Can someone please explain to me the difference between:

[Cary]

1) "Conservatives" smearing Hillary Clinton with "conservative" smears; and

2) Self described liberals smearing Hillary Clinton with "conservative" smears.

I've heard all of the Hillary is as bad as nonsense. I want to know how the numbers 2, above, are any better than the number 1's.

[Hepburn]

1. IMO, she is one of them.

Why would the criticisms be different?

[Cary]

2. That's not an answer to my question. n/t

[Hepburn]

5. I believe it is.

If you don't like it, not my problem. Hillary is hated and criticized because she cannot be trusted or believed. One does not have to be liberal, conservative, Republican and/or Democrat to know her history of changing positions and not telling the truth. Political party and persuasion are not relevant in having a negative opinion of HRC. Her negativity cuts across all lines.

[VanillaRhapsody]

9. bullshit

she is NOT hated

Have you seen her polling?

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Her poll numbers show nothing more than people recognize the name.

[Cary]

36. "She is hated" is not a fact, as pointed out to you by others

That you hate her, which clearly you do, is a fact that you can prove. And yes, that is your problem. It certainly isn't mine and you're still not answering my question.

You are evading it and trying to change the subject to me, personally. That's lame. It's still not my problem. I'm just pointing out your deficiencies in your answers.

Thanks for trying though.

[daleanime]

152. Your game....

your rules?

Let's try this, is there any criticism of Hillary that you will allow. Or is she perfect?

[BlueMTexpat]

137. Do you ever say anything other than

this?

I have seen this post or versions of it from you several times today. If you call yourself a liberal, you definitely belong in group 2.

As far as I am concerned, there is no substantive difference between groups 1 and 2.

The more that you keep repeating the same-old, same-old BS, the more Clinton supporters will circle the wagons and the more her polling differential will increase. You are doing more harm to your candidate than you are to Hillary.

So please proceed, by all means.

[Cary]

159. I realize that you are deeply invested in this cultish thinking

And you react just like any Moonie or LaRouchie that I've ever encountered. Also I have had identical tactics used against me by Atlas Society types.

So what can I tell you? Sorry but I decline your Kool-Aid.

[Cary]

3. I'll elaborate

I see a smear as a smear, and I see it as wrong no matter who does it to whom.

Call it the Ninth Commandment, if you wish. It's wrong.

[Hepburn]

10. OK...fine...

...and how is your Commandment going to stop anyone from telling the truth about HRC?

What you are against is people speaking the truth about her...and a lot of it is negative. That is just the way it is. Hint: It is NOT a smear to tell the truth.

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. when are you going to start?

[99th_Monkey]

26. What part of "It's NOT a smear to tell the truth" did you not understand? nt

[Cary]

37. Still not an answer.

You decree yourself to be the oracle of all truth. Good for you.

I'm not impressed. I would be more impressed if you could give me a direct answer to my direct question without these irrelevancies. I guess you just can't do it.

[Hepburn]

53. Guess you don't get it.

Reading is fundamental. You do not wish to hear the truth about Hillary. That is your problem and not mine.

[Cary]

56. I don't think so.

You're not that hard to figure and I've seen this movie before.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. The former is bs; whereas, the latter is ...

Principled.

{Do I need to add ... }

[randys1]

16. I feel for the OP, the sad thing about all this is actual liberals are scared to death

that 2010 could repeat.

You know those folks who complained that Obama hadnt accomplished anything so they wouldnt vote in 2010, I saw the posts right here in the last few days, those folks might do it again.

Now granted, some arent liberals or dems in the first place and are here solely to sow discord and convince people not to vote, but those who think they are liberals who say absurd shit like Hillary is a con or is the same as them might withold their vote if she is the nominee.

The result would be the teaparty in control of absolutely everything including the SC.

Translation, if you are Black, Gay, Asian, Latino, Jewish, Muslim, or Brown from anywhere on earth, RUN LIKE HELL!

[R B Garr]

42. You are EXACTLY right! Bernie supporters here

have made this about Good vs. Evil, which explains the focus on their self-proclaimed superior morals.

[Starry Messenger]

104. Ha!

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. None...

there is none...

[Skidmore]

22. +1

[Cary]

38. Thank you. A simple answer to a simple question.

I tend to agree, but I was hoping I would get an objectively reasonable answer to the contrary. I like to try to be objectively reasonable. It's hard not to get drawn into the emotion, but I'm working on it.

[99Forever]

7. If that's "all you've heard"...

...then you haven't been listening.

Selective listening does that to ya.

[notadmblnd]

8. Please define "smear" for me

To me a smear would not be a valid criticism. It would be a lie or a distortion of facts. If she is being criticized by one using verifiable facts, I do not consider that criticism a "smear"

[Scuba]

13. Anything short of blind devotion.

[notadmblnd]

15. That's pretty much what I was thinking.

Let's see if I get an answer.

[upaloopa]

29. Here's your answer. Everything posted about

Hillary by those not supporting her are lies and distortions.

See the paradigm you see Hillary through prevents you from knowing the truth about Hillary.

[notadmblnd]

32. I hope you were looking in a mirror as you typed that.

have you refreshed your self on TOS yet?

[JonLeibowitz]

66. Is this a serious response? This is what is actually believed? n/t

[upaloopa]

68. Speaking for myself not belief but known

Here is the dynamic especially on a board like this. The majority start repeating the same lines to the point you all start believing your in own lies and distortions.

[Cary]

39. No, I think a smear is something designed to make someone look bad without any particular relevance

So we have with Bill's indiscretions, the ones we know to be true. Of course this is not good, but what did it ever have to do with his job as president? So the so-called Elves dragged them out time and time again and finally got Bill to make a mistake, and then Ken Starr uses this mistake as a pretext to write some bad soft core pornography to distract from his failure to make any case out of Whitewater.

True. Yes. But I would still call that a smear job. As it turned out, a failed smear job. But a smear job nonetheless. Don't you think?

As for Hillary and President Obama we have a long list of outright lies and half truths designed not to get at the truth asserted, but rather to eventually get people to say that hey even though none of this has been proven worth a damn there must be something there. Hence the latest crap we heard last night "no one trusts President Obama" blah blah. And too the whole Hillary can't be trusted garbage.

None of the allegations against her are true. It's a smear. Sorry.

[notadmblnd]

41. No one can make someone else look bad

That is something one does to themselves by their words and actions. Can others attempt it? Sure, But if there is nothing there, there's nothing there.

[Cary]

51. Nice philosophy but not true.

Unless you think John Kerry deserved the Swiftboat Liars. We have thousands of examples of right wing smears. Lee Atwater even apologized on his deathbed for his smears.

But hey, they're the same as we are. Right? I'm just like that.

[notadmblnd]

64. Those were lies, and no, they did not make Kerry look bad

I went to bed that election night confident in knowing Kerry had won. Then something happened in Ohio (votes flipped?) and I woke up in the morning to news that Bush won.

What lies have been told of HRC? Has she been criticized? Yes. But you can't find dirt where none exists. For example- Benghazi. For all the hearings and all the accusations, it's only made an impact on those who were against her to begin with.

You want to know why I don't like Hillary? It's because I have no respect for a woman who stays with a man that repeatedly cheats on her. The first time- perhaps is forgivable, I'll chalk it up to love. But the 2nd, 3rd, 4th time, it's not love- it's what's to be gained by staying in that relationship. In her case- money and power and I can't respect that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. The conservative smears are smears.

Those are the stupid lies about Benghazi, Vince Foster, all the crap they've been throwing at her since Bill was president. The so-called liberal "smears" are not smears at all, or lies. It's fair criticism for her close relationships to the Goldman Sachs crowd, her tendency toward militarism, and her changing her positions on various issues (e.g., TPP and Keystone) depending on the direction of the political wind. That's the difference.

[randys1]

18. Nobody on the left would ever criticize Hillary in respect to running for WH without including

a disclaimer such as:

"And even with all her faults, and she has many, she is still 1,890,786 times better than any or all republicans."


No one with political maturity would compare Hillary to the right and leave it at that, without a clarifier.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. So I'm confused. Are you saying that Clinton is not allowed to be criticized

by the liberal wing of the party for any reason unless a disclaimer is included to the effect that she's still better than the Republicans, and unless this is done, said criticism is a "smear"? I don't think so. In the context of primary elections it seems to me that the various candidates are subject to fair and reasonable criticism regarding their positions and past actions. It goes without saying that the GOPers are worse.

[randys1]

25. You know exactly what I mean, you have seen the hundreds, possibly thousands of not posts

but threads on DU attacking Hillary, or as some like to say "criticizing" her.

Look, I am so far to the left you would have to click your heels 3 times to find me, I am the guy who has proven to you all here that allowing human beings to own land is insane, so imagine how conservative Hillary is to me.

This is NOT about that, is it.

It is about preventing a political party which is now officially supporting the "Sieg Heil" candidates from taking over all of our government and courts.

Constructive, pre nomination criticism of a candidate is NOT what happens around here most of the time, and that is a fact.

If I thought Hillary supporters were threatening to abandon the party if Bernie is the nominee, I would scream at them as well.

I dont know which of our two main candidates has the better chance of beating the rightwing racist bigots, and whoever that is, well that is who I go with.

Even as a Bernie supporter, if it is shown to me convincingly Hillary has a better chance of beating the rightwing racist bigots, then sadly I will have to switch to supporting her.

Look, Hillary is a product of our fucked up system, filled with corruption and greed. Sure she has been compromised by Wall Street to some extent in comparison to Bernie, which is why I support Bernie, but the VAST differences between her and the right on ALL other issues is overwhelming.

[Cary]

40. Half truths, sure. And thanks for the thoughtful answer.

But then they're piggybacking on the "conservative" smears. Aren't they?

[JaneyVee]

14. Poll numbers.

[jeff47]

19. Accurately quoting Clinton or accurately stating her history is not a smear.

Even when that quote or history does not make Clinton look good.

[NCTraveler]

21. You forgot to put quotation marks around "liberal" in your second option.

That would answer the question all by itself.

[Cary]

43. I don't see why I need quotations around the word liberal

Contemporary conservatives are not conservative by my definition. Conservatives, like Edmund Burke, are careful, thoughtful, traditional, incrementalist, ...

Contemporary conservatives are to the right of real conservatives. They are radical, reckless, revisionist, extreme, science denialist,. .. nothing conservative about that. And guess what is to the right of conservatives. I'm being nice with the use of quotations marks.

[arcane1]

23. How do you define a conservative smear? Your question cannot be answered with that definition.

[Ino]

24. Are you equating criticism with smears?

Or are you talking about real smears? Are there liberal smears? I don't get all the quotation marks.

If a criticism is valid, Hillary owns it, whether it comes from the National Enquirer, conservatives or, as you put it, "self described liberals."

It's so much easier to just wave away all criticism rather than deal with it, and try to put the messenger on the defensive by calling him/her names. Easier, but a transparent manipulation that doesn't fool anyone.

I'm not answering the question as it makes little sense:
a. "Self described liberals" implies the people are really cons in disguise, and so exactly the same as #1. I suppose you meant "liberals smearing Hillary" but you just couldn't resist the little dig. ( Real liberals don't smear Hillary with smears! )
b. I can't figure out what "I've heard all of the Hillary is as bad as nonsense" means.
c. This isn't a real question. It sounds like a whine masquerading as a question.

[Cary]

44. I guess this means you can't answer the simple question.

That's ok. I don't think I told you that you had to answer it and even if I did, it wouldn't be any more meaningful than your word salad.

[Ino]

69. Geez, I can't keep up with your non sequiturs...

projections, mangled syntax, and leaps of logic! Hillary has a worthy spokesperson.

Buh-bye... off to the ignore list with you!

[Cary]

70. Yes, yes.

Your inability to answer a straight question is my fault, and you need to blame me.

[giftedgirl77]

27. #2 isn't really liberals, they are either...

1. Libertarian idiots that can't stand the democratic party but like to claim to be part of said democratic party so that they can bash democrats but claim to be doing it from a purist liberal standpoint or

2. They are this new breed of damn near 30 year olds that have never voted before but claim they have always been democrats who really hate everything the democratic party stands for except for BS because he's just dandy.

So in summation they are all full of shit, not really democrats that just look for any excuse they can to bitch about all democrats & the democratic party. It just so happens HRC is their biggest target right now, before this election season it was all evil Obama all the time.

[UglyGreed]

31. Or they are true Liberals

who do not like the "New Democrat" way. You know the type, those who indulge in war mongering and Wall Street shenanigans.

[UglyGreed]

34. HMMM

wonder why you would want to say bad things to me??? Let me just say Third Way politics are not liberal nor progressive......

?w=500

[giftedgirl77]

92. & let's say ppl that constantly bitch about everything democrats

do aren't democrats. Since you showed up here all you do is bitch about dems, therefore you fall into one of my 2 categories. Don't like it, IDGAF it's my opinion.

Nobody asked you to engage me in the first damn place & of course you had to bring out the dumbass 3d way nonsense.

[UglyGreed]

97. Been here since

2012 I believe...... I voted for Obama and was disapointed so now I call for real change and that is Bernie not Hillary. Oh BTW IMO you are definitely more right wing than I so maybe you are the Libertarian in democrats' clothing .....

[frylock]

87. Textbook example of a smear right there.

[giftedgirl77]

90. Oooh, because we must like everyone right?

Please get off your horse. There was no smear, I just don't have a decent opinion of him.

[frylock]

94. You made very specific accusations that have no basis in reality.

[giftedgirl77]

95. Oh, you're talking about my initial post.

You probably should've replied to that so I knew what you were talking about & bullshit. Your opinion is duly noted & discarded.

There are a plethora of both of those groups running amok. Sometimes the truth hurts.

[frylock]

96. Have a lovely day.

[Cary]

45. Still I'm giving them the benefit of that doubt, for the purpose of my questions

Do not fret (their answers, or non-answers, kind of speak for themselves, eh?)

[giftedgirl77]

93. Lol, what's that? That it's the big bad democrats fault?

That's what I'm getting. They are easier to deal with if you just laugh at them.

[99th_Monkey]

28. The difference: It's called a PRIMARY Election, to elect a party nominee.

You would think that Clinton supporters would know that, since they tout their
candidate as the "serious" candidate who is so politically "savy" ...

HINT #1: Primary elections are not coronations of pre-determined candidates who
regard themselves as "inevitable".

HINT #2: Holding Clinton accountable for her record and her own words is NOT a "smear".

[HereSince1628]

30. sure...

When conservative make conservative smears about Clinton she isn't xenophobic and warlike enough

When liberals make conservative smears about Clinton it's because she's too friendly to corporations.

[tularetom]

35. "liberal" v. "conservative" is so '90's

The true political divide in America now is between "insiders" and "outsiders".

Hillary Clinton is the stereotypical insider, being part of the group that has been fucking things up for the past 25 years or more.

If you are happy with the way things are going, you should vote for her. She won't change anything.

If you're unhappy, you should vote for somebody else, because Hillary won't change anything.

It's very simple.

[Cary]

47. That's funny. Could you tell this to the radical righties?

They don't seem to have gotten your message. I get from them all hate, all the time. They hate me. They hate President Obama. They hate Hillary Clinton. They hate illegal Mexicans. They hate affirmative action. They hate political correctness. They hate climate science. That hate "Liberal" and they decide who is "Liberal." They hate mainstream economic thought, preferring their made up tax mythology. They hate George Soros even though they love billionaires and oligarchs. They hate "political correctness."

The list goes on and on and grows to the point where it makes very little sense.

But hey, there's no real difference between them and me, right? Because I'm a mainstream Democrat so I'm just like them. Right?

[Broward]

46. Because attacking Hillary from the left is a conservative smear.

Can this place get any dumber?

[Cary]

48. Hmmm.

You just set yourself up, but I'm going to take the high road instead.

[R B Garr]

49. Because the Bernie supporters have made this

about Good vs. Evil, which makes their smears justified since they have the self-proclaimed moral high ground. Their smears are good and pure because they are going to save the world. Anyone who challenges their lofty moral high ground with any dose of reality is met with disdain and personal insults.

So to answer your question, no, what they are doing is not better than the conservative smears. In fact, many of them echo the same frantic nonsense as the Arkansas Project smears. Hmmm

[Cary]

54. Thanks.

I'd love to give them more credit than this though.

[R B Garr]

156. Understandable, but not worth it as you can see

from their behavior. This is what I was trying to say about the personal insults. Of course you can't answer this or talk about their attacks or your post will be hidden. It's a familiar pattern, though.

[Cary]

160. Very, very familiar

And in the end it is ineffective: The Sound and the Fury: A Tale Told By An Idiot.

[demwing]

50. What's a "conservative" smear?

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2015, 05:29 PM - Edit history (1)

define your terms

[Cary]

52. There is an old saying in my business...

...if you're explaining, you're losing.

In my opinion, if a poster here at Democratic Underground claims to not understand such a thing when I say it here, it's not going to happen.

Such is life.

[demwing]

57. Wow, what a failure

thanks for confirming what I already suspected - you're just looking to stir the shit.

[Hepburn]

59. Yep...totally agree and thank you Admin for the Ignore feature! n/t

[Cary]

62. No. I'm looking for honest answers.

I didn't expect everyone to try to give them to me.

Love you too.

[Kalidurga]

154. If you are looking for honest answers you should ask honest questions.

[arcane1]

80. Exactly. They are a waste of time. n/t

[Scootaloo]

58. "if you're explaining, you're losing" - isn't that a Ronald Reagan quote?

[Cary]

61. Nope. Trial lawyers. n/t

[Scootaloo]

65. Google puts it in reagan's mouth. Oh well, either way it's a con artist strategy

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

[Cary]

74. It has nothing to do with a con.

Whether Reagan said it or not, it works. I learned it in law school, not from Reagan. And I use it in practice.

If I am explaining in court, I am losing. I am an advocate, not a con artist.

[Cary]

75. And if you Google properly you will find more. n/t

[Scootaloo]

55. Your argument supposes all criticism of Clinton to be "conservative smears."

And is thus a flawed premise from the outset.

Why not try asking an honest question? It's not difficult, people do it every day.

[Cary]

60. Except I didn't make an argument. I asked a question.

It is an honest question. You didn't even try to answer it, but that's okay. I get your drift anyway. So why don't I ask the question according to your specifications?

Who are you again?

[Scootaloo]

63. You made a positive assertion and misused a question mark

A bit from the Daily Show back in the day called that "the Cavuto," maybe look it up.

First, support your premise. Show us that liberals and conservatives are making the same "smears" against clinton. I see this claim very frequently, and never with any support. be a groundbreaker.

As for who I am, I'm Scootaloo, I've been here since 2011, and I've seen some shit.

[Cary]

72. Amazing

Look at this thread. You have 2 types of answers: 1) those that understand immediately and give good discussion, and 2) those who evade and change the subject.

No, I'm not going to dance because you say dance. Either answer my question or not.

The rest is just nonsense. You don't have to answer. You don't have to make demands, or parse words, or pretend to be confused. You don't have to. You can, but why?

[Beacool]

67. They are not, they are the mirror image of each other.

Same extremism, same intolerance, same all or nothing attitude and little pragmatism.

Same vitriol against anyone named Clinton.

Therefore, I find this board just as irrelevant as any RW site and not a reflection of the majority of Democratic voters.

[demwing]

105. and yet, here you are

why?

[Beacool]

145. Well, someone other than Sanders' supporters better be here.

This site is called Democratic Underground, not Sanders Underground. Last time I checked, Hillary has been a Democrat for a few decades longer than Sanders.

[cali]

71. The vast majority of liberal criticism of Hillary is fRom a liberal pov

[Cary]

73. Believe it or not I wasn't trying to provoke anyone here.

And yet some are provoked which is interesting in and of itself. It shows a certain hostility inherent in just posting here.

That's not anything new of course, and you have certainly been hostile to me in the past. What I am trying to get at with my question, in good faith, is an understanding of that hostility. I have participated in it in the past. I'm certainly not perfect. I can be provoked perhaps too easily.

But really and truly I don't want that hostility.

So my respectful critique of your answer is that it fails to further my understanding of that hostility. It's not your responsibility to do that, of course. Nor should you care. But that's really what this question is about and I have never seen anyone explain how this happens here, or even a good way to avoid it.

Cali you give thoughtful answers and I appreciate that. You can hate me all day long. It really doesn't matter. I appreciate thoughtful answers nonetheless and lament the fact that they are too few and far between on a board where I used to be able to count on them.

[cali]

77. Wait. You think my post was hostile? Wow. It was completely respectful.

Please explain how said post could possibly be interpreted as hostile.

In any case, I find the post I'm responding to a bit disjointed. Your op is rather pointless. People engage innately sniping. And Hillary supporters do it to Bernie from a right wing place, as well.

[Cary]

79. No. I said clearly your post was thoughtful and thanked you.

How did you miss that?

[Cary]

81. I am trying to discuss something with you.

So what if my post was disjointed? I don't agree, but even if it was so what? Are you saying that people wouldn't find a way to attack me?

My experience shows otherwise here. At times, as I said, from you.

And that's fine Cali, not that you need my approval. You most certainly do not. As I said, I appreciate your thoughtful responses. That's an honest compliment. Thank you.

[beam me up scottie]

76. Oh please, the criticism of Hillary here is nothing compared to the nasty smears against Bernie.

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2015, 11:32 PM - Edit history (1)

According to Hillary supporters on DU Bernie is Israel's #1 shill, a pro gunner that thinks women enjoy being raped, racist, gun nut, scheming little sneak, drooling, sweating old fool, scumbag, pandering phony braggart with some kind of emotional instability, tool for the NRA, Republican man with his head between women's legs, who protects the minutemen militia, pedophiles, racist cops, has rape fantasies, thinks that orgasms prevent cancer, wants the guns in the streets, and is supported by Stormfront.









*note to jury: this is an opinion only, this post contains no personal attacks. Linking to posts is not against the tos, I checked.

[Cary]

78. Ok, but am I guilty of this?

There are a lot of Democrats like me who love Bernie. I really do, and frankly from a policy standpoint I see very little difference between Bernie and Hillary.

I'm interested in policy, not personality. The job of POTUS is a job and I want someone who will be the best for the general welfare, period. I will support Bernie, or I will support Hillary. I'm not going to trash talk either of them yet look at the responses I get here.

There's something really wrong with this. Smears are wrong, period.

[beam me up scottie]

86. So it's okay for you to smear all of us without proof but you don't want to be associated with them?

By the way, I don't see any evidence of those "conservative smears" you mentioned, perhaps I missed it.

[Cary]

88. I have no idea what you think you're talking about

And I don't care.

Go find someone else to troll.

[beam me up scottie]

89. "Go find someone else to troll." Funny, that's what we've been telling you.

Glad you finally got the point.

[Juicy_Bellows]

98. I haven't seen an elbow drop like that since Wrestlemania III - well done! nt.

[beam me up scottie]

99. LOL! Complaining about the response to their op? Priceless!

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2015, 11:29 PM - Edit history (1)

More meta*, another day on DU.









*note to jury, meta is in the eye of the beholder - it's an opinion, not a personal attack.

No posters were harmed by this post.

[Cary]

110. ???

What on earth are you babbling about?

[beam me up scottie]

111. "What on earth are you babbling about?"* We're asking you the same thing.

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2015, 10:57 PM - Edit history (1)

You have yet to cite examples of your claim but that's a good impersonation of the confused Bernie supporters in this thread.

Well done!








*note to jury: that quote is from the poster, I am simply repeating the question back to them

[Cary]

115. Whatever.

How many "we" do you have in there with you in that head?

[beam me up scottie]

116. 'in there with you in that head?'* You're the one talking to yourself.

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2015, 10:58 PM - Edit history (1)

You seem to be projecting a lot, calling people names, making false accusations, implying others are mentally ill, etc.

I find a nice cup of tea can be very calming.







*note to jury: I am simply repeating the poster's own question back to them

[Cary]

118. is that right? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

119. Yes, chamomile is good although my mom used to make a nice mint tea.

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2015, 11:33 PM - Edit history (1)

*note to jury: this is an opinion only, this post contains no personal attacks

[Cary]

120. You don't say? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

121. I do say! :)

[Cary]

122. is that right? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

123. mmm hmmmm

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2015, 11:33 PM - Edit history (1)

*note to jury: this is an opinion only, this post contains no personal attacks

[Cary]

126. You don't say? n/t

[wendylaroux]

166. lol

[Dem2]

167. lol

Well done.

[Cary]

168. Well done?

My enemy is Republicans. Today they are putting out a bill that will e rich the Kochs and ExxonMobil and deprive us of revenue we need to fund our programs.

Hillary Clinton is not my enemy. Bernie Sanders is not my enemy. The trash talkers here are irrelevant and confused. So what is it about them that I need to understand.

Feh.

[Dem2]

169. You said it

...some (too many) get their jollies attempting to frustrate and distract you. Seems rivalries are more important than focusing on the strengths of our candidates and winning the election over people who are disgusting xenophobic bigots (Republicans.) But, you know, mah rights!!!!!

[Cary]

170. Yes, an exercise in stupidity

To which my full response is: feh.

[merrily]

107. OUTSTANDING!

[beam me up scottie]

127. Thank you, merrily!

The lack of positive feedback and recs for this meta thread are encouraging, it appears very few are buying what the op is selling.

I got tired of repeating myself and gave up.










*note to jury: this is an opinion only, this post contains no personal attacks

[Cary]

128. is that right? n/t

[Trajan]

82. Reading through this mess of a thread

I can see you have an agenda - to diminish anyone who might have the unmitigated audacity to criticise Mrs Clinton ...

Well ... Screw that ... Your time is up ...

Gone

[demwing]

83. ^^this

agreed 100%

[Cary]

85. So what?

Totally unnecessary and meaningless hostility. Really.

I feel sorry for you.

[demwing]

103. you had you chance at civil discourse with me

now shoo

[Cary]

108. liar, there was never any such chance

And again, so what?

You're trolling my thread. Remember?

[beam me up scottie]

112. You're accusing yourself of 'trolling' your own thread now?

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2015, 11:04 PM - Edit history (1)

*note to jury, the poster responded to their own post, so I thought I'd ask, this is not an accusation of "trolling"

[Cary]

113. Whatever.

Get a life.

[beam me up scottie]

114. "Get a life" Maybe you should take your own advice?

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2015, 11:34 PM - Edit history (1)

*note to jury: just repeating the poster's own words back to them, this post contains no personal attacks

[Cary]

124. You don't say? n/t

[Mnpaul]

148. I was going to alert on that

but if this person wants to call themselves a liar, it isn't really a personal attack.

What a brilliant debate tactic, post a strawman argument and then call yourself a liar and accuse yourself of trolling.

[beam me up scottie]

149. Maybe they should alert on themselves!

[Mnpaul]

150. Good idea

they could start with the OP and work their way down. They could see how far they get before they lock themselves out of this pathetic thread.

[beam me up scottie]

151. Someone already alerted on one of my posts where all I did was repeat the op's own words.

On Wed Dec 16, 2015, 02:07 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
"Go find someone else to troll." Funny, that's what we've been telling you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=903545

REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This person is just trying to pick a fight with me. I asked a question in good faith. He doesn't like it. That's his business. I had no intent here to offend anyone. I am minding my own business. If he doesn't like that he doesn't have to participate. Instead he is trying to intimidate me. This isn't right.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Dec 16, 2015, 02:52 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: this thread is just one big fight - impossible to single anyone out
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I encourage the alerter to use the ignore feature.

I had to go back and put disclaimers on all my other posts just in case they kept trying, I've had 3 failed alerts on my posts tonight.



















*note to jury: it's not against the tos to post jury results, no posters were harmed as a result of this post

[Mnpaul]

153. I guess that is the last refuge when you are losing

alert on the person that is making you look foolish in the hope that you can lock that person out of your silly OP.

I asked a question in good faith.

pure comedy gold.



BTW did you undergo a sex change?

[beam me up scottie]

155. 'Go find someone else to troll' = asking a question in good faith*

I need to find a new gynie, I could have sworn I was still a girl.





















*note to jury: again I'm just quoting another poster, see previous post for details

[Cary]

161. This is the very first of these particular pissing matches that I have been sucked into

Good job. Experience counts, eh? How many other people have you trolled this way? I bet you have debased yourself with these stupid tactics a few dozen times.

As I said, in the end you lose. Your trash talk is utterly meaningless, and you remain marginal.

[beam me up scottie]

162. Project much?

I'm sure if I continue to respond the alerts will keep coming so good luck with everything!

And thanks for all the fish!*














* Note to jury: it's a Douglas Adams reference

[Cary]

164. Dude. I have to keep reminding you that you came to me.

Not visa versa.

I didn't ask you to behave this way. You did it on your own volition. In fact you surprised me because generally I believe leftists are better than what you have shown me.

But I thank you for the dose of reality. I guess I needed to he reminded of the depths to which leftists can descend.

[R B Garr]

174. Yes, and check the post count on that one

in the last 90 days alone. That pretty much tells the story. Nailed it...

[Cary]

175. I can't see your post count on this interface

But I would be mildly interested in your ration of lucid to incomprehensible.

[Cary]

84. Oh good grief.

Such hostility, over nothing.

Get a grip.

[Armstead]

91. If you can't figure that one out on your own, there's no use explaining the difference

[Cary]

102. Or not.

Because it's my choice. It's all mine. It's not yours.

[Autumn]

100. Liberals are smearing Hillary Clinton with "conservative" smears?

Are Liberals discussing her own actions, for example her emails. her IWR vote using what you consider "conservative" smears ?

[merrily]

109. As of this post: 1454 views, 108 replies, 4 recs

[Cary]

117. I believe I have the record.

I could be wrong but if I recall it was in the 6 figures in terms of the number of views.

Ah the good old days. But from the looks of things people here have not learned anything.

As it turned out the hoi polloi was just that and I'm sure they will he just that this time.

It's a pity but if they haven't learned anything, we mainstream Democrats have. That is that the noise here is irrelevant.

[guillaumeb]

101. If someone at DU has policy differences with the Clinton Campaign and expresses them here,

that is not smearing. Which smears are you speaking of?

[VanillaRhapsody]

131. Is that ALL that ever happens?

No...not by a long shot...

[HassleCat]

106. Sure. Here's an example.

Conservatives call Clinton a progressive as an insult. We (Sandernistas) complain because she calls herself a progressive one day, and denies it another day. I know what you mean about the stuff like the Benghazi "investigation." (Is that over yet?) Anybody who reproduces that shit here is playing dirty, in my opinion. But there are some conservative talking points that actually have some substance, such as Clinton's ties to Wall Street. Just because the right wing says it does not mean it's all a lie.

[VanillaRhapsody]

132. That is NOT an example of the smears and vitriol

Last edited Thu Dec 17, 2015, 02:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Its like men who deny how much women have to deal with sexism.....you are trying to deny what posters are telling you right here on this post and comments.....its like Trump denying he is attracting White Supremacists to his ranks....

[HassleCat]

171. I can't figure out what you mean

I hope we're not in for another round of parsing the difference between democratic socialism and social democrats.

[VanillaRhapsody]

172. Sure you can

its called denial...

Men denying that women face sexism....while a woman is trying to point out that she is experiencing sexism....or all those on this board that tell AA's that White Privilege doesn't exist....because they themselves are not rich.


This is the same technique...

[HassleCat]

173. I think I get it, but I also think you're wrong.

If somebody accuses Clinton of being close to large financial interests, that is a right wing talking point. So what? It happens to be true. If somebody accuses Sanders of being a socialist, that's a right wing talking point. So what? It happens to be true. The right wing accuses our candidates of all sorts of things. Most of the accusations are false, but some are true.

[Motown_Johnny]

125. Please give examples of these "smears".

I think you will find that conservatives attack her for doing what is right and liberals attack her for doing what is wrong.


I doubt very much if you will find both liberals and conservatives attacking her for the same thing.

[Cary]

130. It's all crap.

Sorry but certain posters here have answered my question.

Silly me. I have no idea why I expected to talk to grown ups.

[Motown_Johnny]

136. Sorry you feel that way, but your OP was very broad in scope.

Being more specific and giving actual examples will help. Links to what you are referring to also help.

[Cary]

138. I'm sorry I feel this way too.

I'm sorry that we here at DU suck and haven't learned a damn thing. As it turned out last time the goons were irrelevant.

This mugging isn't new to me. And the goons will he irrelevant next November because that's the lot in life that goons relegate themselves to.

There was nothing wrong with my opening post. Gaslighting is a.common ploy of socipaths. Goons will be goons but no quantity of goonishness will negate the facts of life.

The facts of life are that we have only our vote and that vote is either for Democrats or against. There are more of us than there are of them so they know that a non vote by one of us is effectively a vote for them.

But we have been through all of this, and we know how it ends. And there are even more of us now. So I'm not actually worried and the gaslighting sociopaths cannot use my good faith against me.

[Motown_Johnny]

139. I think your OP was in error

If you can give examples of both liberals and conservatives using the same "smears" toward Hillary then maybe we can have a conversation.

If you can't give examples of this happening then the premise of your OP was false.

[Cary]

140. That doesn't excuse the response. n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

142. Well, your OP was offensive.

You pretty much called Bernie supporters liars who are just using conservative smears to attack Hillary.

Now you refuse to support that position with examples.

You pretty much asked for it. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of GDP.

[Cary]

143. There was nothing wrong with my question.

And even if there was that is no excuse for the response. If you object you can do so in a civil manner so pretty much you're flinging more crap.

I have too much experience with the people here for you to pull that over on me.

[Cary]

144. Or don't answer. That too is always a civil option.

Feh

[Chitown Kev]

134. how about the e-mails?

...up to the point that BS said to stop tripping over those damned e-mails...

[Motown_Johnny]

135. No, he said he was tired of hearing about those damned emails.

How is it a smear to point out that she should not have had a private server? Hillary herself has said that it was a mistake and she should not have done it.

I am gonna call that a swing and a miss.

[randys1]

129. Big picture people dont see the differences between Bernie and HIllary and exploit

them.

They see the differences between Bernie/Hillary and the right, and expose them

[BlueMTexpat]

133. Spot on! eom

[Cary]

141. I don't care about personalities. I care about policies. n/t

[AlbertCat]

146. I care about policies.

Then why post this disingenuous loaded vague question about "conservative" smears from Democrats?

I haven't heard conservatives complain about Hillary's ties to Wall Street or prisons for profit, or her warmongering.

Is pointing out actual flip flopping a "smear"? I think all her opponents have pointed that out. Is that a "conservative" criticism? observation? Or just an observation?

[Cary]

147. And I've seen this movie before...

7 years ago.

I'll spoil it for you and tell you where you end up: irrelevant. So fling your crap. Enjoy yourself while you can.

[Kentonio]

157. One of the funniest threads I've seen here

Was when someone posted a video of Hillary talking, and it was bombarded with replies by her supporters accusing the op of being a vicious right wing smear. Apparently her own words now constitute an underhand right wing conspiracy against her.

[beam me up scottie]

158. I posted a video of her speech from CSPAN and was accused of editing it.

It's always a conspirasee!

[Cary]

165. I don't know anything about that.

I asked a simple question and got attacked every which way to Sunday. I don't blame any particular group because that would be guilt by association.

Each of us are responsible for our own behavior. If there are people jumping on you, as some people here have mugged me, then they are scum just like the people who mugged me.

I don't see any good reason for this kind of garbage. A pox on everyone who does it.

[Rebkeh]

163. There's nothing to explain

Hillary has a conservative record in addition to her progressive one.