General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat does it say that mild criticism of Bernie is met with great vengeance and furious anger?
Last edited Thu May 28, 2015, 11:18 AM - Edit history (1)
It's an interesting phenomenon, and it speaks to the fact that the main thrust for Bernie's nomination resides in a pure good-vs-evil world. Bernie good, Hillary and Republicans evil.
The fact that Bernie, like any other candidate, is flawed and better on some issues than others, challenges this worldview. Once we get into weighing positives and negatives, we also have to realize that Hillary is mostly positive as well, and also that, unlike Bernie, she can actually beat the GOP in the general election. The argument for Bernie doesn't do so well in rational, nuanced world, which is to say, the real world.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)ejbr
(5,856 posts)still_one
(92,394 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)the smart money says no.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)not by emotion and wishful thinking.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Oakenshield
(614 posts)Why anyone should care what the "smart money" thinks is why the Democratic party has become so conservative economically.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I will vote for. Yes, I am one of those elusive indies.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)That's silly.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Dismissive to the bitter end.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)It is what it is.
Disingenuous at best...
Trajan
(19,089 posts)It's an expression.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/the-bitter-end
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Makes reasonable dialogue here practically impossible.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Lots of vociferous 2008 Primary Obama supporters, still hating on Clinton. Not all... but quite a few recognizable...
harrumph!
That is why I take the "criticism" with the tiniest grain of salt.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)If they were so wrong (as they say they were), what makes them think they are so right this time.
I've come to recognize a lot bloviating... and I am convinced it is just plain and simple Hillary hate. They just don't want her as president.
Ok, fine. Vote for who you want is my advice to them.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)The book True Believer really represents some here.
The book analyzes and attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements; why and how mass movements start, progress and end; and the similarities between them, whether religious, political, radical or reactionary. Hoffer argues that even when their stated goals or values differ mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable. Thus, religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics and rhetorical tools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)One that cannot be openly and honestly discussed here, but important none-the-less.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)LOL, oh how the worm has turned!
Autumn
(45,120 posts)supporting her now and castigating DUers who don't support Hillary this time. And calling Hillary 'morally depraved' was one of that posters nice comments. Hillary was a 'lying war monger and she had lost her support when Hillary voted for the IWR'. You got to laugh at that nonsense.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)I was looking though my bookmarks from back then and found it. That was a rough time to support Hillary she was trashed up one side and down the other as being a racist. Funny thing is, Hillary doesn't have a racist bone in her body,neither does Bernie. Hillary was called every name in the book and so were her supporters
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)out of the whole puma shit dynamics. i thought stupid with both sides. i think dems did well. i mean... obama and cinton, acting like grown ups.
not so much du itself.
i am curious. i am not retaining the past like i use to
pm?
Autumn
(45,120 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)i also remember cracks about cankles and cigar jokes coming from some of that crowd as well.
brush
(53,843 posts)Obama supporters didn't hate Hillary, in fact we were all Hillary supporters at one time, and many are right now.
I can't say the same for those "pumas" though. Remember them? They were some pieces of work in voicing their Obama hatred loud and clear.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)are you starting the puma shit again?
brush
(53,843 posts)I worked the '08 campaign in New York and was confronted quite rudely many times by pumas.
It was not an Obama campaign creation. But we understood it was not Hillary's creation either, just over zealous fans of hers.
Like I said, we were Hillary fans before the Obama campaign became a monumental historic reality that we wanted to be a part of.
And I will certainly vote for Hillary if/when she wins the nomination.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)brush
(53,843 posts)Obama fans were just about all Clinton fans before he came along.
Maybe you ran into individual Clinton haters but I didn't, because, IMO, there was (and still is) residual goodwill for both Clintons among Obama fans, who I dare say, will vote for Hillary when and if she gets the nomination.
And might I add, I am personally so tired of this current Hillary/Bernie back-and-forth bashing.
It's divisive, hateful and needs to stop.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)simple as that.
she never had it that easy.
lots and lots and lots did not like clinton. before her hat was out, had sexist bullshit thrown her way. and again. i never wanted clinton in office because of the simple fact she was a clinton.
brush
(53,843 posts)I never felt that way.
Never felt that way about Edwards either and am I glad about that he didn't turn out too well.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)2008 is clear we are not have a serious conversation.
brush
(53,843 posts)and you choose to call it "not serious".
What is that about?
It can be a serious conversation without me agreeing with you. I wasn't an Edwards supporter. You were. To each his own.
Now I'm done, and I'm serious about that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you can address with others.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)a lot of Obama supporters. Not all, but a lot of them were really horrible in some of the things they posted. I remember one time, someone posted a picture of her Photoshopped to look like she was bound and gagged and tied up to a stake. It was weird.
brush
(53,843 posts)How foolish for dems to degrade other dem candidates.
With dems like that who needs repugs.
And that goes for the tit-for-tat Bernie/Hllary bashers they need to grow up, respect the other dem candidates and act like adults.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)It is one thing to point out a particular policy and say why you disagree on that policy, but a lot of the fighting is overboard. No candidate is going to be perfect, whether someone is to the left, center, or right. In the primaries, it is a matter of which one each person prefers. I would think we can all agree that the Democratic Party candidate that wins the nomination is going to be tons better than any Republican, by leaps and bounds, to the nth degree.
I don't hate Hillary or Bernie. I agree with him on some things and with her on some things. In the primaries, I'll lean toward him, but reality says in the general election, she'll be the nominee and I'll vote for her. I have a few minor caveats, but overall, she's miles better than any Republican, not just MOR, but way better.
Now, there are some conservative Democrats, I do feel are not much better, because I know them in my local area and they rule the place, horribly. They are really Republicans using the Democratic Party, imo. They are nothing like the party at the national level, even those considered conservative by most on DU are still way more liberal than the ones where I live. The ones where I live are unreasonable and ultra conservative on social as well as economic issues. That doesn't leave me much room to stand, because I can't get with social conservatives. It is just not safe for me.
So, there are Democrats I have real beefs with, and they are mostly the local ones and a few I think we all get pissed off at from time to time. Hillary is not in that category. I hate the misogyny by some. That crap needs to go. It is not necessary to point out a difference of opinion.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Hillary dropped off of my radar due to her selection of some advisors, her inability to manage her campaign and its finances, and her willingness to let go remarks of supporters who did engage in dog whistling. Particularly, every time I saw that slob Republican in a food stained sweater, Mark Whatshisname, speaking on behalf of her campaign, it would make me livid. As much as I want to see a woman in the WH before I die, it wasn't going to be her in 2008.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)DFW
(54,436 posts)I wish Howard Dean and Al Gore would come back for an encore of that night in New York 7 years ago---
Remember this from 2008 on the GDP ("primaries" board?.....................
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3369762
I don't even have a favorite yet in this race, and probably won't until next year. So far, my one contribution has gone to Bernie Sanders because I want his voice heard loud and clear, even if I don't think his chances are too great for the nomination (and less so for the general--since when has the American public shown a clear tendency to overwhelmingly vote its own interests?).
But the emotions are flying high here just like they were in 2008. We are Astérix's village, and we don't seem to learn.
It would be nice to NOT hear "socialist!" or corporatist!" for a few days, but that's apparently like asking not to hear French in Paris for a week.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)And I too wish some here were mature enough to get it.
DFW
(54,436 posts)It didn't work in 2008 either, if that is any consolation
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)OMG, I think I am going to bust a gut laughing at your ridiculous post!
sendero
(28,552 posts)... if "corporatist" wasn't a pretty accurate description of certain candidates, but it would be a lie to say it isn't.
A lie sort of like "if you don't talk about my pet issue enough, you're a racist". Pure idiocy and that is why it gets the reaction it does.
DFW
(54,436 posts)i.e. it's a vague derogatory term that means pretty much whatever the accuser wants it to mean, and nothing at all to the accused.
But like I said, French in Paris......
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)of someone who puts the welfare of corporations above the (financial) welfare of ordinary citizens.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And I'm sure he is more than willing to address any concerns of the American voters. When have we ever seen Bernie back down.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)power. You need someone like HRC who will be a good friend to corporations and wall street, and give them all the rope they need to sink the economy - it's unreasonable to suggest that someone like Sanders could be President. Laughable really.
I mean this is clearly a center right country - we just need to accept that and support a center right candidate who can win, and not pin our hopes on a real liberal.
Bryant
treestar
(82,383 posts)want to sink the economy?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Odd.
They don't want to. But they are greedy and short sighted. So they will unless they are well regulated and reigned in. Witness what happened in 2008 - when the various financial vehicles did considerable damage to the economy.
More to the point being on the top of the financial pile isn't a bad deal in any society - Wall Street can happily let the rest of us go on starvation wages while maintaining their own enormous piece of the pie. You might well argue that that is a bad plan in the long run, even for wall street (and I'd agree with you) but that doesn't mean they won't do it.
Bryant
treestar
(82,383 posts)It works for the most part. That's what most of the voters think.
They were stupid in the Depression and 2007 and a few other times?
And the other posters talk as if that's what they want to do. When it is not even in their interests.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)But that was systematically gutted in the years from Reagan to George W Bush (with Clinton playing a big hand).
Bryant
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)sits. it is not like obama has not addressed it. not as much as i would like, or as hard. but he has addressed it. and repugs have weakened a weak bill.
one of the reasons i am going sanders. i want aggressive. i would be aggressive all over the place. i am that on du. how receptive is that aggressiveness? would it work for sanders? i would like to see.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And people were satisfied with it in the 80s. I recall a short stock market crash in 1987 and then it righted itself. People liked the economy in the 90s. When it tanks, people don't like it and demand the government do something.
The regulations was scaled back but not "gutted."
tennstar
(45 posts)Corporations don't think beyond pleasing their investors.
All you have to do is look at every bubble we have had, look at the banking fiasco.
look at who makes up the boards of all the large corps, that alone tells you everything. Corporations do not have morals or thoughts they are machines to make money. today they no longer even care about quality. They never cared about labor, or the environment ,why do you think regulations are so important? Why do you think we had the formation of unions. They don't think, and someone has to step in and fix their mess and clean it up.
The next time they tank the economy watch what happens cause I don't think Americans are going to be willing to pay to clean up their mess again and than we will see the shit hit the fan.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)The investors care only about the money. The corporations are doing all they can to ensure the investors get the only thing they care about. Up to and including the end of life as we know it on this planet.
Literally, no hyperbole needed.
The end of life as we know it.
Care about not tanking the economy? Sure, but only so there is no hiccup in the cash infusions from individuals unburdened by things like a moral compass.
They literally don't even care they are making the planet inhospitable to the very ecosystems and wildlife that have taken eons to evolve here. Day in and day out they clock in and are humble servants in the gaze of those who not only do nothing of value but do all they can to ensure the truth is buried, that lipstick is applied heavily to the pig and that the thievery and willful destruction will continue until it cannot.
tennstar
(45 posts)You said it better than I could👷😃
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Profit over everything eventually drives out humanity, nothing personal just bidness.
It's hard to keep from hating the player when the game is so harmful and ultimately amoral.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The individuals running these corporations make more money if they are short-sighted. They get paid a large pile of money now, and then "retire" when the shit hits the fan. Usually with a large golden parachute.
They already made their fortune, so it really doesn't matter if the result is an economic collapse.
They could make even more money with a longer-term strategy, but it's much, much riskier. People will take a 95% chance to make $100M over a 50% chance to make $10B.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They need to be regulated and are to an extent. Granted they whine a lot about that. But they have no interest in tanking the economy as they would go with it.
They don't even have an interest in taking all the money and leaving the rest of us poor. They just need to let the rest of us have "enough."
jeff47
(26,549 posts)As long as they're the 1%, they're happy. Even if they're the 1% of people living in caves.
2007 says "Hi".
You remember, when they tanked the economy to make a lot of short-term gains?
treestar
(82,383 posts)I thought it was incompetence of some kind. If you really think they do these things, you're in a dystopia. A few of them can tank the economy any time for the mere thrill of getting even way more than they have and they do it for fun? And they got all the response from the government's actions in 2009 which they could have done without.
They don't want people with pitchforks at the gates. The middle class is in their interest.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They thought they could extract just a little more from the economy. And then just a little more. And a little more. And then the whole thing came crashing down.
It's not intentional as in they were twisting their handlebar mustache and shouting "Muahahaha!". It is intentional in that they knew there were risks, but kept going and going and going because it paid more.
I suppose it would be more like "depraved indifference murder" than "premeditated murder".
They don't do it for fun. They do it because they are pathological hoarders. They hoard money instead of cats.
They believe their fortresses are impregnable.
The fact that they have already split marketing of products into the wealthy and the poor demonstrate otherwise.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)That whole XE/Academi/whatever thing could just be a coincidence. But the timing of it sure is handy for the 0.01%.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And they don't have enough bullets to stop everyone. But they still believe they are immune from retaliation.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)then center right candidates will win and that's democracy.
Your liberal candidate has to convince those voters to move to the left and so do you.
So much on DU is mere complaining that the other voters don't agree.
Javaman
(62,534 posts)isn't a great technique to dissuade people from voting or supporting Bernie.
Of which I'm still doing.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Do you also have a big brother who can beat people up when they're mean to you? At the very least, you could link to whatever it is that Skinner said.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)But, I think he would find it amusing that someone would think he could beat someone up. Since I am 65 and he would have been 63, it would be unlikely that either one of use would do well in a fight at our ages. You can do a DU search for Skinner's exact quote.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)There should be a term for taking something literally that you obviously know isn't literal, but you decide to interpret it literally in order to achieve some effect.
But if you don't do metaphor, I'll spell it out directly for you: you sound for all the world like you're appealing to Skinner's authority at DU in the absence of having anything to say on the topic yourself. No doubt, he owns the place and as such, he gets to make the rules. But instead of calling on a "higher power", you could just use your own argument instead. And if you want to go with Skinner's statement, whatever it was, it would be courteous to paste that statement or link to it.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)He says the "underground" part of Democratic Underground came from wanting a name that signified it was foursquare against Republicans. Over the years, he's seen that many Democrats here engage in fighting other Democrats here. Is that a pretty fair summary?
If so, this is much ado about nothing. Skinner didn't say anything controversial. He didn't pick one side over some other side. He didn't threaten to do whatever owners of websites can do when their ire is raised. He just lamented Democrats infighting. I do see that there are many responses to the post you linked to in the HRC group, but that doesn't mean the HRC group owns Skinner's lamentation.
cali
(114,904 posts)first of all there at lots of HRC supporters here who react with utter fury against any criticism of her and the majority of you blast ALL criticism of her as "right wing". Never mind that it may be criticism from someone like Zephyr Teachout or Charlie Pierce, it's blasted as "right wing".
Secondly, of course Bernie is flawed, but insinuating that he's racist? that should make people mad. It's nothing but an ugly smear- and it sure ain't merely mild criticism. duh.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm talking about. You can't handle the actual criticism -- that he didn't do enough to address race in his campaign launch -- so instead you attack the critics and change their words.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)she replies. no you arent. i know better
what?
she can not argue what is being said. she has to fabricate an argument.
onecaliberal
(32,894 posts)Enough is laughable. It defies reality.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)was taken apart with a fine tooth comb, everything from the video to the timing. It was thoroughly criticized from all angles. Yet we can't criticize Bernie's at all.
onecaliberal
(32,894 posts)My point is that I'm certain there are points to criticize Senator Sanders. I just think this particular criticism is hugely off base.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Being a good ally. Because making up shit about what they say makes you part of the problem.
Is it really that hard to listen, instead of knee jerkedly dismissing people - with accusations of them playing the race card? Pretty fucking embarrassing to miss the point so very profoundly. No empathy for POC at all.
GusBob
(7,286 posts)I heard Howard Dean still eats puppies for breakfast
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)organizer for SNCC while Hillary was busy organizing support for that genocidal mass murderer Goldwater. WTF?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)How DU has seemingly become a place where Democrats hate other Democrats, rather than fighting the Republicans.
He's right.
I used to recommend this place to place to my Democratic friends. Not anymore. I've seen a whole lot of ugliness here directed at other Democrats, including our President.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)It is a given that the Republican party has swung so far right that they are in the bat shit insane category and wrong in almost every single particular. When the Democratic party moves right to fill that void to the point where the leader of the party describes himself as a moderate Republican to the right of Nixon we sure as hell need to criticize the direction of the party.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Spazito
(50,453 posts)regarding what was the background or significance of the name "Democratic Underground". Here's his response:
"It was intended to imply an aggressive anti-Republican orientation.
We were the "Underground" fighting against the Republicans, who were in power at the time.
Ironically, it seems that many people took the name to mean "Underground fighting against Democrats." I was so naive. Back when I started this site I had no clue so many Democrats hated Democrats."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=7954
Well said, Skinner.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)you care deeply about. And of course in such a freewheeling atmosphere you are going to have deeply felt disagreements. It was ever thus. As Progressives, we hold dissent very dearly as a value we respect. If you don't like the rough and tumble of political arguments then you are in the wrong party...
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)There is something wrong with the incredible vitriol I see here. Calling the President a "POS used car salesman" or the "Trojan horse" President is over the line, IMO.
Also, the incredible attacks on Hillary are a bit much as well.
So was the assertion that Bernie somehow doesn't care about racial issues.
All bullshit, IMO.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)being done. i dunno, maybe i am off and this is norm.
i want more
but, i am not going to create either in a false "lesser of two evil" fuckin bullshit and literally a lie.
surely. in competitive, we can have a LITTLE integrity.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I don't think either Obama or Clinton represent a lesser of two evils because they don't agree with me on every position.
In fact, there is NO candidate I agree with on all issues.
But ya know what? ANY democrat running right now is better than ANY Republican running right now, and in the end, we live a real actual world. Not some theoretical la-la land where losing while standing on principal actually means anything.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)back and reframe the arguments pro and con. Ad hominem attacks among our own don't do us any good in our political battles against republicans.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)trashing.
and when i or others talk? actually about the issue. it is ignored
then
supporters say, i called sanders racist.
in the last to do?
i was accused of saying sanders racist and sexist.
i am a supporter. i would not support a racist and sexist.
at a certain point, we should adhere to simple logic.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I seriously cannot believe you said that. My principles are 100% with the Democratic Party and 0% with the Rethuglican Party. is wrong with you?
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)free exchange of ideas. Of course we have a party platform and principles. OF COURSE. But we value other democrats views on how to achieve our goals. I have very strong views on many issues but I am willing to listen to other democrats both here and otherwise in the public arena. I think there is strength in our diversity and it is a deficit in the republican party. That is all I was trying to say.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)because I don't like insulting and attacking other Democrats. I demand an apology. No, I don't like conflict in my personal life or online. You implied that because of that I am a Republican. DISGUSTING.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)And I never called you a Republican and I never would. What a thing to say about me...really...
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Anyway, I'm letting this go, but something has gone horribly wrong on DU. It is clear as day.
tennstar
(45 posts)I have spent years as a lurker here and it is TPP that has finally made me start posting.
What I have watched over the years was the fight against Bush and war for starters.
A war that HR supported
I believe that it is not surprising that we are having these fights among ourselves.
For me and many many others probably most of us I am really afraid of what the future holds for my children. I have watched as democrats and republicans have sold us down the pike. from Reagan
To whom ever is our next president we have been sold out.
Corporations now own us and Dem's do not get off the hook for this because they are Dem's. Presidents don't get off the hook cause we voted for them or that they are Dem's.
What this has created is the lessor of to evils frame work and that is going to create in fighting.
As I see it for myself, we are running out of time and Hillary is part of the problem and I can't go their anymore, I did that with Bill, Kerry, and Obama. And I am done. I believe the Democratic Party needs to re find its mission and run canadidates who stand up for that. In the case of Bernie and Hillary they both have records that speak for themselves.
Spazito
(50,453 posts)and is hoping to become the Democratic party candidate for President. Given your position as stated in your post, you will not be voting for any candidate running under the Democratic or Republican banner, right?
tennstar
(45 posts)I have always been a dem but lately not a happy one
Spazito
(50,453 posts)"To whom ever is our next president we have been sold out." "And I am done." You can see why I took that to mean no Democrat or Republican will get your vote because you are "done". I am relieved that you will be voting for whomever becomes the Democratic candidate for President, assuming I am reading your above post correctly.
tennstar
(45 posts)I will work as hard as I can for Bernie but I will not vote for a republican even one with a d in front of their name I am done doing that. The lessor of two evils is evil and if we need to hit bottom so be it. One way or another if we keep electing corporate candidates we will hit bottom, your choice is fast or slow. I guess I just as soon get it over with so we can pick up the pieces. I would love to see Bernie win and from all the young people I am dealing with I see something good starting to happen.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I wish I knew how to fix the problem. If this is how he saw DU and wanted it to be, it has clearly been going off the rails for the last 8 years or so.
My instinct is to lay the blame at two things.
#1 - Removing the rule requiring any criticism of elected Democrats to be civil
#2 - The jury system where the mob rules whether something is over the top or not.
The jury system may save the admins time in administering the site, but if it allowed the site to morph into something he would rather it not be, I would say it's not worth it.
Spazito
(50,453 posts)there certainly was comity, a common cause, among DUers in fighting the repubs, putting aside the primaries in 2004/2008. Once a Democrat became President, the infighting grew exponentially while comity went by the wayside, imo.
I do think the jury system replacing the mods has allowed more vitriol to remain in posts but the mod system had flaws as well. I liked the idea of DU members having a greater say in what is appropriate, acceptable, etc. but it really is a case of 'be careful what you ask for' because, when it happens, it rarely resembles what you thought it would be. I, naively, thought DUers would be more civil under the jury system than has happened, more fool I it seems.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Jesus the bullshit that is has been flying is ridiculous.
Mild criticisms are fine with data and well-reasoned arguments to back them up.
Hit pieces trying to conflate Sanders with police violence and racism are a totally different thing.
What you said.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That is not my take-away from their supporters posts. At all. The underside of the bus is filling fast. Even the progressive governor from the state of Vermont is called "Scummy" by a group of the perpetually outraged. Insults are being hurled at good progressives because they are free thinkers supporting who they think will be best to run the country.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)For those of us who don't live here, who are the "perpetually outraged"? The "good progressives"? The "free thinkers"?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)See Post #9.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)however I don't think he can win without people of color, women, and LGBT folks getting behind him. He can't just assume he's going to get people's votes. He has to speak to their concerns.
So far, I plan to vote for Sanders myself, depending on what happens until the primary here in Michigan. But I do want to hear him talk about our issues.
roaminronin
(49 posts)public representatives with integrity and character, which has been sorely missing in the last 30 years.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)themselves. I think it's pretty safe to say that Sanders himself would not seek to silence questions about his policies but rather embrace the opportunity to engage with voters. For some reason his supporters here don't want anyone to ask about his plans or accomplishments.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)And I say this as someone who isn't particularly enthralled with Hillary, and could easily vote for Bernie. But some of his fans here...boy howdy what a hoot.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I like Bernie a lot. I'm a Hillary supporter, but Bernie is a fantastic guy. Some of his supporters here really turn me off, however. Not all by any stretch, but man....
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I really dig the things Jesus had to say, but his fans, boy howdy what a hoot!
It's why I never joined the fan club.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)fishwax
(29,149 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)Big dollar donors give her big bucks because they know she will be a continuation of corporate friendly policies, big banks know she is their friend. Corp giants don't care which dynasty wins as long as the basic status quo remains. That means money policy and environmental and foreign policies remain pretty much as is.
But in order to win there have to be votes, by actual voters.
I don't see Hillary getting all the wqy to the White House. Yes, she is better than the republican clown car, but she is NOT the best we can do. Frankly I fully expect her to implode before the primary season ends.
I think you Hillary supporters fear that, and fear Bernie's popularity will cause it, which is why you constantly push the 'he can't win' meme.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Spot on!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Claiming it must be explicitly stated is an attempt to weasel out of the accusation.
Fox never actually said Clinton personally ordered the deaths in Benghazi. But they've made it abundantly clear that is what they want their viewers to believe.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)as someone saying he is racist, is your problem.
you do not get to merely throw that bullshit out and say... well, that is how i see it when people talk about his DEMOGRAPHICS.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Or more heavily inferred it... as the case (or bias) may be.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yet the folks on Fox do an excellent job of convincing their viewers of that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)And given all your posts about sex and race privilege, you should be extremely familiar with that concept.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)no one thinks he is a racist. no one called him a racist. you say people did.
yea... now you have an argument that no one is making
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The literal color of the skin of the people in the audience was the subject of the post. Go ahead and explain how that isn't a big, steaming pile of "Sanders is racist".
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)campaigning on reaches our young college kids and middle/upper middle, white and men.
THAT is what people are saying. that is NOT saying he is white. that is what people have been saying for a month now and people like you have ignored it. well you know... it comes to roost. cause it was a HUGE duh a month ago. hence me addressing being the sander supporter i am. addressing that he had a limited demographics.
it is called fuckin .... POLITICS.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Then damage control started, and people like you tried to steer it away from the giant turd that was left in GD. Now you want to pretend the turd was never dropped.
I'll pretend that didn't happen as soon as the ex-boyfriend's apology regarding Gamergate means you don't think Gamergate happened.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)message being said, by the populists... and sanders campaign.
we have had a LOT of conversation. lots. lots and lots. you know. hte conversation you and so many sander people do not want to have.
well. 3 weeks, it is further than du. that is the whole fuckin in your face point.
you and others have accused me of some amazing shit, ... as i feel i was the one TRUE supporter of sander. looking at the "not so pretty" he would have to address to become INCLUSIVE. getting those black, women, gay votes.
is any of this sinking in?
YOU did not want to hear it. YOU and others demanded i not talk about it.
came to roost. we are just starting. we have a fuckin choice.
deal and address. not a biggie since snaders is right there on social issues. i am sure. hence, me supporting him
i meaN... you still gonn refuse to look? cause that is not supporting your candidate, in my opinion.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The thread in question was from yesterday. It was followed by many "boy that crowd was white" replies all over DU.
All I have "accused" you of is being against white privilege and male privilege. You did not post the thread in question, nor the other "boy that crowd was white" posts since then.
But that thread and those posts exist, even if you want to have a different discussion.
No, I already did look. And as you said, there is no "there" there. Sanders's record is similar-to-slightly-better to Clinton's, depending on how you "score" some issues, and some things where Clinton was not in office so she did not have a recorded vote while Sanders did.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)manipulated, tell me where the conversation is?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)and many replies to posts on DU.
You are trying to talk about a different conversation, because it is not nearly as ugly a conversation.
Your desire to talk about something else does not remove those posts.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)people are aware who the message is for. middle, upper middle, white and men. then people looked at the demographics of his first big crowd. and tey talked about it.
you do not like people are talking about it.
i personally have not talked about it, because i still od not think it puts any exclamation marks. i think it put another question mark. i have plenty of time to watch what happens. that is what this period is for. as stuff happens. i will talk about it, if i feel it warrants a chat. again. what we do on a chat board.
where is your issue?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Again, you are trying to have a different conversation. Tell ya what, the next time you try to talk about a man being sexist, I'm going to talk about petunias. And I will keep insisting that the subject is petunias. And point out that we've been talking about petunias for a very long time. Far longer than whatever new post you make, since we're talking about petunias now.
Oddly, they did not discuss the gender makeup of his first big crowd. Almost like your claim here is not actually backed up by anything other than your assertion.
Strange how it's supposed to be talking about how Sanders appeals only to white men and the 'men' part disappeared from the discussion. Until resurrected by people trying to do damage control.
Team Clinton's constant spewing of bile towards anyone who dares to challenge the anointed one, instead of Team Clinton actually giving reasons to vote for her. They provide reasons to vote against others, not reasons to vote for Clinton. I've yet to see an "issue" post by a pro-Clinton person on DU that did not include the Republicans.
It's going to lose the general election. We need "marginally-attached left-leaning voters" to show up. They stayed home in 2010 and 2014 because our party's message was "not as bad as the Republicans!". They turned out in 2008 because Obama gave them something to vote for. Those voters do not vote against. They vote for. Until we all get our heads out of "vote against the Republicans", we will lose.
But we'll be able to make all sorts of posts about "Stupid Nader voters".
Polling shows Clinton leading? Early polling is wrong >90% of the time. Reagan polled abysmally early in the 1980 campaign. Bill Clinton polled abysmally early in the 1992 campaign. W polled abysmally early in the 2000 campaign. Obama polled abysmally early in the 2008 campaign. A strong lead should worry Clinton's supporters, because that lead is almost always wrong.
Clinton needs to be a better candidate, or she'll be the McCain of 2016 - all the resume, none of the victory. Actually discussing issues with Sanders or O'Malley will make her a better candidate because it will lead to reasons to vote for Clinton instead of against the Republicans.
And actually discussing issues with Sanders or O'Malley supporters will make Clinton's supporters better advocates. Instead any discussion of her actual voting record, or not introducing bills on subjects she supposedly cares about is treated as a Rove-orchestrated attack. If Clinton is so pro-choice, where's her amendment to strip the Hyde amendment language out of budget bills? Sure, it would lose, but there's no reason she could not propose it every single year between 2001 and 2008. A Democrat has proposed a "Medicare for all"-style bill every single session since 1936. It always dies in committee. It still is proposed.
That is, until they have an attack to make. Then they drop a turd in GD like yesterday. And flee back to the group that bans you for saying "if she wins the primary".
And you want to pretend there is a legitimate debate? Yeah, head on over to the Men's Group and have a chat with them. I'm sure they want a debate too.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)conversation was to the middle, upper middle, white and male crowd. that we might wnat to address it.
all you guys called me a traitor.
so
i told you so?
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)I haven't seen it. I have seen others reduce others posts to that, when they in fact have talked about whether Sanders speaks to the concerns of people of color.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)OOPS, you cannot provide one because nobody ever said that.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)BainsBane
(53,066 posts)and seek to diminish rather than expand knowledge of the candidate they claim to promote.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)... that damn near anything posted here will be met by great vengeance and furious anger by somebody. It seems to be what we do...
BeyondGeography
(39,379 posts)Which is good. Much better than the alternative.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That line, at least, gave me pause. Though somebody could probably dig up something similar for Obama here 8 years ago...
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)is a pathetic thing to see.
I guess if they really believed in Bernie and his plans for america, they would be talking about those instead of parroting the latest republican talking points against Hillary Clinton.
But of course the right wing and Bernie fans hate Hillary equally because they know that she will defeat both of them in the general.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Who was in charge when the economy went to hell?
A: Bush and the fucking republicans! The best job I ever had in my life was when Bill Clinton was President.
Figures a Bernie fan would be on DU blaming democrats for putting the country into a recession!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Both my husband and I like Bernie and listen to what he has to say. I think Hillary will be our candidate in '16 and both of us will vote for her.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Truthfully, I don't spend much time here each day, and don't read each thread. I do pay attention to threads about Sanders, since I think he's probably the only chance I've got left in my lifetime to work for something good for the nation.
I don't pay too much attention to threads about HRC, since I have no interest in her.
The only real furious anger I've seen on the part of Sanders' supporters is the recent thread playing the race card. That thread earned the fury of Sanders' supporters honestly, and should have earned the fury of any person who cares about civil rights.
It's not "great vengeance" to respond. It's a rebuttal, it's a debunking, and it's calling out those who would play that race card for their hypocrisy.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Got it
TM99
(8,352 posts)There are some of us persons of color that found the post, from a white woman no less, obnoxious bullshit trying to equate Sanders with racism.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)continue right on with deliberately false insinuation. It just further illustrates my point.
Clinton supporters saying Sanders didn't address race enough, when he's got a very long history of doing just that, and their own candidate has this:
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Anything that can be done to avoid talking about Bernie's platform is considered a victory by some. The more time we spend arguing about Bernie's legitimacy and whether his supporters are representative of the American public, the less time we spend talking about his actual platform, which could go a long way toward making this country a more civilized, equitable, and sustainable place.
Income and wealth inequality: In the United States today we have the most unequal wealth and income distribution of any major country on earth -- worse than at any time since the 1920s. This is an economy that must be changed in fundamental ways.
Jobs and income: In my view, we need a massive federal jobs program which puts millions of our people back to work. We must end our disastrous trade policies. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. And we have to fight for pay equity for women.
Campaign finance reform: As a result of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, American democracy is being undermined by the ability of the Koch brothers and other billionaire families. These wealthy contributors can literally buy politicians and elections by spending hundreds of millions of dollars in support of the candidates of their choice. We need to overturn Citizens United and move toward public funding of elections so that all candidates can run for office without being beholden to the wealthy and powerful.
Climate change: Climate change is real, caused by human activity and already devastating our nation and planet. The United States must lead the world in combating climate change and transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainability.
College affordability: Every person in this country who has the desire and ability should be able to get all the education they need regardless of the income of their family. This is not a radical idea. In Germany, Scandinavia and many other countries, higher education is either free or very inexpensive. We must do the same.
Health care: Shamefully, the United States remains the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people. The United States must move toward a Medicare-for-all single-payer system. Health care is a right, not a privilege.
Poverty: The United States has more people living in poverty than at almost any time in the modern history of our country. I believe that in a democratic, civilized society none of our people should be hungry or living in desperation. We need to expand Social Security, not cut it. We need to increase funding for nutrition programs, not cut them.
Tax reform: We need real tax reform which makes the rich and profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes. We need a tax system which is fair and progressive. Children should not go hungry in this country while profitable corporations and the wealthy avoid their tax responsibilities by stashing their money in the Cayman Islands.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Divert and smear is clearly the MO of the corporate candidate who is also hiding from the media to avoid talking about the very same issues.
This race is shaping up very clearly as a contest between honesty and represention on the issues, versus manipulation/smear and avoidance of the issues.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)The business of the Third Way is business.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Well then I am not in "the real world". Nice attack BTW and nice conformation that only someone with big money backers can win. That says all I need to make my decision. You go ahead and push for someone who is cozy with the same people and corporations that took our country to the pits of a "real world" severe recession/depression. That is why there is the "anger". Some of us still want to see those thieves punished. Others will take their money to win an election.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)With friends like those, who needs enemies?
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Then you get upset when they are shot down.
"He can't win because I say so" seems to be the biggest 'beef' Hillary supporters have with him.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's the only real concern I have with him. Not that he's perfect on all issues, but if he could win, I would happily support him over Hillary.
But he can't. That's just reality. It's too bad, but it's true. And the other thing that is too bad is that Bernie support too often turns into Hillary bashing, which ultimately hurts the Dems chances of winning the White House, because she is going to be the candidate.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Case in point
DanTex
(20,709 posts)ability to appeal outside of the Democratic base, etc.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)At this point all of your hypothesis are in the realm of wishful thinking, and only exist in your head.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bernie has any chance of doing that, so I support Hillary. It's really that simple.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I find it amusing that those who are 'against' him, have no ammo, because he is right on pretty much every issue. So they do things like this. Very, very weak opposition.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I would agree with Bernie's positions just about 100% except for the protecting assault gun manufacturers from lawsuits crap.
But yeah, he can't win. No way in hell. He would be lucky to win his home state FFS!
If Burnie fans don't believe that then...
They can just tune into Hate radio or freakrepublic/redstate etc on the internets if you can stomach the hate for a minute and see which democratic candidate is under attack 24/7/365
It sure as hell ain't Bernie! LOL
So just as you say Bernie fans will spend the rest of this year and into next tearing down the only democrat that can win in 2016.
That really, really stinks.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)vengeance and furious anger" is being perpretrated by the swiftboaters in their blatant dishonesty.
I don't normally bother to defend the few politicians I like because I don't really give a shit if any of them are criticized. That's what they sign up for. But this egregious attack on Bernie Sanders is just fucking insane.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Wall Street and the global corporations.. The same folks that control 90% of the media and are bankrolling Hillary Clinton.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Where the hell is my fat check for supporting Hillary? !
Those wall street bastards never pay up!
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)You just KNOW somebody alerted in it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Some times, the jury system works.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Response to DanTex (Original post)
Post removed
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I'm sure Bernie would cringe in response to the bile that is spewed in his name.
Usual suspects, IMO....
Orsino
(37,428 posts)TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)My favorite has to be the "he can't win" meme: I had a colleague tell me the same thing a few years ago about Obama. This well-educated, well intentioned man calmly informed me that although he "was a Democrat" he know Obama wouldn't win because white people would SAY they voted him but would actually pull the lever for the McCain/Palin, which he was tempted to do himself. Six months later Obama was President and Well Educated White Dude was dead. Argument solved.
frylock
(34,825 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)And protecting assault rifle manufacturers against lawsuits by Sandy Hook parents. And thats all a matter of record.
Really looking out for the little guy eh Bernie.
frylock
(34,825 posts)mild criticism.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Sanders is a good man but is not bevond criticism.
senz
(11,945 posts)DanTex opines,
"The argument for Bernie doesn't do so well in rational, nuanced world, which is to say, the real world."
Real world? Are you not aware that Bernie has about 20 times the government experience of HRC. He is tried and true, having won elections for Mayor, for U.S. House of Reps (numerous times) and for U.S. Senate.
He knows how government works, and he works well with others. He gets things done and makes friends, not enemies. Unlike Hillary, his ethics and honesty are right out there for all to see. Unlike Hillary, he can't be bought. Unlike Hillary, he doesn't pull strings behind the scenes to get what he wants. Unlike Hillary, he is not secretive.
Bernie Sanders has the qualities we need in a president.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)That, and someone is channeling their inner Jules.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)nt
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)The mild criticism thing, I mean. I've seen a self righteous, over the top rant that suggests that he doesn't seem to care enough about African American issues. Somehow, the fact that his voting record, actions, history and all that shows otherwise doesn't seem to convince the author or the author's followers.
Mild criticism might be to say, "Well, I think Bernie should have openly addressed black issues in his kick off announcement". You can see what was actually said, if you like - and the picture that went along with it.
As for great vengeance and furious anger... well, dishonesty, accusing a decent man of racism (even through implication, particularly given the nature of the post and the photo) is bound to make some people a little mad. Especially when some people are supporting that man for President.
You can certainly say things without actually saying them. For instance, "I don't think Clinton's ties to big corporations, her super PAC, or her history of so frequently being wrong on important issues is good for people. Especially poor people who will suffer the most because of it." Then say, I post a picture of some corporate giant sitting on a starving kid's back. Do you think that might be in poor taste? Perhaps, it might indicate that I was saying Clinton didn't care about poor people?
I have not done that - and will not do that. Clinton's corporate ties do make me uncomfortable - I think that's mild enough criticism, and don't see the need to illustrate with pictures or comments from rich people on why Clinton is not good for the poor.
This real world you're talking about? It's changing, it's changing A LOT. Watch the news, check out the weather, the affairs of the middle east, our own internal affairs. The poor are getting poorer, the rich are getting richer - and this is happening at such an alarming rate that there may be no turning back. It may be already that the corporate powers that be own our economy, our political system - and that everything else is just for show.
Bernie doesn't do so well in a rational, nuanced world? The real world? Damn, where have you been? This world is anything but rational and nuanced! This world is crazy and getting crazier every year. Check out Monsanto some time, or Walmart practices, or what's going on with GMOs, the attempt to stop protecting our food. The attempts to destroy welfare, social security, civil rights - the attempt to pay for the mistakes of the very wealthy with the work, the sweat and blood and tax dollars of the very poor.
Bernie may not do so well in your real world. In my world though, he's a damned champion - and I will be proud to reject and argue against any criticism of him that I believe is grossly unfair and dishonest.
I believe he CAN win. I believe he CAN beat the GOP in the general election. It's time for us to stop looking at who is "electable" and to look at what we actually want for our lives and our futures. Me, I want Bernie - and folks like him, at the top, working for the majority of us... the 99%.
Oakenshield
(614 posts)+1000
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)that Republicans fall in line while Democrats fall in love. Why do you think you can make falling in line happen?
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Well other than Sanders supporters possibly liking the film "Pulp Fiction'?
1) Sanders is better on every issue than Hillary
2) He has not recieved massive funding and speaking fees from Wallstreet and the banks.
3) He is speaking more plainly and clearly about the disparity of wealth than any candidate in any party currently running for president.
4) The 'electability' argument is a myth. It is a cul de sac argument based on name recognition and the size of a candidates warchest. Given fair exposure to all of the candidates ideas and speeches I think the polling data will change. Around a similar period the NYT had Bill Clinton running at about 3% in the polls in 1991. Granted it was a different time but wait and see.
5) Bernie Sanders has spent a lot more time legislating than Hillary has. He has served multiple terms in the house and the senate to her one. There just is no contest on experience or policy.
JustAnotherGen
(31,879 posts)It's way too early to make statements like this.
They have Bush the Third and Pataki just announced this morning. What if it's Santorum Cruz?
We could run Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and beat a Crazy Town Candidate (Santorum, Cruz, Huck, Paul, Carson, etc. etc.)
And I think the Jesus Juice crowd is very vocal this cycle - and I'm not willing to count out a Crazy Town Candidate/Ticket as a result of their ardent support for their holy wars, vaginal probes, hatred of gays and lesbians, etc. etc.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)statement now. but, i an open to what sanders can do.
JustAnotherGen
(31,879 posts)That the average Sanders supporter isn't living in the reality base world -not those exact words but I'm sure you understand.
I think if you are working poor - and can't make ends meet - that's your reality - and Sanders may be very appealing to you.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)represents all Bernie supporters...
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Most of the anger and vengeance I've witnessed here has been initiated by the Hillary Clinton sycophants.
And your post also wins the award for snide, passive aggressive slap of the day: -
frylock
(34,825 posts)all couched in some whiny bullshit bemoaning the lack of civility directed at Clinton supporters. Unfuckingreal.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Mild criticism of both candidates is met with great vengeance and furious anger by a handful of supporters of both the opposition candidates.
Focusing attention on, or realizing the one while denying the other side advertises a rather dramatic bias-- and in this context, that particular lack of objectivity is what I find the interesting phenomenon.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,194 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm glad someone else noticed that the hyperbole was lifted.
context, and Bible verse, thus leading to the Pulp Fiction recollection..
carry on...
Rex
(65,616 posts)I've never seen so many people waste so much time over so little. Glad I skipped the 2008 primaries on DU.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)mild criticism. And "great vengeance and furious anger" ??? What hyperbole and baiting. Shame on you.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)"Great vengeance and furious anger" is a line from Pulp Fiction.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)as a Liberal, I guess. I'd had enough, so admittedly did not read the SOS this delightful tidbit of political wisdom stirred up. Congrats on the response count.
And thanks for the Reading Lesson...it's still hyperbole, unless you "Quote" it or explain...to those who know or care nothing about Pulp Fiction. It's Drama and Baiting. JMO
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Hillary has problems. Bernie does not.
It all depends on your point of view. This is a primary.
It is natural to defend and prefer the candidate you like best.
Let the discussion go on.
Hillary's supporters have been extremely sensitive to the legitimate questions and criticisms about their candidate.
We who support Bernie are happy to defend him.
That's how you decide a primary. You discuss the faults and advantages of each candidate.
If it's too hot, get out of the kitchen.
We are cooking up a winning candidate here. Bound to get hot occasionally.
Politics is about discussion.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)You are also throw the word 'fact' around in your post, and draw conclusions without providing one shred of evidence to back them up. You're going to have to present your pro-Hillary argument with some substance if you want to be taken seriously.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Are exactly like the Obama supporters they like to criticize as worshipers of the POTUS.
There's not a lick of difference between the two. Not one bit.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Full of concern.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)If anyone doubts that, just pay attention a little bit. Trust me. They ARE evil.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)supporters are that he'll win.
It's impossible to talk about anything in this place now. The "Stop calling Sanders a racist!!1one" posts are just about the most ignorant, cringe inducing stupidity I've seen on this web site in a long time. And as a proud Obama supporter, that is TRULY saying something.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)OR, maybe it means you are misinterpreting mild criticisms as 'furious anger', perhaps as part of a larger scheme of purposeful misdirection against Sanders supporters ....
I know it means this - The Dan Tex that I used to agree with is gone, and some mean, disagreeable person jumped into that reclining computer chair ...
Sad ....
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the fact that you back HRC, the conservative establishment candidate(as she was inn '08) does put your remarks in a far less disinterested light.
BTW-it does not go without saying that HRC is a stronger candidate than Bernie-especially since nominating her means all the Nineties scandals will be dug up by the right-wing, and since they all worked then they will all work again.
Do you really want to have talk radio exhuming Vince Foster(and probably not just metaphorically)?
I'll work for her if she does get nominated, but you've got to accept that she's really not that freaking special-especially sinceshe still won't even admit she was inexcusably wrong to vote for pointless slaughter in Iraq.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I back Hillary because I want a Democrat in the White House. She is an establishment candidate, yes, but she's obviously not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
Yeah, I admit she's not that "special" in the sense that her politics aren't as progressive as Bernie's. She's a center-left politician, pretty much the same politics as Obama. What I like about her is that she can win the GE. If there were no GE, I'd be for Bernie. But there is one.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Then you'll see some furious angers...
frylock
(34,825 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I only went nuclear once everyone here started labeling me a paid NSA shill...
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)This OP is another example of it.
Logical
(22,457 posts)G_j
(40,370 posts)but then, I don't spend hours spinning my wheels in GD rimaries. I don't see it in the many Bernie supporters I know personally.