather is just blather, now, I have been informed. "Know them by their acts" comes into play here.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)The things Obama promised and within his abilities he's fulfilled. And he's also "evolved" on some issues (positions I think he personally held before hand).
That's why I like Obama despite he being center-right. He fulfilled the promises he could fulfill.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Or wanted to fulfill.
And therein lies the tale - the reason to not believe any promises. Anything can be promised while campaigning. Big deal.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Well, they had better stop using that "But Bernie agreed with Obama, so you must re-think your support of Bernie or non-support of an Obama policy now!" meme. But, yeah, be interesting to see if Bernie gets Snowdened now.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Because we get called shit like Third Way because we share Bernie's exact position. So when we point that out we're not saying people should support Obama because Bernie does, we're saying stop calling people who support Obama Third Way...
djean111
(14,255 posts)Sharing the same position on some of Obama's policies does not make Bernie the same Third Way politician.
I believe Obama would characterize himself as Third Way. So would Hillary.
And I support Bernie (and Warren) even though he votes with Obama on SOME policies precisely because I am not a purist.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Udall sitting on the third way council!
When posters defend Obama they aren't necessarily advocating Obama's third way policies. Just like Bernie.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)What is his message? Do you keep your head in the sand?
He's a real Democrat, a real progressive. A real liberal.
He is the real deal. And you're nuts for assuming ulterior motives.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)"CK_John" was it?
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)I'm just asking questions.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Since this is your assertion, I would think you would have even the slightest bit of info to back up your claim. As your op stands, it is completely without merit or any type of reasoned thought process.
JustAnotherGen
(31,874 posts)But why post this here? Without links or anything to back it up? Could you at least update your op to reflect where this came from?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)whatever the heck he needs financed?
"Just asking a question".
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)JAQing
Iggo
(47,564 posts)Hey! This is a fun game!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that Sanders would run as an independent and I do not think he will. I think he will run as a Democrat and I welcome his entry into the race even though I support Hillary.
I love Bernie, and I think his run will help Hillary, not hurt her.
lillypaddle
(9,581 posts)has turned to shit. Starting with the OP.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)There's trolling going on, all right. Since 2006.
alp227
(32,047 posts)YOUR COMMENTS
Wow. What an over the top smear of Senator Bernie Sanders (OP writes in reply 4 he meant Sanders) by accusing him of taking Koch money. Such rude, over-the-top, groundless accusations against a prominent progressive/possible presidential candidate have NO place on DU.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Apr 8, 2014, 06:22 PM, and voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The way to deal with outrageous accusations is to demolish them in discourse, not to just alert on them. I'm a huge Bernie fan, but I think the way to respond here is simply with the truth, not an alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sound like a question. Looks okay, poster has over 6500 post, give her the benefit of the doubt.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: OP is probably just trying to get attention by asking a silly question. Lots of posters have answered it for him/her. Just ignore this crap.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Too many "jurors" have no problem with DU being an "anything goes" board.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Dude voted for ACA, after all, even when he didn't have to.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)Really?:eyeroll: