Please, please do not retaliate. I am sure you've seen

[rhett o rick]

this thread that has been allowed to stand: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251780747

And I am sure there will be some that want to retaliate with giant unflattering photos of Clinton. I am asking that we be classier and take the high road.

The Clinton supporters feel frustrated because they can't discuss issues and embarrassed to be on the side of the 1% in this class war, and their only option is to lash out. They want to distract from real issues. Don't take the bait (I need to do better myself on this), put them on ignore if you have to.

Keep posting OP's about issues.

Edit: I posted the wrong link.

[pinebox]

1. I get a "You cannot access this forum."

What does that mean exactly?

[ret5hd]

2. me too.

[thucythucy]

6. Same here.

And while I applaud the sentiment ("let's not retaliate&quot I can't help but notice the OP couldn't restrain himself from adding a dig (they have nothing else...).

Can we please all refrain from making broad brush comments about the supporters of the various candidates? I think the supporters of all three candidates have valid reasons for thinking and/or feeling as they do, and snark and denigration isn't going to change anybody's mind.

We should all try to be better than that.

[senz]

23. Blaming the victim.

When hostile, aggressive, bullying supporters of one candidate create threads to belittle the other candidate in a deliberately baiting way, it is only natural for the target group to defend their own candidate. You don't bait people and then blame them when they respond. If the OP said "they have nothing else," that is a completely TAME response. Don't act like that's a provocation, because it is not.

I've seen this tactic used repeatedly by rightwingers against liberals, knowing that liberals hold themselves to higher standards and can be easily disarmed by appealing to their own standards. It's a dirty little game.

And I am surprised that the other thread has been allowed to stand.

[thucythucy]

24. There seem to be several OPs

posted in response to each other.

One told us that Hillary was a liar because her eyes are too wide.

The response to that was an OP (I think sarcasm, but difficult sometimes to tell) about Bernie's finger pointing--which is the OP I think this OP is in response to. No doubt there will be an OP in response to this OP, continuing the downward spiral.

I've seen this sort of nonsense coming from all sides (well, not so much from the O'Malley people) and it's ugly no matter which candidate it supports.

I used to try to turn friends on to DU as a resource and font of intelligent discussion of the issues. Those days appear to be long gone. I'd be embarrassed to recommend this site to anyone now, given the ugliness I've seen these past months.

[Bernin4U]

41. Honest discussion begins with honest assessment

One told us that Hillary was a liar because her eyes are too wide.

This is as accurate as claiming that Bernie said there should be no official investigations into Hillary's emails.

It's either being disingenuous or clueless.

Why would anyone expect an honest discussion when they're starting from a dishonest premise?

[sabrina 1]

26. Telling the truth is not bashing. So no, we cannot refrain and must not, from correcting lies

and distortions or pointing out something like this. The truth is they HAVE nothing else on Sanders which is why we are seeing the smears and lies being promoted right here on DU.

What we should not do is what THEY do. Nor should we go into their obvious 'flame bait threads' to kick them. THose are talking points and should be ignored, OR corrected in separate OPs.

[thucythucy]

28. So you think it's "the truth"

that we can tell Hillary is a liar because her eyes are too wide?

I wonder--suppose someone told us "you can tell a liar" by the length of his or her nose? Would that be an instance of "the truth" or would it be a bigoted, mean-spirited personal attack?

There's lots to criticize about Hillary: her vote on the Iraq War Resolution being the number one problem for me. But the width of her eyes? Really?

Just so you know, I come from a background in the disability rights movement, and can relate dozens of stories of people with disabilities being discriminated against because of their appearance. People who "look funny" or "talk funny" or "walk funny" are often the objects of ridicule. I have friends who are absolutely brilliant, but because they have CP and slur their speech are mistaken quite often for being intellectually disabled. I know someone who was gay-bashed because he "walked like a faggot." (Actually had muscular dystrophy). So someone trying to tell me they know someone is a liar by the shape or width of their eyes... well, it bothers me.

Criticize Clinton (or Sanders) on the issues all you want. But physical appearance and attributes should be off limits to anyone with a halfway decent sensibility.

You disagree?

[Bernin4U]

44. The topic was emotional expressions and body language

To equate that with physical appearance and attributes is a gross oversimplification.

And it's important to note that the OP in particular was clearly raising questions about her expressions and body language, based on his/her general understanding, and not making conclusions.

The smarter reaction to such posts should simply be to answer that you don't see her really doing that, or it seems quite normal, or whatever else you see, based on your own experience/expertise, and/or that of others who know more.

Just as a Hillary supporter can (and has) point out that Bernie literally likes to point fingers. You may or may not like that he does (personally I like it a lot, but could see how others may consider it rude, unpolished, etc), but I'd be surprised to see many Bernie supporters deny that he does it. Nor are they likely to get so defensive about it, or claim it as an attack.

To agree or disagree is never a problem. The problem starts when a statement or question is not considered honestly, or when addressed in a defensive manner.

[Trajan]

3. It must be the Hillary Forum

I was aced out of there shortly after I arrived ... I've only had to criticize the anointed one ... Then, it's CURTAINS!

[rhett o rick]

5. Sorry it was the wrong link. nm

[Zorra]

11. I get the same message, but have never posted in the Hillary forum. nt

[rhett o rick]

8. Sorry, I posted the wrong link. Fixed on edit, I hope. nm

[roguevalley]

42. unutterably despicable. I also liked the OP poster once

this is cultism

[NikolaC]

4. I cannot access it either

and I rarely post and haven't even posted anything there.

[rhett o rick]

7. I posted the wrong link. Fixed it, I hope, on edit. nm

[NikolaC]

14. Thanks

I saw that post and thought that it was really sad. I agree with what you said though, it's click bait and best ignored.

[dorkzilla]

10. Same here

I've never posted in that group either...preemptive strike perhaps? Weeding out the bigmouths? Banning anyone with a Bernie related signature line?

[NikolaC]

17. No Loss I Guess

If that is the way that they choose to operate then that is their right. This group is much better for my blood pressure anyway .

[rhett o rick]

19. It wasn't the Hillary Group. nm

[dorkzilla]

22. Okay, my bad, thanks for fixing the link...

That thread does seem to be in retaliation post about Hillary's body language. The reaction (the thread you refer to) was juvenile certainly but you're correct as usual...let it stand as a memorial to silliness and don't react.

[senz]

27. So, are there private forums here on DU?

If it's a "host" or mirt forum, I can understand.

Anything else, and I might suggest that it's the beginning of the end for DU. I've seen it happen before. The trust level among commenters goes down the drain.

[rhett o rick]

31. It was the host forum. nm

[NikolaC]

29. Okay

Thanks for clarifying.

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. Someone just alerted on your thread

I voted to let it stand, I don't know the results yet.

Our great forum leaders can decide this not someone alert stalking you.

[dorkzilla]

12. Did they give a "reason" for the alert?

So so stupid.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. ALERTER'S COMMENTS

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Complaining about a link to a host's forum? Are there two boards here on DU, one for insiders, one for outsiders? This thread is ultra META, and why are duers using private forums to discuss political issues?




results... I was number 5


Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: good point "using private forums to discuss political issues"
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There's nothing in this post that violates community standards. If you think this thread should be locked as off-topic, please take it up with the hosts.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Good-faith arguments; not abusive in the least.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: this is not alert worthy but should be addressed to the moderators of the forum
The alerter is stalking the forum
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: recommending taking the high road is okay with me
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Opted to leave because I didn't know there were private forums on DU, outside of the MIRT forums. I'm sure others will also want to know, since transparency is always the best policy on a discussion board.

[roguevalley]

43. they let rapists who outed themselves stay once so this

doesn't surprise me. It is inexcusable and reflects not only on the posters but on the candidate. After all, if bernie is responsible for his supporters remarks here, so is she. AMIRITE!?

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. 6-1 let it stand

just got the results back.

[dorkzilla]

18. Good, thanks for the info! Nt

[rhett o rick]

20. Thanks. Wow they were quick to alert. I posted that link by accident meaning to post another

which I have corrected by edit.

[rhett o rick]

33. I have heard that there are non-Sanders supporters alert stalking this group.

My post was only up for less than 5 minutes before I corrected my error. My link to a post in the hosts forum is not verbotin per Skinner, but I don't believe in doing such. And, as can be seen by the thread, no one could access the link to know it was in the host forum except a host.

Again it was an accident, not that it hurt anything.

[Demeter]

15. I left Junior High a Long Time Ago, and I'm not going back!

This whole thing is beyond silly. People should go out and rake leaves, or shop for Xmas, or anything else...

[tularetom]

21. I think the Bernie Sanders supporters have been remarkably restrained

Hillary Clinton would be a target rich environment for nasty slurs, but I've seen very little evidence of that here on DU.

But I took a look at that other thread and I have to say I'm amazed that any Clinton supporter would be stupid enough to try and make an issue of Sanders wagging his finger at anybody, especially considering this god awful performance:

And finally, google "Sanpaku eyes" and draw your own conclusions.

[senz]

25. I think they have shown us over and over again what they are.

The smashing bug gif that the lowest of them are using, and then a thread mocking and belittling Bernie?

I think they're trying to make themselves so repulsive that we won't want to vote for their candidate should that candidate make it to the GE (heaven forbid) and they're hoping we will get angry enough to say so. That way they could get some of us banned.

They do what they do because they are what they are. People who do those things are your natural inferiors. Know that.

[Catherina]

30. Lol! That's the first thing that came to mind, along with this video

which came across my feed last night along with a shitload of tweets and videos from Black people mocking Hillary and reminding everyone of her dishonest, racist campaign in 2008

Bougie Black Girl @BougieBlackGurl

I'll never forget this from Hillary "Shame on You, Barack Obama"

6:30 AM - 7 Nov 2015

https://twitter.com/BougieBlackGurl/status/663000613886828544

[MissDeeds]

32. Don't they realize

there are many unflattering photos of Hillary we could post if we wanted to sink to their level? This is so childish. My god, the HRC supporters need to get a grip, and find some class in the process.

[rhett o rick]

48. They do realize that, but if we do, we will lower ourselves into the mud with them.

They are afraid to speak their minds about issues so they only have mud slinging. Put them on ignore.

[MissDeeds]

53. Yep

I have a ton on ignore. The other day I was reading a thread with more than fifty posts and I could only see twelve of them.

I've never had more than one or two on ignore until the past two months, now it's nearly forty.

[Blue_In_AK]

34. When they go on like that,

I like to just let them talk among themselves. No point in adding fuel to their fire. After a while they'll get tired of talking to themselves if no one takes the bait.

I'm firmly convinced that the sole motivation for some of them is to see how riled up they can make Bernie's supporters. Some people thrive on conflict, but I've had quite enough drama in my life.

[rhett o rick]

35. I agree. They refuse to discuss issues so they only have attacks and baiting. We need

to just ignore them.

[LiberalArkie]

36. They have to live in the bubble with not dissenting viewpoints. They hoped that they could

claim the liberal and progressive claim. But two MEN jumped into the race and they no longer could make that claim. And they are totally pissed that some upstarts stole that from them.

[Fuddnik]

37. I went there and found a few obnoxious morons I've been delaying putting on ignore.

That situation has been partly rectified.


A month ago, I had one person on ignore. Now it's about a dozen.

[sarge43]

38. Is that all they got? Meh. n/t

[paul ofnoclique]

39. Thank God I've yet to see ANY Hillary-bashing here!

[Bernin4U]

45. And why shouldn't there be when we see her as deeply flawed?

Ergo, we don't support her, and point out why.

But if you see that as a problem, we'd love to hear your explanation.

[Ichingcarpenter]

46. 60% of Americans Think Hillary Clinton is Untrustworthy and Dishonest

60% of Americans Think Hillary Clinton is Untrustworthy and Dishonest

The real interesting part of the latest Quinnipiac University National Poll, is not the fact that 60% of Americans think Hillary Clinton is dishonest, but that 40% of Americans don’t.


Clinton has the lowest rating for honesty as American voters say 60 - 36 percent she is not honest and trustworthy. Trump is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 58 - 38 percent.


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2299

[rhett o rick]

49. The authoritarians don't care if she is untrustworthy. They like her for those qualities.

They follow the biggest bully just like in Jr. High. They are willing to give up their freedoms to a tough, ruthless leader.

[HassleCat]

40. If that's the best they can do

His eyes aren't really bugging, maybe a little.

[Kalidurga]

47. It's a different kind of bugging too.

That's fine he looks like he is very engaged in talking about and defending the issues that we want discussed and fixed.

[Live and Learn]

50. Well, I have a gif that would make all of their eyes bug out but

I am not going to post it due to your wonderful advice (and the fact that I am sure it would get hidden).

But, if anyone wants to see it just send me a pm.

[PatrickforO]

51. I didn't think that photo of Sanders was that unflattering. He's just an intense guy.

I mean, I don't like or support Bernie because of something so shallow as the way he looks.

I like him, and am supporting him because of his 12-step policy. Here's that thread, and it's good. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12808348

That pic of Bernie with his eyes bugged out really is pretty good, though...and you know what's really good? Bernie can laugh at himself. Not all politicians can do that. But there IS only one Bernie!

[Live and Learn]

52. Of course not, that would be viewed as sexist of us. nt

[JEB]

54. That post does nothing,

but advertise the weakness of Clinton supporters. What else can you do if your candidate is pro-war, pro-bank and funded by corporate powers? They should at least promote the handful of social issues where Clinton has a defensible position.

[TBF]

55. Up to 35 on ignore now

Pretty soon all I will see is Bernie posts in GD : P

And that is just fine with me!!!