How come the controlling neoliberals and supporters call disagreement with their policies, "hate"?

[mmonk]

It's always "Hillary haters" and is linked to "Obama haters". I would like real debates for the candidates, on issues rather than prescribed scripts, and surrogates blasting non status quo candidates while being unanswerable, so people in America can learn some of the real issues facing America. The fissure in the party will not close this primary season, but will widen and lead to more cynicism across the country.

[Motown_Johnny]

1. Because it is all they've got.

Their policies are not really rational. Move visceral. They tend to feel rather than think and respond to criticism with feelings and not with facts.


At least that is what I tell myself to try and keep my sanity.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. + 1000

It's a diversion from the issues and a way to avoid people from connecting the Dots from what candidates Do as opposed to what they say .

[corkhead]

20. you nailed it

I recently had a lively discussion with someone I hadn't seen in a while who is a Hillary supporter. I was surprised by that because I thought for sure that she would be for Bernie, but it turns out she all about the Democratic establishment. She prefers Hillary because she is "a strong woman" "tough" "has been through a lot" and "brave" and that anyone who didn't agree with her assessment was a misogynist.

I asked her to name a single policy position Hillary holds that she views as being better than Bernie's position and she answered with the non-sequitur that "America isn't ready to elect a socialist" and that "the right wing nuts will crawl out of the woodwork to vote against him if he were to somehow get nominated" I asked again to name just one policy position she holds that is better than Bernie's and all I got was crickets.

I also said "and you don't think the right wing nuts are going to crawl out of the woodwork to vote against Hillary?" "change the word 'socialist' to 'African American' and it would be exactly what people were saying 8 years ago."

I also asserted that nobody under the age of 40 is susceptible to red baiting and that it might actually prove to be a plus with younger voters.

[padfun]

24. You are right. They are Reactionaries

They react, not think. They don't want an honest debate else they lose. They want to get to the emotions and let that decide for people.

[MoveIt]

46. Got it in the first reply

(assuming some neoliberal stuck pig from my ignore list didn't get there first)

[djean111]

3. Diversion from issues and an odd wallowing in self-inflicted victimhood.

Not to mention a total lack of self awareness. Imagine if someone in the Bernie group titled an OP with (normal people) or called HRC supporters cockroaches. It is really bizarre.

[malthaussen]

4. I don't think it's just neolibs.

I'm constantly confronted at DU by the impression that a large number of the folks here tend to take everything personally. I conjecture it is a consequence of the personality journalism that has taken over the media. Everything is a "win" or "loss," as if some kind of game were being played, and anyone who raises even a slight question about a favored personality is thought to be attacking the person, not the position. It's quite depressing, really, which is why I mostly refrain from engaging.

-- Mal

[LiberalArkie]

36. The 2008 election season was very strange where I worked. There were so many in my

group that were HRC supporters. In fact all the women were, there were a few Republicans, not many. Come the general election only one of the HRC supporters in the primary even voted in the general election. They said they did not have the time to waste on it. Whether they were only supporting a woman or could not vote for a black man, I don't know.

To a lot of politicians it is more of a game than beliefs. You can tell that by the way they talk to each other. Almost curse each other out in from of the camera, and then ask the person if they have their clubs with them for a round of golf.

Blacks were so hoping that things would change with a black president. I don't think much did really change for the better.

Women believe that things will change with HRC as president. I don't think it will.

I really believe that you have to elect someone who walks the walks, not just says things that people want to hear. I don't think Bernie will be everything that progressives want. I don't think anyone can be.

People want a candidate that will feel like they feel, be like they are. Blacks felt that a black man will know what we have been through and support us. But he could not feel for the poor blacks, the disenfranchised blacks. He could know how the wealthy educated blacks and whites felt though. I am afraid that a lot of the HRC supporters will end up feeling the same.

[SouthernProgressive]

5. Since you are going to address it in this manner.

"so people in America can learn some of the real issues facing America."

Americans understand the real issues facing us. It is the mindset of the Sanders supporter that it be explained to us by a king as if we are some dumbasses. That's why you see Hillary out there listening to Americans instead of your preferred method of having someone lecture Americans. What you are laying out here is politics based in arrogance and the belief that people are too stupid to think for themselves. Please read your own words again. I'm not being selective with them in any way. <- That is the mindset of the argument you are makes making, just turned around on you. Do you think that is the best way to get back to talking about issues that matter?

As for Hillary hate. To act as if it isn't rampant is ignorant. Some posters here have directly said they hate her. One of the most prolific posters here has posted up to five Clinton email stories a day. Many have said they will not vote for her when she becomes the nominee. The hate is alive, well, and running rampant.

You are right that this needs to be about the issues. But your own op takes away from the ability to do that as you have included a completely false premise that in itself has absolutely nothing to do with the issues. You make a blatantly false assertion, while claiming others need to stop doing the same, then say we need to be discussing the issues. It isn't a very upstanding way to act righteous.

[mmonk]

6. I run into uninformed people everyday.

Many people in the public do not really know what affects are attributable to many problems they face, especially since news presently constructed is no longer a public service.

[daleanime]

9. Sorry, but I have to disagree....

I'm unable to see Hillary's campaign as a 'listening'. Now 'restricting' I totally get.

And yes, there is a lot of hatred directed at her and yes there are some DUers who do, but there is a world of difference between 'I hate this person's actions' and 'I hate this person'. But we won't be able to agree on that, will we? So have a great day.

[SouthernProgressive]

25. "I'm unable to see Hillary's campaign as a 'listening'. Now 'restricting' I totally get. "

I actually think we can agree on that. The last sentence I added to that paragraph actually means something. I did exactly what the op has done here. That was my point. The op is one hundred percent doing that to which they are lecturing against. All in the same paragraph.

I don't disagree with the quote I highlighted from you here at all. I would probably use the word controlling over that of restricting. But they are really close to the same.

[daleanime]

35. I could go with controlling....

and it's a shame, because I don't think it serves her well. Have a great day, it's time for me to start doing things.

[jtuck004]

12. "said they will not vote for her...The hate is alive" < Fascinating. When I argue against something

I avoid giving examples that support the other person's contention. Or two. Or three.

Here, I see you are taking an opposite tack. Interesting.

[99Forever]

30. Senator Sanders has been listening to We the People virtually every Friday...

... for well over a decade on Thom Hartmann's program. Unscripted, unfiltered, and without needing it to be a handpicked "audience" that has been pre-fed the "proper" questions. I've spoken directly with Senator Sanders about REAL issues on three separate occasions, without having to swear my fealty to anyone.

Who the fuck do you think you are fooling?

[SouthernProgressive]

37. "Who the fuck do you think you are fooling?"

[99Forever]

41. Great. You got the question.

Now, try answering it.

[SouthernProgressive]

42. "Who the fuck do you think you are fooling"

Just seeing if you are willing to read it again. You might see how simply it is. lol. Hostility at the level you are at often leads on to read with blinders. Relax and open your mind a little. The tension is having an effect.

[99Forever]

43. I see.

You've got nothing.

Typical and predictable. Bu bye.

[sibelian]

48. That's not hate. That's DISAPPOINTMENT.

DISAPPOINTMENT in yet another 4 years of warmed over Republican-lite BILGE.

If you STILL cannot differentiate between what someone is and what they do, what do you expect everyone else to do about it?

[beam me up scottie]

49. +1

They just keep pushing that meme.

Sisyphus wept.

[hifiguy]

55. The left of the party has been snookered, had, chumped and pantsed

in the middle of the schoolyard twice - by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

No more Turd Way Republican-lite, status-quo, protect the plutocracy at all costs bullshit. Enough is enough.

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

53. Americans understand the real issues facing us.

"Americans understand the real issues facing us."

I'm going to disagree with part of that.
In my dealings with plenty of regular people I find that many of them have no clue.
They recognize Hillary by name and that she is a Democrat but don't really know what her positions are.
Many of them never heard of Bernie, Martin, Jim or Lincoln.
Plenty will probably not vote in the primary because they have no idea what the differences are but likely will vote in the GE.

That just my opinion, take it or leave it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. I don't hate her. I just think she's unfit to be president.

I won't vote for her for that reason.

[eridani]

64. "Listening" = checking out focus group tested talking points. n/t

[cui bono]

68. You are proving the OP's point. Disagreeing strongly with someone's stances and policy positions

is not hate. Don't take it so personally. Hillary is a politician and therefore she needs to be scrutinized, it is our duty as citizens to criticize that which we disagree with in a politician. That's what democracy is.

The same thing happens with Obama. As soon as someone criticizes him it's all about the "haters" and "bashing". But in fact, what had been posted was a thoughtful critical analysis of his policy. But the people who can't be bothered to think about policy and simply take offense at any thing said against their "team" or "personality" that they are a fan of for whatever reason, take it personally and have to attack the messenger rather than have a discussion about why they disagree with the criticism.

No surprise it's mostly the same group of people doing it with Hillary who did it with Obama. Only now they take it even further and create an enemy out of what they see as the opposition, Sanders and his supporters. It's really gotten out of hand and it is really very ugly. The OPs posted about Sanders that are complete lies and smears are pathetic. The worst ones are from the same poster, but they are left standing by hosts when they clearly are swiftboat attempts with outright lies.

And if you look in Bernie's group and Hillary's group you can easily see which group has the most integrity and which group is planning against the other candidate's supporters and doing all sorts of name-calling of the other candidate and even having a call to action that crosses into real life. I think you know without looking which group is which.

And now a third group has been taken over by vocal and rude Hillary supporters, running off potential 'members' of the group by insulting them for having their own opinion and now saturating the board with the false meme that Sanders supporters are racists and targeting them. The ones causing any perceived racial divide on DU - if there really is any under all the words about it - are the ones who started the whole Sanders doesn't care about black people meme. When a PoC tells another PoC that he is a traitor to his race for supporting Sanders and also calls any PoC who supports Sanders an "outlier", they are the ones make it racial, not the Sanders supporter. I'm not saying racism doesn't exist and that there haven't been racist posts on DU, but this is being blown up out of proportion and blamed on Sanders supporters in order to use it as a political football.

Hillary supporters on here have also pretended to be Sanders supporters and then concern trolling by asking questions about his policy in order to spread the meme that he is not on the side of PoC. And then they come out for Hillary and claim it's because Sanders supporters are mean.

There are bad apples in every bunch, so yes, some Sanders supporters are jerks, but in general, on DU, Sanders supporters and the Sanders group are speaking to policy when Hillary supporters are playing politics to try to squash their opponent and win the game. Well it's not a game.

[noiretextatique]

69. +1000 excellent post

which mirrors my observations. there is yet another absurd post in GD right now claiming lefties are fickle children who will abandon sanders...like they abandoned obama. The arrogance of the 3rd way is the chief reason (besides its warmed-over rw policies) for its downfall.

[elana i am]

7. i don't get it either

all it takes is one simple chart graphic to explain why i would vote for sanders over clinton. yes, they vote alike 93% of the time, but it's that 7% of the big issues that shows the chasm between their political philosophies. that 7% may as well be 1000%. it seems so simple. so obvious. why would i vote for clinton when i can vote for sanders? why? i don't understand. i will never understand.

[artislife]

44. The 7% is huge, too

These are not small quibbles of differences, they are future altering ones.

I don't like Hillary because of 2008 and what I feel was a reveal of her most inner feelings about PoC. I think she has done a lot for us, but deep inside she was peeved (nice word) that a PoC was going to jump her line. That is hard for me to overcome.

Fortunately, this primary season I have a person who has revealed that to me AND stands more firmly in my Yes column of issues I really really care about. I think our planet is on the brink, ecology, economically, financially and more. We need someone who isn't afraid to navigate and go forward full speed.

So while I have a personal reaction to Hillary, I also have a political one. And Bernie is so close to what I feel we need to be and DO to save us. If it isn't too late.

[Ino]

8. There's a prodigious amount of projection going on,

plus they have nothing factual or rational with which to counter arguments against Hillary.

Look at the one post full of hatred in this thread

[MNBrewer]

10. You hit the nail on the head.

Conservatives project. That's just what they do, they can't help it.

[Thor_MN]

22. Extremists project. It's the way they delude theirselves from irrational, unfactual positions.

Conservatives have no corner on that market.

I haven't decided who I support yet. I see tons of conservative hate going towards Clinton and I see plenty of liberal hate going towards Clinton. I see mostly nothing going towards Sanders. If he gains the nomination that will change in a hurry and all the conservative hate will focus on Sanders, who is largely untested. His Independent background in a deep blue state has made him an unprofitable target of GOP money in the past.

Projection is a coping method to displace an irrational thought onto others. "Liberal hate" is not rational. Tally negative posts on Sanders and Clinton. Unless one is not honest, there are far more negative posts about Clinton. In the first page of General Discussion: Primaries, I could not see one post that was negative about Sanders. The majority were anti Clinton, with a few pro Clinton and some that were neither. "Sanders" did not exist the post titles.

Claiming the term "Hillary haters" is a result of projection is nonsensical, and a form of projection in, and of itself.

[Hortensis]

34. +1, Thor. Thanks for a sensible post.

[MoveIt]

47. Ill just point out that

like many of the supporters of HRC, that supporter has identified as "*Progressive" in their name like a marketing campaign. Marketing, it's whats for dinner!

[Ino]

59. That name should to be changed...

to match Hillary's new description of her "kind of moderate and center" position. She's eschewed the "proud modern progressive" stance!

[MoveIt]

65. KindModerateCentristDem Where art thou? n/t

[left-of-center2012]

11. You're either with 'em ...

or against them.

If you like "Bernie",
you HATE "_______".

[zeemike]

13. It is simpler than you think.

The objective is to put you on the defensive.
If you disagree with them they accuse you of some personal flaw and you then must defend yourself and then they ratchet it up and accuse you again and again...that diverts from the issue...and makes you think twice about doing it again.

[mmonk]

14. True. The tragedy though, is controlling all the mechanisms in addition.

Then it becomes something more systemic and hard to get out of to discuss realities.

[MisterP]

50. yup, on the defensive and on the wrong foot, so everyone stays off-balance

that gives us faddism and "misery poker," two of the things killing Tumblr; they misuse ever-more-refined academese to the point where it gets entirely unmoored from any facts, which actually increases the vitriol of the debate: talk about race and you're not allowed to give equal weight to color-line theories (the ingroup simply punches down and the outgroups simply punch up), conditional power-sharing theories (power for only those refusing to transgress anything about whiteness), boundary-maintenance theories (by exclusion or by paradoxical boundary-crossing), coalition-and-hypocrisy theories (a group gets whitened and "punches down" to legitimate its allowed status); only one totalizing buzzword is permitted and you must apologize for casting any shadow on its divine singular uniqueness (and I'm not telling you)

they make suffering into a competition (Steinem, anybody?)--and the more vicarious the better, because no anger so addictive like justified anger! there's social and conversational value in being a victim (it's the definition of sociopathy that someone thinks there isn't) and even policy and fat state and university grants

it all ends up obliterating any solidarity, leading to this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_long_spoons

[zeemike]

54. Well that is a bit more scholarly than my take

But dead on point.

And you are completely right, it eliminates any chance of solidarity which seems to be the overall objective.

I don't use Tumbler but it does not surprise me that it is everywhere...it has to be to be effective.

[MisterP]

57. this grew out of the fights and discussions after the Seattle incident

[SMC22307]

66. That's a really good, thought-provoking post.

I've especially noticed these at DU:

--they misuse ever-more-refined academese to the point where it gets entirely unmoored from any facts, which actually increases the vitriol of the debate

--they make suffering into a competition

[stillwaiting]

15. HUGE K&R.

I think some simply fall for the candidate on a very deep and personal level and so criticism of their policies (even if it is passionate and intense) is simply deemed "hate". I think others simply enjoy toying with the "looney left" or the "far left".

I have a very strong and passionate aversion to neo-liberal economic policies and hawkish foreign policy. It makes me ANGRY when someone advocates for these things. It does NOT mean that I hate the person espousing them. I'm sure that there are aspects of individual politicians that I may like if I ever got to know them as a person. Since I do NOT know them personally my reaction to them is based on the policies they support AND the policies they don't support (i.e. those policies they don't fight for, build consensus towards, build momentum towards achieving, increasing public attention on, etc.). I can get angry about these things because they are literally life and death issues for many. This does not equal HATE towards a particular politician.

Does someone think I shouldn't be angry when a politician isn't doing their best to represent average Americans? I could not care any less.

[mmonk]

19. Excellent comments.

[RobertEarl]

62. It is like I tell people

Bernie is someone who will do the right thing. He has spoken up for and almost always voted for the right things. Things like food - not bombs- and good government not owned by and for the rich.

For too long we have put up with the bushes and reagans and other republican policies, and yeah, were a bit po'd about anyone else running who even appears to support more of the same.

How grand it would be if the frontrunner of our party had policies that opposed the republicans! Life would be so much more hopeful. Well, come spring we shall see who is the leader. Hope is that real change will be the most likely probability as we go toward the GE.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Because Hillary's stance on her policies SUCK.

They can't defend them, so they go on the offense against anyone that's against her policies.

IT'S ALL THEY'VE GOT.

The TPP
The XL pipeline
Glass-Steagall
Koch brothers buying the government
Unaffordable State Universities

Fracking
Corporate tax loopholes
Marijuana legalization countrywide
Prisons for Profits
Wars, wars, wars and more wars

Some if the most important issues facing this country and they obviously support them or they'd be voting for Bernie, not Hillary.

[Hortensis]

39. I think almost all of us admire Bernie and his positions. There have

been almost no attacks on him. I imagine virtually all of us would vote for him in the general if he won the nomination. And mostly enthusiastically.

[jeff47]

17. If it's hate, you can dismiss it as irrational.

If it's irrational, you don't have to actually debate policy.

[mmonk]

21. I get that in regard to followers or supporters.

But we can't let party elites get by with that.

[hifiguy]

56. "That which is asserted without evidence

may be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

18. Because they live in the bubble right next door to the GOP bubble

[brooklynite]

23. Want to disagree with Hillary Clinton on IWR? I have no problem with that.

Last edited Sat Sep 12, 2015, 11:10 AM - Edit history (1)

Describing Hillary Clinton as having "blood dripping from her hands" (a phrase that somehow never gets applied to John Kerry or Joe Biden)? That's expressing hatred.

[SouthernProgressive]

26. Or posting highly unflattering pictures of her as was done here yesterday.

It was the exact same as Trumps comments on their candidate. It is clearly hate. Literally making the issues about her looks.

Someone upthread said they actually need examples of the hate. They simply aren't honest with themselves.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. Just so you know, yeah, there's (metaphorical) blood dripping from Kerry and Biden's hands.

and every other enabler of Bush's war of aggression. She's nowhere near a solo Lady Macbeth.

[NorthCarolina]

28. The establishment simply cannot debate Bernie

and come out on top. They know it, we know it, the media knows it. Their chosen path to handle the talk of Debates...obfuscate and overcomplicate.

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. Because of the ugly vitrolic hatred spewing from your posts.

It is one thing to disagree. It is another to gleeful spew the ugliness that is posted hourly on DU.

The complete lack of self-awareness is astonishing.

[Zorra]

31. When you got no game, neener neener, fluff, and doodoo

are all that's left for you to work with.

[NorthCarolina]

32. Since they can't discuss "issues" and come out ahead, it's far better

from their perspective to simply cast stones.

[DrBulldog]

33. One scene said it all.

When Bernie was walking outdoors past several opposing political campaign groups in Iowa a few days ago (on his birthday) on his way to meet with his own contingent, all quietly ignored him except one: Hillary's group loudly booed him. That told me everything.

[jwirr]

40. Wow and they think we hate.

[frylock]

51. That was ugly.

[SMC22307]

67. I missed that.

Classy bunch.

[Indepatriot]

38. " When you've got nuthin' you got nuthin' to lose" - some old hippy...

[Politicub]

45. So where's the issue to debate in your op?

What a joke.

It feels like brainy smurf with his pointed, wagging finger delivering a laborious lecture up in here.

An an enthusiastic Hillary supporter, I am in her camp because she gives concrete proposals - with details - about what she intends to do as President. Sanders? He's great at airing a long list of grievances. Hillary has a long history of advocacy for women's rights. As a feminist, I place value in her deeds and actions.

Sanders' approach is fine and dandy if the objective is to get people all in a lather. The job of governing requires visionary leadership AND the ability to leverage our government to achieve progress. I don't see Sanders as a visionary. I see him as a vessel for channeling righteous anger.

His approach works because there is an endless list of things to be angry about. There always will be. Trump gives a full throated airing of the right's murmuring whines.

On paper, Sanders seems like a decent enough person. His speeches do not do anything for me. In fact, his tone turns me off.

Time for me to say the obligatory I'll vote for him if he's our nominee. I'll go one further - I'll be knocking on doors and making calls because the presidential race is not some abstract schoolyard fight. As a gay man, I have so much at stake and no time to entertain crying in a corner because I don't always get what I want.

The past is past, and my support goes toward the person who embodies the grit, tenacity and pragmatism necessary for progress in our system. President Obama also possesses these traits and has accomplished extraordinary things against all odds.

[peace13]

52. You read my mind!

We were just discussing why that is. Hate is a pretty strong word for preferring not to support someone.

[olddots]

58. when you are shallow materialistic ,self centered babies

you utter teen puke sayings like "hater" because all you have is passive agressive rationals to hide your ineptness .

[restorefreedom]

60. because when your positions suck

and it's clear that you are answering to the 1%, the victim card is all you have left.

[NightWatcher]

61. Just as criticism is bashing and if you are not the same gender and or race then they add an "ism"