The more piling on of Sanders I see

[Puzzledtraveller]

The more I like him. Thank you detractors for focusing my attention on him.

[brooklynite]

1. Pray tell, how has anyone "piled on"

1) saying he may have a problem winning against a Republican?

2) saying that his policy on guns may not be in sync with the philosophy of most people here?

Please elaborate.

[Puzzledtraveller]

2. You see the link that say's "General Discussion"?

[brooklynite]

8. Well, let's take a look, shall we?

Bernie voted against Brady Bill and is very Pro-Israel [View all]
Is Bernie Sanders the choice of Democratic gun owners?
Bernie Sanders, Gun Nut [View all]

So, I take it that opposing a candidate who doesn't advocate more stringent gun control is unacceptable to you? Good to know.

[cui bono]

18. So now Bernie Sanders is a gun nut???

Wow.

Best friends with billionaires.
Will work for Wall Street and has a trickle down plan that's only for white males. (in other words sexist and racist)
And now gun nut?

Get real.

[brooklynite]

30. I didn't write any of those headlines...

...but I'd say "gun nut" is about on par with "warmonger"...

...but that's just me.

[JDPriestly]

162. I take it from your name that you live in a city.

I do too. And I don't want guns in cities. We don't need them. The police are a 911-call away and the biggest wild animals in my city are coyotes and raccoons. Maybe in the suburbs a rare deer.

But I have family who live on a farm in the Midwest. They hunt. They are isolated. They need a gun. They are trustworthy. I don't want gun legislation that will bar them from hunting or defending themselves.

We need to work on making our society less violent.

The large numbers of domestic violence and child abuse cases in our courts do not involve guns.

Gun death statistics for the US are absolutely horrible, but if you add to them the violence that does not involve guns, then you realize that we are a sick society, a violent society. That's what we need to change. Guns will take care of themselves if we try to work on educating ourselves to be less impulsive and less angry and less violent.

Frankly, the media makes its money on fostering violence and impulsive behavior, especially impulsive buying.

[markpkessinger]

165. Exactly . . . Vermont is a rural state

I grew up in rural Pennsylvania (although I knew live in NYC), and I, too, have family who hunt and some who live in isolated areas (and some who are farmers, who must occasionally protect livestock). Sanders was representing the wishes of his constituency.

[Jackpine Radical]

180. Pretty much like my background in N WI,

where I was trained to use guns safely from my preschool years, and hunted until I was in my early 60's. I have vivid memories of my father teaching me--under very close supervision!--to shoot a .22. I started hunting deer and ruffed grouse at 12, & shot my first buck at 14. It would be political death for any politician of either party to advocate gun control measures. Lots of hunters actually are political liberals, despite all the propaganda.

I guess you could have a Senator Sanders who opposed gun control, or a purist, anti-gun Mr. Sanders of Burlington.

Which choice do you prefer?

[hopemountain]

178. you are worried about gun rights?

what about the issue of not enough jobs?
or workers not earning a living wage? or equal work for equal pay?
how about his concern for the impact on workers from the tpp?
oil spills across america from trains carrying oil for the keystone pipeline?
continued assaults on social security?
continued assaults on voting rights?
27 million people facing the threat of NO health care?
continued assaults on medicare?
not enough income for food on the table for families?
legislators who insist on having power over women's vaginas and their reproductive organs?
the unbelievably outrageously skyrocketing costs to young students for a college education?
the rampant thievery of american citizens on wall street?
equal rights for lbgt?
the contamination of water tables and watersheds from tracking?

real life is out there and real people with really big issues and real wrongs that bernie sanders is fighting to correct. and you're worried about losing your right to carry a frickin' gun? this is a worn out propaganda story designed to lure your attention from the real issues. have you lost any gun rights during the past 6 years? unless, of course, you are one of the propagandists and this is your job. it isn't working anymore. we really do have bigger fish to fry if we want to remain a democracy. get with the program or you will have a whole lot less and more to cry about than gun rights.

yes there are some democrats out there who are sure to protect their right to carry guns - but i hope they have their priorities straight and that this is not their sole issue of concern.

[brooklynite]

184. I'm not stating an opinion on gun rights at all...

I'm responding to the pro-Sanders complaints about attacks on him, while similarly ugly attacks on Hillary Clinton are apparently ok.

[cali]

79. do tell, brook, how someone

who doesn't even own a gun can be honestly called a gun nut.

[brooklynite]

82. So your concern isn't the issue; it's the use of over the top language...

Well, if you'll point me to your comments opposing over the top language against Secretary Clinton, I'll be happy to stand with you.

[cali]

137. distortion and lies bug me

And gun control has never been in my top five or so issues. Don't like sanders vote on either the Brady bill or gun manufacturers at all, but your candidate's vote to give Bush a blank check for war as Leahy so eloquently put it,is far worse to me

[MaggieD]

158. Let's be honest

You post A LOT of what could be called "distortion and lies" about HRC. Seems to me you have a bad case of pot, kettle, black.

[L0oniX]

107. So Hillary is a war nut?

[lewebley3]

171. Hillary is not a war nut: the only one who is Tom Cotton, he says we can take Iran in 7 days!

Bush made the decision to go war, no one else, he said so!

[SomethingFishy]

129. Bernie knew this was coming...

He knew there would be lies, exaggerations, misstatements coming at him from both sides.

He's ready for it. And so are we.

Good luck with your candidate. You're gonna need it.

[lewebley3]

172. There are no lies about Bernie, the lies are about Hillary!

Bernie and Hillary are going to have the most boring debate,
a snooze fest.

The are both liberals!

[NorthCarolina]

176. Ummm, no

they aren't BOTH liberals. It is general knowledge that Hillary is a centrist politician, period. Hillary supporters really should argue their case for her based on her factual political beliefs instead of spending all your time trying to associate her with a political stripe that she simply has no track record of following.

[rhett o rick]

139. Are you saying that because someone somewhere called HRC a warmonger that justifies you calling Sen

Sanders a "gun nut". Is that the "he said it first" rationalization?

[Eleanors38]

141. Do keep up the "gun nut" tag. I don't think it has the impact you think...

Judging from the GD gun posts re Sanders yesterday, not many are buying your paint sloshing. But that's DU.

Where folks need to hear this is out in the real world of border states, purple states, the folks who are undecided, and yes, those who see the advantage of a strongly liberal candidate that isn't carrying around the aroma of a dead issue.

Please do carry on.

[brooklynite]

154. I haven't called him that...

I HAVE observed that over-the-top descriptions like "gun nut" applied to Sanders aren't much different than over-the-top descriptions like "warmonger" applied to Clinton.

Wouldn't you agree?

[Eleanors38]

160. I understand, but you should be clearer. To be clear, I'm not fond of Clinton's record on war.

Sanders record on 2A could be stronger, but I can tolerate his "gun control" votes.

[awoke_in_2003]

186. I'm more worried

about her ties to Wall Street. All the guns in America won't matter a damn if things like TPP get passed. And I know what side of that argument she will come down on. The war on the working class has to stop, and regardless of what is said in a speech, a centrist/corporate democrat won't stop it.

[Eleanors38]

203. I completely agree with you.^^^

[arcane1]

152. Sanders isn't against gun control.

No need to lie about him.

[MaggieD]

156. Well mine wasn't a bash on Sanders

You quoted the title of my OP. However mine was making the point that there is no perfect candidate, and perhaps people can get that and stop bashing HRC.

The Sanders supporters seem to have very delicate feelings. LOL!

[markpkessinger]

167. He is "pro-Israel" in that he thinks Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself . . .

But he is NOT a supporter of Netanyahu or his hard right policies towards the Palestinians.

[yeoman6987]

65. It's called vetting

This is the first time Senator Sanders is getting vetted his entire career. Of course every nook and crannie are going to be investigated up, down, back and forward. Hillary has been vetted for 25 years. Not so much fun is?

[LeftOfWest]

74. bs. n/t.

[KittyWampus]

87. What a pig-like response. She ran for Senator, President and confirmed Sec. of State

all three situations involved vetting.

But you go right to sleeping with her husband who was POTUS.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

127. I hated that response as well. Where the fuck are we? Free Republic?

[MaggieD]

164. Exactly....

I swear you could print out half of the posts on this site lately and read them out loud along with a sampling of Freeper posts and no one would be able to figure out which posts came from which site.

[awoke_in_2003]

188. Agreed. Disgusting. nt

[NYC Liberal]

99. "Sleeping with the President of the United States is not vetting"

You think all she has done is "sleep with the President of the United States"? Seriously? Go read up on her biography sometime. Hillary was on the staff of the Judiciary Committee during Watergate and helped prepare the case for impeachment against Nixon. She was getting noticed in the party well before she married Bill. In fact, I'd venture to say if anything marrying Bill held her back and prevented her from starting her own political career for several decades while he was in the spotlight.

And, yes, she has been vetted.

She has been in the spotlight for several decades now. The media and Republicans went after her during Bill's campaigns and presidency; then she ran two Senate campaigns and a presidential campaign; then she served for four years as Secretary of State.

She's been vetted.

[Thinkingabout]

101. Good Post!!!!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

135. What the fuck?

That's a pretty shitty, sexist response.

[JoePhilly]

84. These threads are hilarious!!!

The folks who endlessly "pile on" Obama, Hillary, and most other elected Dems, are now very upset because Bernie is being ravaged.

It's just too funny.

[KittyWampus]

88. He isn't being ravaged, either. It's a handful of issues. Most of which can be explained

pragmatically.

[JoePhilly]

94. It's still very funny.

All the folks who scream about cult of personality and other such nonsense are now very upset that anyone would dare "hold Bernie's feet to the fire".

The very idea of having to pragmatically explain his position is offensive.

The best part are the posts describing how his positions are compromise positions based on the gun culture in that state. And therefore acceptable.

Bernie is allowed to be pragmatic, to compromise, for votes???

[Eleanors38]

142. Frankly, I wish the feet fire holders WOULD call attention to his "gun nuttedness."

I mean, really pump it out!

[Number23]

155. And what's so incredibly stupid about all of this is -- HE'S NOT BEING ANYTHING NEAR RAVAGED

These are legitimate and incredibly tame discussions about the issues -- the things his supporters claim to be the pre-eminent thing behind their support and who scoff at Obama and Hillary supporters as being members of the "cult of personality", complete with pointless videos of that (incredibly dope) song.

I mean this shit is surreal, hilarious and horrible all at the same time. I have never seen such delicate flowers who are pissed that people are actually talking about his VOTING RECORD. Not his church, his religion, his marriage, his clothes, his place of birth -- the fact that people are discussing his fucking VOTING RECORD is actually considered "smearing" and "piling on" here.

It's too stupid to believe.

[JoePhilly]

157. I don't take a lot of them very seriously ...

... they knee jerk their way through every political discussion, easily whipped into a hair on fire frenzy ... persecuted one minute, sitting in judgement from on high, the next.

It's standard around here.

[lovemydog]

197. Sometimes I feel like the only thing some democrats dislike

more than republicans are democrats who are thoroughly vetted and become President.

[shenmue]

177. Oh yeah

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. There's a laughable attempt to pile on him now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6634216

It looks pretty counter-productive for a Hillary supporter, to me. And petty.

[bigwillq]

3. Oh boo hoo

Poor Sanders.

Politicians should be "piled on" if someone disagrees with them.

[Puzzledtraveller]

4. You think I am hurt, or that I think he' hurt?

You read it all wrong bigwillq. I think you are the one silently boo-hooing.

[bigwillq]

6. No and No.

I just have no issue with the bashing, piling on, criticism of any candidate.
Every candidate deserves to be bashed and criticized.

[cui bono]

19. Why do you think Sanders deserves it? For what issues? n/t

[bigwillq]

23. I'm sure there are some

I just got home from work and want to go to bed. Sorry if that's a weak excuse. I can get back to you.

I plan on voting for Sanders in the primary.

Point is, I don't feel any candidate should be above criticism or "bashing" or "piling on". A person is free to do that for whatever reason. I have no issues with it, even if it's criticism against a candidate I support.

[cui bono]

26. No politician is above criticism, that's for sure. But what's happening with him now is pure slander

People are flat out lying about him on DU. It's pathetic.

[MADem]

33. What lies are these people telling?

Are they misrepresenting his views on gun control legislation? Relations with Israel?

What are they lying about?

They're going to have to tell some serious whoppers to get to a point of equivalency with the other declared candidate, I must say.

Has anyone resorted to quoting World Net Daily or Breitbart yet? Because I HAVE seen that stinking shit when some DUers were trying to discredit the former SECSTATE here.

[merrily]

44. Were the stories false?

[MADem]

45. I was asking someone else a question. Did you mean to respond to someone else? nt

[merrily]

47. No. I meant to ask you a question.

[MADem]

49. The stories were false. They always are. Have a nice day. nt

[merrily]

53. No, the stories are not always false. You as well.

[MADem]

54. You read those sites regularly, then? In that case you'd know. nt

[merrily]

56. No, I don't. However, I once googled for a link to back up something I'd

seen on TV. I got excoriated because the link was from a RW site. It was the same video of Barney Frank I'd just seen on Meet the Press. So, sometimes the site shaming is mindless and pointless.

[MADem]

57. If you can find it anywhere else, you should. nt

[merrily]

62. I simply did not notice that ONE time. However, people should at least look before mindlessly,

pointlessly site shaming, too. It was a video with a one sentence caption, saying it was Barney Frank.

[KittyWampus]

91. Are the "stories" about Sanders actual record false. LOL

[merrily]

92. Um, What does that have to do my post about sources? Or with me?

[KittyWampus]

100. 44. Were the stories false? Your post.

are the stories about Sanders voting record false?

No, they aren't

Yet discussing his votes is now "piling on".

Instead of simplyl giving a pragmatic answer about some of Sanders votes, it seems like some supporters have a melt down.

As for Clinton, quite a few stories were false or MANIPULATED to make things look worse than they are.

You know, like calling Sanders a "gun nut". A gross mischaracterization of his record which does have some votes on guns sure to be at odds with progressives. But he's no gun nut.

So how do you like having your preferred candidate subject to inflammatory and misleading rhetoric?

[merrily]

102. Again, what does any of that have to do with my post or with me?

My post was about sources people use to support their posts.

[KittyWampus]

103. Does your recommendation of this bogus OP attacking Hillary help?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026634558

I saw one recommendation and was curious who would support such a clearly bogus OP with inflammatory title and found it was you.

Only reason I followed up with the link. I generally don't do gotchas like that. But it was a weird coincidence.

[merrily]

104. On this thread, I recommended a post that opposed piling on re: the candidate of my choice.

I see nothing wrong or surprising about that. Do you enjoy "piling on" about Hillary.

If you are going to pretend that the only posts about Bernie have been about his voting record, I can't help you.

[stonecutter357]

151. i love Bernie

can you unbanned me from your group thanks?

[merrily]

181. Tell it to someone else. It's not my group. I didn't start it. I'm not a host of that group.

You went out of your way to get banned and you were banned before I even had a chance to pm a host.

You alerted on an OP in group that consisted of absolutely nothing but a link to a Daily Kos article cursing at me in the alert. You posted in appropriately all over the thread. The jury called you out on the alert. I don't think I've seen anything lamer than that at DU. Except maybe this post of yours to me on this thread.

I'm wondering if you meet the requirements for the board, let alone the requirements for the group.

[LeftOfWest]

75. Oh please...

n/t.

[MADem]

150. If you have something to say, do say it.

"Oh please" is really all about you.

Speak up, now...!

[cui bono]

133. Even though your post is pretty smarmy I'll respond.

The lies being told are:

That his policy is for white males only. That he will work for Wall Street/corporations and then have "trickle down" policy and therefore is only for white males.

That he is not for social justice.

That he wants the US to become more white and sexist because of his Scandinavian remark. Even though Scandinavian countries have far more gender equality than we do here.

And now he's being called a "gun nut".


There is no excuse for any of this. It's blatantly false.

If you are seeing what you say you are regarding Hillary, that is equally as bad. We should be discussing issues in a factual manner.

For what it's worth, I alerted on a thread that was calling DUers PUMAs and asked that we don't do that. And I really do not like Hillary. Hopefully you will do the same when you see similar smears/insults no matter who it is against.

[MADem]

140. I wasn't being smarmy at all. I was being DIRECT. I don't look at every thread.

In fact, I trash a lot of them, especially if the language gets too hyperbolic.

If he is opposed to gun control, that deserves a full and fair airing. He's running for POTUS, not POTUS of Vermont, so that's one of those issues that does get picked apart on the national stage. He'll have to amplify his feelings on the issue.


I thought he was "anti" Wall Street (simplistic shorthand, I am sure some VT businesses are represented on the stock exchange) so I don't see how that argument goes anywhere. He's not from a state where one of the major "industries" is banking and finance. I could see him coming down in favor of protections and subsidies for producers of, say, maple syrup, butter, cheese and milk, though--all politics is local.

The Scandanavian retorts don't ACTUALLY mean White/Sexist, I think the people making those kinds of remarks were getting a dig in, because of the way that so many HRC detractors try to morph her into her HUSBAND when it is convenient for them to make an argument against her. While it is true that VT isn't a leader in terms of diversity of population, I've never heard anything to suggest the man is a racist. They take one comment like this one, twist it, and then rub it in for sport--just like people do about HRC ALL THE TIME. Even when she withholds comment (who wants to contradict their boss before one absolutely HAS to?) people make assumptions about her POV without any evidence to back it up. That's what people are doing, in retaliatory fashion, certainly--and though it's a taste of their own medicine, I don't think it's terribly helpful.

Many of the comments about Clinton are just vicious, they cite Breitbart and Newsmax and Drudge without ANY concern as to the provenance of their arguments, and they are designed to deride, ridicule and demotivate.

If that doesn't work, it's time to start making fun of her appearance, her age, her voice--and there are people here who do that unabashedly. It's the opposite of "progressive" or "liberal," that kind of conduct. It's sexist too, IMO.

It's a two way street. I don't go for that kind of crap at all.

Here, I'm not making this shit up:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026500857
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026101885
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026497993 (this asshole was PPR'd after over 800 trolly posts; he's probably back under a new name)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141067027
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026348172
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025075831
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025785996


Just the tip of the ugly iceberg. Lots more where that came from.

[cui bono]

153. It was smarmy. And now, rather than acknowledge my answer to your question of what lies

and agree to simply discuss policy, you have to go dig up a slew of links and keep continuing this shit.

Do you want it to stop or not?

I do appreciate you agreeing that the examples I cited were false. I'm sure some of the ones you have cited are false as well. I am not going to follow all sorts of links though.

As I said, I alerted on a Sanders supporter's OP as it was insulting to Hillary supporters. All we can do is be sure we don't contribute to it and ask our fellow supporters not to do so as well. But if you keep going on and on about it with someone such as myself - who has already agreed we should stick to talking about policy and has informed you that I have alerted on an OP that was insulting to Hillary supporters - you're just going to add fuel to the fire.

[MADem]

161. I asked five very direct and simple questions.

And no, they were most certainly not smarmy--unless you think that word is a synonym for plain-spoken. I get the strong impression you are unclear on the meaning of the term.

These "gun" threads about Sanders are brand new--they aren't an ongoing thing. The first one I saw was yesterday. As a new candidate, he hasn't caught much heat from the peanut gallery here. Like it or not, that will probably change. The "racist" comments I had to go looking for--that was news to me.

Don't play like you've "never seen" any negativity about Clinton, though, and then when I provide you with just a few examples, you get all huffy and puffy and pretend that the links are for anything other than to illustrate something about which you feigned ignorance. Those aren't even the worst of 'em--those are just a few of the THREADS, as opposed to the sub-threads...and many of those are far more egregious.

I mean, come on, weren't you the one who threw a little shade with this comment?

If you are seeing what you say you are regarding Hillary, that is equally as bad. We should be discussing issues in a factual manner.

"If you are seeing..." Yeah, I am seeing. Here's the proof. So, do you believe me now? See how that "smarmy" stuff works? Now THAT comment of YOURS was smarmy. I never insinuated that you might not have seen something you said you saw. I came right out and asked you about specific complaints. Further, I refuted the validity of the assertions by detractors about Sanders straight out of the gate. What did you do in return? You questioned "IF" my assertions were true, then you berated me when I proved that they were. Then, after all that, you have the moxie to cry about my defending myself from your entirely smarmy remark questioning the truth of my statement.

So yeah, smarmy. It's what's for dinner, I guess.

I'm not going to jerk Senator Sanders' chain. I don't see any need. I wish people would extend former Secretary Clinton the same courtesy and act like something resembling adults, but I am not going to hold my breath.

[cui bono]

166. I don't have to read your post to see that all you want to do is have infighting.

So go at it.

I'm not going participate. As I said, talk about issues. Alert on your fellow supporters if they are rude to the opposition's supporters just as you would if the opposition supporters are rude. That's what I do.

Go ahead and have fun dragging this on and on if you wish. I'm not going down that road.

[MADem]

168. Wow--now you say "I don't have to read your post...."

And you're the one who is playing at taking the high road? If you don't read what people are writing, how can you possibly respond cogently?

Come on. Get real. No one is "dragging this on and on..." I simply called you out on your rather lopsided devotion to a civil discourse. It only matters when it's YOUR ox getting the old gore. You're not really interested in true even-handedness, otherwise you wouldn't have questioned my assertions, even AFTER I took yours at face value.



Thanks for being (albeit unintentionally) so transparent.

[cui bono]

175. " It only matters when it's YOUR ox getting the old gore" How do you come by that?

Where is my "lopsided devotion to a civil discourse" evidenced? As I said above, it's clear all you want to do is fight. If you are angry about me saying your post was smarmy, well it was. If you think that is the wrong word, then I'll change it to combative.

I told you, in a couple different posts, that I alerted on an OP by a Sanders supporter that was insulting to Hillary supporters. How does that make you come to the conclusion of your false accusation?

I apologize, I should have said "your entire post" as I had read enough of it to see that you only want to fight and argue.

Again, I am about discussing the issues and not having supporters fight amongst themselves and level accusations. You enjoy doing it, carry on. People can read this subthread and see exactly what is going on here.

[MADem]

179. You questioned my veracity, as I pointed out.

I took issue with that. I wasn't at all coy, I have told you precisely how I felt about your comments toward me.

I could cut and paste what I said to you earlier, but it's probably simpler to tell you to go read it again.

"IF" you have a mind to, that is.

I've no interest in "arguing" with you--but I do think you should know that your comments aren't even close to being "even handed."

[cui bono]

183. And yet you haven't pointed out evidence of your accusations of me.

You seem to be taking issue of my use of the word "if" as if I'm discounting that that happened. That's not what I'm trying to do. So let's back up and say, when you see that... okay?

So when you see it alert it and rebut it. And when you see Hillary supporters doing the same alert and ask them not to do it. As I've said now several times to you, that's what I did when I saw a Sanders supporter insulting Hillary supporters. How does that make me "lopsided" and whatever else you accused me of being? I truly don't get it.

[MADem]

187. I don't "seem to be" doing anything. I told you what my issues with your comments were.

You WERE discounting/disbelieving/questioning my account. No "seem" about it. That's where the "lopsided" bit came in.


They are your words. Own them.

When you told me what your gripes were, I took you at your word, and even went to the trouble of looking up that "racist/sexist" reference. I then addressed the issues you raised.

You didn't extend me the same courtesy. You gave me a lot of conditional language, like I was talking out my ass. I noticed.

I'm not going to play the "Fuck with Bernie" game, as I said. There's no point in stooping to that level. He's a nice guy and his heart is in the right place. I don't think he'll win the nomination, in fact, I think he's knowingly serving as a vent for the more leftward contingent of the party, but if he did win, I'd vote for him in the general.

[cui bono]

189. Okay, I tried. I give up. There's simply no reaching any agreement with you.

You have already decided I had an agenda, even though I think I explained myself very clearly. You started this with a combative reply to me. I took back the word "if" and said let's use "when".

You really have not substantiated your accusations of me other than to explain how you interpreted what I posted, which I have attempted to clarify but you still want to demonize me.

So fine. Have at it. As I said, people can read this subthread and see it for what it is. Good day.

[MADem]

190. I have no interest in demonizing you--my sole goal was to impress upon you that your

minimizing, dismissive, and conditional language was unacceptable. You keep insisting that I haven't "substantiated (my) accusations" when my substantiation is found in the words that you typed and I quoted several posts upthread.

I have no dramatic issues with Senator Sanders and I don't want to fight about him. In fact, I haven't done any "fighting" about him in this thread, because there's no point to it. If he says something I agree with, I'll say Hurrah. If he says something I disagree with, I will say Naaaaah. If he wins the nomination for my party, I will vote for him. I won't back him in the primary because I prefer another candidate, but that doesn't mean I have to play a hater's game.

[Number23]

159. This site is about to fall in on itself. There aren't enough popcorn smilies in the world for

this latest iteration of DU. The same folks that have crucified Obama and Hillary supporters as being members of the "cult of personality" are PISSED with a capital P that people are actually discussing Bernie Sanders' voting record. That makes no sense at all.

The same folks that have crucified Obama endlessly on this site as a Republican lite, a "con man" an "empty suit" and declared endlessly "he said HISSELF he's a moderate Republican!!1" are now 'splaining Bernie's vote on gun control as him representing the will of his constituents. So it's okay for Bernie to compromise to bend to the will of the people he represents but its anathema for every other fucking politician to do the same?

Obama represents 300 million Americans of every race, political stripe, religion and level of education. And large quantities of the people that he represents DESPISE him. But when he compromises ie works with the other side, oh how the howls fill this place! Bernie, representing the tiniest, whitest, coldest state in the Union does the exact same -- because THIS IS WHAT POLITICIANS DO -- and "oh, but it's okay! It's BERNIE!"

There was another post that got locked that said that DU and Democrats have mostly been pretty strongly in favor of gun control, but all that's about to change because now Bernie has been a pretty strong opponent of gun control. It is a very fair assessment of what's going on as DU appears to have developed a split personality in the last week or so.

[treestar]

81. lol

Poor Bernie!!!!!!!!!

[cui bono]

134. So I take it that you wouldn't do what I did when someone attacked Hillary and her supporters,

which was alert on the OP.

What would you do, just sit back and laugh? We're talking about blatant lies. That he wants to help Wall Street and that his policies are "trickle down" and only for white males. And they were attempted to be backed up with more lies. But go ahead and laugh. But also do know that when I see that I will defend the person being lied about even if I don't like them. I have in the past and I will in the future.

[Doctor_J]

16. except of course for Obama or Hillary

then disagreement is a sure sign of a troll

[bigwillq]

17. Never, ever talk ill about those RockStars!

[sabrina 1]

40. What it says when the smears begin to appear, is that

now he is being taken VERY SERIOUSLY.

No one bothers to try to smear someone they think doesn't have a chance of beating their candidate.

So, it's a good sign. And when you see several posts, all over the place, all talking about one thing, you know it is from an expensive Think Tank somewhere.

I'm excited, thought it might take a while before they realized, he really IS a serious candidate for the WH in 2016.

[Puzzledtraveller]

63. I think if he can get the stage

and the people hear him, he can win. I even think that he can snatch up many moderates, of both sides, who are so tired, tired of working so hard and seeing little to no gain, stagnant wages, phony job growth claims, a people who barely have the strength to dare to dream of getting their head above water much less swim.

[sabrina 1]

70. That's what's happening. He was at 1% in Oct when polls began including him

as a potential candidate. Mostly unknown outside his state (and to political jukies like us). By Jan as more people began to hear him, he rose to 3%.

By April he was between 7.1% and 8-10%. A poll in NH where he recently gave a talk, showed him to at 13%.

His numbers have steadily risen as people begin to get to know him.

And all those polls are BEFORE he announced and before WE begin to campaign for him.

So I agree with you, the more people begin to get to know him, the higher his numbers will be.

And if we are watching this trend, so are they.

Not to mention how much he has raised in less than a week from tens of thousands of individual donors.

[sendero]

89. Anyone that doesn't..

... think this country is READY for populist candidate after 7 years of economic malaise just isn't in touch with reality.

And it is amusing to see certain known-quantity candidates trying to assume the mantle of populist now. Laughable.

[KittyWampus]

93. His actual voting record is not a smear. It's a bad sign when simply discussing his actual record

gets labeled a "smear". It means his supporters are not able to deal with his actual voting record. Or maybe it's an issue of having an extremely thin skin, poor debating skills, or inability to embrace PRAGMATISM.

[winter is coming]

174. I've seen people trumpet Bernie's vote on the Brady bill as proof that he's a gun nut.

Those same people fail to mention that the NRA gave Bernie an F or that he favors things like waiting periods. That's not a "gun nut". Criticize Bernie's voting record all you like, but don't cherry-pick votes and claim they mean something they don't. That's dishonest, and if that's your idea of "pragmatic," I want no part of it.

[Eleanors38]

143. Yep, he is being taken seriously. Let it begin.

[markpkessinger]

169. Quite so . . .

As I said to someone the other day in response to an OP saying that "74% of Democrats support Hillary," well then, all of the HIllary supporters here can just kick back and relax, right?

[winter is coming]

173. I'm not sure the perceived threat is that Bernie will be a viable candidate.

The more immediate threat, IMO, is that with Bernie in the race, it's going to be nigh unto impossible for Hillary to thread the needle of looking like she cares about inequality without pissing off her big-money donors. If someone like Bernie weren't around, she might be able toss out a few content-free feel-good sound bites that could be interpreted as significant promises without actually committing to anything. As soon as you put someone in the race unequivocally and unapologetically advocating for ordinary schmoes and willing to talk about what, specifically, should be done, vague platitudes just won't cut it.

[sabrina 1]

191. That's part of it I'm sure, but they would have to be crazy not to see that this is not just

someone who is in the race to drag anyone to the Left, a ridiculous piece of nonsense, since we assume that ALL Democrats ARE on the Left and if they are not you sure can't drag them there.

They KNOW that once he gets the mic, as we have seen, there is something about him that draws people to him.

He is saying what people want to hear for one thing, he is attacking people they KNOW collapsed this country, which they rarely hear from other candidates and it FEELS good.

He is definitely a threat to the plans to keep a Corporate Dem or Repub in the WH.

And the smear campaign is liable to get very nasty, as his poll numbers begin to climb, which they have already.

[merrily]

42. Funny how so many DUers were saying the opposite before Bernie declared, though.

[Puzzledtraveller]

7. Lol,

Always a good one.

[KittyWampus]

95. LEAVE BERNIE ALONE!

[BainsBane]

9. What was it that did it for you?

His vote to make gun manufacturers immune from torte liability?

What is it, six whole people don't worship at Sanders' altar? And that's what constitutes piling on, after thousands of threads against Clinton? Not even a pretense of consistency. Unreal.

As I have said several times, for me to decide to caucus for Sanders, I will have to block from my consciousness every thread I've read on DU, including this one. Amazing you can post it with a straight face.

[cui bono]

22. It was probably the posts saying his policy is for white males only,

that he is going to help Wall Street and corporations (!) and then it will trickle down (!). (yes, that was posted with a straight face in all seriousness).

That he wants our country to be more "white" and "sexist". (yes, that was also posted with a straight face in all seriousness)

And now he was just called a gun nut in this thread.

Seriously, people have really lost the plot with him. Before he declared he was loved by all, now that he's someone's "opponent" boy, oh boy... the attempts to swiftboat have begun.

[Beartracks]

28. He wants our country to be more "white" and "sexist"?? Groan...

...

You know what THAT's from? If I'm not mistaken, it stems from his comment that America could stand to be more like Sweden (in terms of healthcare, education, and income equality), and some DUers (willfully?) took that to mean he wants us to actually become Sweden, which they helpfully noted has a problem with racism. Thus, of course, obviously, therefore, Sanders is racist.



============================

[MADem]

34. Yes, that game of "willful misinterpretation" hurts terribly when that shoe goes on the other foot.

People who support HRC don't like it either.

It just goes to show ya, it's better to stick to facts, provide links to prove assertions, and avoid nasty hyperbole. Infinitely preferable to playing a goading/baiting game.

[sheshe2]

68. "Yes, that game of "willful misinterpretation"

hurts terribly when that shoe goes on the other foot."

Thanks MADem.

We have seen it for Hillary now. Sigh~ how many years have we endured it with Obama. Hair on fire hyperbole. Yet, when it is there candidate, no no no! Hillary has to be held accountable. Yet now today I read about Bernie and his votes on gun control, I find that disturbing. Yet I see them giving him a pass. You almost have to laugh. Bernie gets a pass, like PBO and Hillary never did.

How do you spell HYPOCRITE!

FYI, I have not said one word about Bernie, I have not trashed him. I saw many Hillary supporters welcoming him to the race. They are getting trashed anyway.

Shoe meet foot!

[cui bono]

132. For the umpteenth time, Obama got well deserved criticism. He's a centrist a self described

moderate Republican.

Bernie is not getting a pass. There is not one person in this world that one can agree with completely I would imagine. I am excited to support Sanders because I think if he is elected president he will fight for all working people to get this country back to what it is supposed to be, to stop/reverse the corporate takeover of our democracy.

FYI, I really do not like Hillary but I alerted on a thread calling DUers PUMAS and asked that we not do that because it is divisive and insulting.

It's simple really, just talk about issues in an honest and factual manner and don't take criticism personally. Just refute it with facts if you disagree.

[cui bono]

131. Agree. Just talk about the issues. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

78. Check out the wikipedia link for Bernie Sanders.

Here ---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

He doesn't sound like a racist to me.

[KittyWampus]

96. the gun nut thing was from a thread title. LOL. And a very few outlier comments

is not "PILING ON".

I am on the fence about supporting Bernie in the primary. Waiting to see who else enters, if anyone.

But so far, many DU'ers who support him are showing an incredible incapacity to deal w/any adversity.

Those who spend the most time demanding ideological purity are most intolerant.

And apparently also have the thinnest skin.

[cui bono]

130. I disagree based on what I've seen. I've just seen counters to the slander filled with facts.

Most Sanders supporters are discussing policy. If they are appearing "thin skinned" it's because of the slanderous statements about him. And it is odd that the senator who was everybody's hero before he declared is now being painted as a racist, sexist, Wall Street/corporate supporter who wants to enact "trickle down" policy and now a gun nut. I mean really, that is ludicrous and is being responded to as the insanity that it is.

Anyway, I'd rather discuss policy than supporters, but if someone is going to outright lie about Sanders, or anyone else for that matter, I will defend. Or even post something stupid. I don't like Hillary one bit, but I alerted on a thread that used the term "PUMA" in it and asked that we not call DUers that because I thought it was rude and divisive.

Those who spend the most time demanding ideological purity are most intolerant.

Who is demanding ideological purity? I think that's a false meme that's spread on DU. In fact, now that there is a candidate that the left can feel excited about the new question is how can we support someone we don't agree with completely on everything single issue or vote. So basically the left can't win no matter what. Either we're called - unfairly - purists, or we're asked how we can not be purists.

[PowerToThePeople]

10. only 9% of DU supports HRC over Sanders

very small but very vocal group.

[upaloopa]

13. How do you know that? Seems wrong to me

I'm sure nobody knows who all the DUers support .

[chknltl]

38. Well there was this little DU poll

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026592890

[Evergreen Emerald]

105. you are assuming everyone voted

I for one did not.

[L0oniX]

111. Did you also not vote in the fall of 2014?

[MohRokTah]

108. OMFG, THAT SETTLES IT!!!!!!

[upaloopa]

112. It was not a statistical anslysys

It only represents those who chose to take part.
For it to be representative of DU it would have to be made up of a truly random sample of ALL DUers where each person had an equal chance of being SELECTED.
Study statistics

[carolinayellowdog]

15. hard to tell what purpose their scolding and bullying is supposed to serve

as it seems more likely to shrink than to increase that 9% figure

[Maedhros]

144. It's an attempt to create the perception that Hillary is the only choice,

and Bernie is a kooky fringe candidate.

[workinclasszero]

48. We may be small here but

We are the vast majority of democratic voters who will put Hillary in the white house!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. Actually, what I realized tonight made me laugh.

The anti-Bernie folks really thought they were either going to make pro-Bernie heads explode or for them to throw Bernie under the bus by whipping out his gun and Israel stances. Why? Because they actually believed the caricature of folks on the left as 'purity trolls' that they'd been proclaiming for so long. That lefties would recoil in horror because Bernie is not 'perfect', ignoring the fact that lefties have never held out for a 'perfect' candidate, just a good one. But I guess if you say something often enough, you come to believe it, even if no one else does.

[Puzzledtraveller]

21. Spot on, some illusions have been shattered.

[sabrina 1]

43. Are 'commies' gun nuts? It's going to be hard to call him a 'socialist commie' AND 'a right

wing white supremacist gun nut' at the same time.

And if they do and succeed, he gets the gun nut vote AND the socialist/commie vote AND our vote and he sails into the WH in 2016!


Lol, it's all good!

And one thing's for sure, it shows that somewhere some important people are now taking him VERY seriously!

[cui bono]

25. Yes. And now they are the ones with the purity test, but for the opponent of their

chosen candidate.

The desperation is getting really ugly. I mean really, to call Sanders policy stance as for Wall Street/corporations and therefore for white males only and a trickle down policy (yes, someone said that), to infer that he is racist and sexist and now I've just seen him called a "gun nut"... that is just batshit crazy.

[Beartracks]

29. That's kind of a very Republican thing to do.

Remember last time around when every conservative candidate constantly claimed that every other clown in the car with him/her was "liberal" and not a "true conservative"?

==================

[liberal_at_heart]

35. "ignoring the fact that lefties have never held out for a 'perfect' candidate, just a good one".

Exactly. We're not looking for a messiah. Even if he were to get elected President, he would have a difficult time getting his agenda passed, but you know what? At least he would fight for us. For the last 30 years, the average American has had no one fighting for them. For the last 30 years we've had Republican and Democratic Presidents who seem to be in love with Trickle Down Economics, and at long last someone is willing to say that the results are in and Trickle Down Economics don't work.

[Maedhros]

146. Bernie has a great many policies with which I wholeheartedly agree,

and a very few that I do not.

With Hillary, it's the exact opposite.

[winter is coming]

202. +1. I don't expect Bernie to fix everything, but at least he won't lie to me about

how good things are or pretend that he's helping the 99% when what's really happening is that the 99% get crumbs while the 1% get a payoff.

[Marr]

37. That *is* pretty funny.

WHY AREN'T YOU CONFORMING TO MY ASININE CARICATURE??

[chknltl]

39. In case you missed this DU poll:

I didn't notice your name in it, maybe you didn't notice it. If not, I suspect it may make you raise an eyebrow:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026592890

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

83. Nope, hadn't seen it.

But I do wish you could do multiple polls in a single post. It would have been interesting to see that one, and one in which 'electability' was considered. That way you could see what percentage of folks are willing to change their votes based simply upon their own view of whatever 'electable' means. To me, it means that if enough people convince themselves a candidate can't win, and therefore won't give that person their vote, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Maedhros]

147. Wow - it's 10:1 in favor of Bernie. [n/t]

[Maedhros]

145. I guess I'd have to say to them,

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

- Matthew 7:5

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I follow the 11th Commandment

Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Democrat.

[Maedhros]

148. Of the person? That's reasonable.

But bad policy is bad policy, and deserves to be called out regardless of who supports it.

[okaawhatever]

20. Please, Bernie has been treated with kid gloves compared to what Hillary bashers have

put on DU.

[Puzzledtraveller]

24. No doubt

But until now I really didn't know a thing about Bernie Sanders, honestly. Which is the point of the post though I admit it was loaded with sarcasm, so in some way more of us are or may be aware of things about Sanders we didn't know before. Some things drawing us in to his support, and some things turning off others. Overall I find it very interesting.

edited to add; I didn't change my avatar until this evening.

[chknltl]

41. This might draw you in a little further:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026592890

[Rex]

27. That sound? The other shoe dropping. nt

nt

[MADem]

31. I don't see any "piling on."

Aside from a few light-hearted comments about his fly-away hair, I haven't seen many if any comments about his age, his clothing, his ankle size, or his sense of style. Not ONE word about the quality of his VOICE, either. No one has said he's "pushy," or "abrasive" or "too aggressive" either. He's doing well!

People are talking about his voting record. They're discussing his views on gun control legislation and Israel and a few other issues. Some people are being snarky, others are actually getting down in the weeds and looking at his votes as a clue to his thought processes.

Politicians who have spent any time in a legislative role will have a record. There's nothing wrong with having a look, so long as there isn't any "gotcha" going on (and that's one hell of a two way street, there).

It's only fair that this happen--it's certainly happened with the other candidate who has declared, thus far.

No one is saying anything about his WIFE's political views, though--so that's good. No one is scrutinizing the shit out of his kids, either.

He should count himself lucky that he doesn't have to account for every time his family members shot off their mouths about an issue of interest to them!

[darkangel218]

32. No kidding!

[AgingAmerican]

36. The desperation is unsettling

[appalachiablue]

138. What a gem!

[Stardust]

193. DUzy! (nt)

[workinclasszero]

46. Just pointing out the fact that Bernie's a gun-humper

and apologist for gun manufacturers.


At least its not BS republican lies like that debunked Clinton book Bernie fans were quoting as truth for weeks on this board.

[NYC_SKP]

52. Wrong. He supports background checks and magazine capacity limits.

He voted against a law that could have led to people filing suits against gun makers, car makers and knife makers for harm done to people who used them illegally.

Such a law would have been stricken by higher courts.

"gun-humper"?

Really. And your candidate, well.

[Ed Suspicious]

58. One can support gun ownership without being a gun-humper. Either way, and issue, not my main issue.

Israel? An issue, not an issue upon which I agree with him, but really not my main issue. Bernie is absolutely right where it matters to me - that is he wants big money out of politics. One person one vote and money doesn't equal speech. He's right where I need him to be. And on the economy and trade policy, I couldn't be happier with him. Those issues are right where I live. Identity politics are straightened out once we clean up elections. Guns and Israel? Less guns would be great, but that's another issue for another time I think. Those issues mattered a lot more to me when I knew we didn't have anyone who was right on the economy and trade and who was right on elections. Now that we have a legitimate champion for cleaning up the system, every other issue becomes secondary to my mind. (Except for repressive actions by the government)

[liberal_at_heart]

61. My number one issue has always been education but we won't be able to do anything about

education or anything else until we get money out of politics. That needs to be our utmost number one priority.

[Ed Suspicious]

64. I agree. Once we remove the corruption influence of big money from the equation, our issues become

important. Until then, lets face it, our government just doesn't need us enough to care to fix the problems that matter deeply to us. Sure they'll throw us a bone every now and again, but right now we simply don't matter enough.

[Puzzledtraveller]

69. Identity politics are straightened out once we clean up elections.

You said it right there. There are many issues important to me that I know Bernie mostly stands firm on but they are not everything and mean nothing when we are drowning out here in the real world.

[frylock]

71. this is comedy gold!

[Major Hogwash]

77. It sure as hell is.

Because over the last 20 years more Democrats have been beaten at the ballot box for being pro-gun control than for being pro-same sex marriage!!

We are all aware that Republicans hate gays.
But, they also hate people who go after their guns.
That is why President Obama hasn't tried to pass a single gun control law in the last 6½ years!

When a Senator represents the majority of the people in his state, he is doing what he was elected to do!

[L0oniX]

110. Kinda like Hillary is a war-humper.

[lovemydog]

195. If you post a photo of Bernie Sanders humping a gun

I'd suspect it was photoshopped.

[NotoriousRBG]

50. Recc'd

[Enthusiast]

51. ...

[Puzzledtraveller]

55. That is "Calcetine marionetta erectus"

It is known for popping up whenever DLC candidates feel threatened.

[Enthusiast]

59. Not a particularly rare species and certainly not endangered.

[winter is coming]

60. For someone who's supposedly a no-hope candidate, a surprising amount of energy

is being spent to tell us that he's not a viable candidate.

[Ed Suspicious]

66. +1

[Orrex]

85. The same was said of Kucinich who also was not viable.

[L0oniX]

123. +2

[Cha]

72. Poor Bernie.. can he take it? Looking into his record? I think so. Wee bit of hypocrisy going

though. After all the rw links posted with Hillary Clinton smears that have been on DU.

And, before anyone jumps on to label me one of the many epithets of those who don't think like they do.. consider this..

I haven't chosen a candidate yet.. I'm waiting to learn more.

"piling on".. What do you think the rw wing is going to do to whomever wins the Dem Primary?

[neverforget]

73. I have yet to find a politician I agree with 100%.

Thankfully, I never will. I can only find politicians that most fit my view/principles/policies. So far, Bernie is the one that is closest to my view.

[treestar]

80. Oh poor Sanders

Why he's the victim of actual critics?

[KittyWampus]

86. "Piling On"? Are you serious? This fake persecution complex is annoying.

[Puzzledtraveller]

114. Hyperbole to grab attention to a more subtle point.

Which is I did not know much about Bernie Sanders until there began to be posts critical of him. It is then I began to like someone I previously didn't know very well. Conversely, some people may have started to not like him who previously did. Should make for an interesting and fun time on DU.

[MaggieD]

163. Very annoying

We seem to have two primary type of posts here lately. A) Bernie supporters bashing Hillary, and B) Bernie supporters with their imaginary persecution posts.

[99Forever]

90. Yup. Less than a week after he announced...

... and the PUMAs are having fits.

It's a thing of beauty.

[KittyWampus]

97. The OP reminds me of teenagers who like their boyfriends the more their parents

show any kind of disapproval.

[NCTraveler]

98. Outside of DU can be a tough place.

DU is pretty much a safe haven.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026592890

If your op is in reference to DU, you might want to change your reference point. If that assumption is accurate, you live somewhere other than reality.

[Buzz Clik]

106. Good deal! He needs all the help he can get.

[MohRokTah]

109. The skin.

It must be thick.

[MoonRiver]

113. I feel the same way about Hillary!

[carolinayellowdog]

115. What I see is relentless harassment of specific Sanders supporters

I won't name them as they seem quite able to take the heat and don't need my defense. But there is a longterm pattern of personal attacks on a few individuals by a cadre here, ever since the jury system was installed, that would never have survived under moderators. And if it "just so happens" that the targets of such coordinated harassment are now vocal Bernie supporters, and those who attack them are not-- it seems that he is just a pretext for the sameoldsameold.

If those same targets of harassment became O'Malley supporters tomorrow, the harassers would suddenly focus their fury on O'Malley.

[Maedhros]

149. There may indeed be some truth in this.

Some posters here just want to sneer at others.

[Sheepshank]

116. good god, fake martyrdom in action

no piling on happening for Sanders. Shall we compare links to Sanders perceived piling to, the actually piling on HRC threads? What a fucking joke.

[Puzzledtraveller]

117. Didn't get the point I see.

I will make it clear and easy to grasp. I personally did not know a thing about Bernie Sanders until I began to see and follow the posts critical of him. And before you ask, I changed my avatar after this thread got traction. Now I really like Sanders for President.

[JoePhilly]

128. So you somehow MISSED all of the pro-Sanders threads?

There have been lots and lots of pro-Sanders threads, probably a few dozen since he announced ... and maybe three or four OPs somewhat critical of him.

But you had missed the pro-Sanders OPs.

ummm ....ok.

[Orsino]

118. He and his message can withstand scrutiny that most other politicians' cannot.

Almost everything that would be done to Sec. Clinton in the general will be done to Sanders, in miniature, in the primaries.

[Rex]

120. Well played! I see the very people saying the same thing about HRC are in here

being total hypocrites. I SEE what you did there!



THEY GOT IT TOO...but you know how this place is.

[fadedrose]

121. David has something on about Bernie every nite

it seems, and none of it is bad, just silly....

[LanternWaste]

122. I'm the same way in regards to Clinton. I guess we're both easily manipulated...

I'm the same way in regards to Clinton. I guess we're both easily manipulated by white noise...

[hifiguy]

124. That the Hillary Defense Corps is already doing this

betrays only their fear of a candidate who speaks for the people, not the banksters and the billionaire class.

Sad business. And you ain't gonna change the mind of even ONE Sanders supporter with your BS.

[winter is coming]

185. Changing the minds of committed Sanders supporters isn't the point.

They're trying to keep reluctant Hillary supporters from bolting.

[stevenleser]

125. What happens on DU won't matter. nt

[pnwmom]

126. I have the same reaction to Hillary bashing. n/t

[lewebley3]

170. The attacks are from Sanders supporters on Hillary!

Bernie's a nice guy, I think most Hillary supporters like him very much!

[hrmjustin]

192. The more I see people pile on Hillary the more I like her.

[lovemydog]

196. This is kind of hilarious.

The more people pile on Bernie the more I like him. The more people pile on Hillary the more I like her. Though I've gotta say, I truly cannot stand any of the republicans. They make me wanna hurl.

[hrmjustin]

198. Oh? Hilarious ?

[lovemydog]

199. To me, yes. I like both Hillary and Bernie.

I'm leaning more toward Bernie right now. But the primaries are a long long long way off. I will support whoever gets the nomination.

[hrmjustin]

200. Thanks my friend!

[lovemydog]

201. You're welcome my friend.