2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIs it so hard to believe that decent people can support a different candidate than you?
I'm sick of the attacks on the character of supporters of the candidates, assuming that they must support the candidate that they do because of some deep personal, even moral, failings. This is ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING and anyone who engages in this sort of immature nonsense should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
Decent people can look at the same facts and the same context and come to different conclusions. Deal with it. Be adults.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Zynx
(21,328 posts)Passion governs, and she never governs wisely.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)I'm just as guilty. I allow myself to get worked up and lose my mind on here on a regular basis. I'm not proud. And neither should be nearly every breathing soul on this website.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Find me a decent person who was for single payer and/or universal health care a year ago, but is against it now.
Find me a decent person who is now complaining about having to pay a small tax for maternity leave. I just dare you to do that.
RW talking points and goals are not decent. I don't care what party the person spewing them says they are in.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)These things aren't particularly related and you more or less proved my point. I know perfectly decent people who disagree with my liberal positions. Trump supporters, that's a different story. I'm sure that there are some I would generally consider decent who support him for odd reasons, though.
Yes, by the way, there are decent people who support Republicans. I know many of them, even in Madison. Deal with it.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)But, none of them support any of the current batch of Republicans.
And I am not quite sure you had a point. Some candidates do have such odious positions or such an odious philosophy that it is not likely they will be supported by decent people.
I noticed you haven't shown an example of a decent person who is unwilling to fight for health care access for all.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)They're decent, polite, and moral people on the whole. I know plenty of people who don't support single payer who aren't monsters, but are concerned about the practicalities of shifting a system that is currently so radically different.
If they're totally insensitive on the issue, then I'd call them indecent, but I don't know many who approach the issue as "Eh, fuck 'em." Rather they have practical or philosophical concerns.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)If you don't think anyone should be without then you need to support making laws and doing things to support people who don't have enough income to support the basics. The question then should only be where do we get the budget for that and what can we cut to make sure we cover the basics. It should never be about not taking care of basic needs for people cuz government doesn't do that.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)about billion$ in free cash subsidies to multinationals or about toppling foreign governments because they won't give away free drilling rights to petroleum companies or free growing rights to agribusinesses.
It's a bullshit meme that aligns too perfectly with the interests of corporate conglomerates to be a coincidence. Yes, I am guilty of questioning someone's choice of candidate if they are voting against the interests of average Americans while spewing Wall Street talking points like a sock puppet.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)who like trump. ironically, they also like bernie. many are repubs and will not cross party to vote bernie.
the progressives i know are all for bernie. i know one hillary supporter. no one is supporting any of the estsblishment gop hacks.
people are really pissed off at the system.
uponit7771
(90,226 posts).... including non progressive if you don't support Sanders.
Its few to none reciprocating these kinds of attacks on Sanders supporters
Zynx
(21,328 posts)I agree the balance is heavily on the Sanders supporters, but that wasn't the point. I've been on the receiving end of the more ardent Sanders supporters. Believe me, I hear you.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)You have a really great sense of humor.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Sure. And given that they're all raving misogynist racist purple shirt wearing mac fanboy brogressives afflicted with white male pathology who barely have time to put gas in their broke-ass Rand Paul Sticker covered volvo klanmobiles before driving their elitist entitled selves to the library to check out atlas shrugged and getting on the public computers there to hate-swarm everything that is pure and decent on social media (and look at porn, probably) after which they commit a series of microaggressions and then head down to the local venezuelan embassy to declare their undying love for Stalin and Hugo Chavez, before finally dining on a feast of cornflake-covered brofurkey....
can you imagine how those *********s would react if they WERE called names?
by the way, your comment?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)even if it required a sarcasm tag to be palatable to the few to none crowd.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Can't be too careful, I've found!
Bernin4U
(812 posts)Brofurkey!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Brocery Store!
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Ya knocked that one of the park! Absolutely BRILLIANT!
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
potone
(1,701 posts)As a woman, I particularly resent being called a misogynist for supporting Bernie over Hillary. Her gender is not the issue for me: her ties to Wall Street and her hawkishness are what disturb me.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)between my toes.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)But you offered no quantifiable proof of what you allege. It's really easy to make a caricature, but if you think the childish behavior is one-sided, it's because you aren't actually paying that much attention.
Sanders supporters here have claimed that Clinton supporters are immoral for not supporting Sanders' version of single payer, I've seen a Sanders support claim that posting polls that showed Clinton in the lead was "literally suffocating" Sanders supporters. I've seen a prominent Sanders supporter call the Clintons utterly corrupt, which would indicate that those supporting Clinton must support corruption. I've seen Sanders supporters openly mock the idea of political realism as being stupid. I've seen Sanders supporters make the uninformed claim that Clinton is a Republican or the mainstream of the Democratic party is Republican in spite of overwhelming evidence that the parties are moving further apart.
But go ahead and believe that all of the vitriol is on one side. There's no law against being wrong. But it does make it clear that you and your cheering supporters have no objectivity about things.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I don't need to "quantify" the fact that there has been an endless stream of threads like "racist sanders supporters zomg" for the past 6 months, that people have pulled out of their desperation internet narrative rear ends. You can use the search function just as well as anyone.
This is far and away different than a discussion about single payer. Look, is it "immoral" not to support it? I suppose that depends. I think a solid moral case can be made for SUPPORTING it, to be sure. But regardless, it's pretty fucking surprising to see so-called "progressives" so vehemently railing against the idea. Challenging the Clintons themselves on ethics- whatever I might feel about any underlying allegation- is NOT the same thing as running a full-tilt ad hominem smear campaign against Sanders supporters.
"which would indicate" is quantifiably different from "actually saying out loud", dig?
Also, since we apparently need to have this discussion, "ethics" in my mind includes honesty. And I actually DEFENDED the crap out of Bill Clinton, during the 90s. I still, to this day, believe the impeachment was a farce and Ken Starr had no business poking around that man's underwear drawer. But he did not need to get up in front of the country and wag his finger at the tv screen about "I did not...." See, silly me, I believed him at the time, because he said it. And boy did I feel like a fucking fool when it turned out he actually did what he claimed he "Did Not".
Ethics, in that situation, would have been to say "yeah, I did it, none of your business, between me, my family, and the other consenting adult involved, now fuck off". So please, let's not get too hamstrung with outrage that anyone might ever raise any sort of question around ethics and "The Clintons", although obviously he is not his wife and they are not a unit. But-- you brought it up.
I've seen Sanders supporters openly mock the idea of political realism as being stupid.
And again, this is equivalent to calling people here closeted white supremacists exactly how?
I've seen Sanders supporters make the uninformed claim that Clinton is a Republican or the mainstream of the Democratic party is Republican in spite of overwhelming evidence that the parties are moving further apart.
I'm sure you've seen people say silly things, I'VE seen people say silly things. I'm a lifelong Democrat because I do NOT believe that the parties are the same. But here's a quick question; the chair of the DNC allied herself with Sheldon Adelson (a Republican) to make sure the government could put sick people in prison for using medical marijuana. Do you think that's defensible? Do you think that's what the Democratic Party- OUR Democratic Party- is or should be about? Is it a legitimate grounds to criticize her and elements of our self-appointed "mainstream"?
I can't seem to get anyone to answer that, probably because teaming up with republicans to put sick people in prison for using medical marijuana is pretty fucking indefensible. But to me it indicates something of a problem, or a disconnect, with some of our leadership.
I don't "believe the vitriol is all on one side", but, then, I never said that in that post. Actually, ironically, that post was refuting someone else who said "the vitriol is all on one side"- namely, the Sanders side. So maybe you should talk to them, and not me.
The reason people liked it is because it is pretty friggin' spot on given the bullshit that has come out of the HRC camp for the past 6 months- and really, it is indicative of the fact that they haven't wanted to argue on the basis of actual issues, instead throwing out lame gibberish about "berniebros".
w4rma
(31,700 posts)And I don't like her using the term "progressive" since she diminishes it's meaning.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)But, you must like neoliberalism if you are supporting the Clintons in this campaign, right? Or you're afraid of right-wing propaganda against the surging progressive candidate. Which is it?
uponit7771
(90,226 posts)...he can't throw stones.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)uponit7771
(90,226 posts)... bookmarked... starting to see a pattern.
There's google... you know that right!?
w4rma
(31,700 posts)uponit7771
(90,226 posts)... closer attention to what you read or follow the thread of conversation better.
This is simple, he's chiding others when he's not 50% better on a ton of issues...
Folk aren't going to vote for slightly better, that's what people are seeing out of Sanders ... his camp thinks he's 180 degrees from Hillary...
He aint, facts matter
w4rma
(31,700 posts)issues that you disagree with Sanders on, instead of making false insinuations?
uponit7771
(90,226 posts)... but chides others for being pragmatic on any tenant of the left 4. voted for CFMA which took the cops off the wall street hedging 5. Slogans in response to how's he going to get his agenda past congress 6. not even slogans when it comes to his recent record on mobilizing the left to get any agenda past congress in the last 10 years.... 7. hugs too many baby bunny rabbits.
That's just to name a few
w4rma
(31,700 posts)support. Did she recently say something that makes you think that she supports reparations? Or are you maybe a supporter of some oddball third party that supports reparations?
To my knowledge, the issues that Sanders supports just about *all* have majority, popular support, outside of any labels. Reparations is controversial even within the black community. They, generally, consider it a distraction from far more pressing issues like criminal justice reform.
And speaking of criminal justice reform, I'm unaware of *any* decent policy proposals by Clinton on the subject, beyond Bill saying that he made some mistakes - as president - on the subject, but Sanders has praise from BLM activists on his policy proposals.
Bernie Sanders New Racial Justice Platform Wins Praise From Black Lives Matter Activists
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/08/10/3689728/after-repeated-protests-bernie-sanders-releases-racial-justice-platform/
uponit7771
(90,226 posts)...you know... gotta have revolution but not for "those" things right!?
Clinton isn't grabbing the revolution flag Sanders is, so that's his cross to bear not anyone elses... I'm calling BS ..... on revolutions with asterisks by them.
Majority of blacks support reparations so I have no idea where you think its controversial?! Of course a few doesn't represent the many, that's sophistry of a weak position...
And ...
It's SOME BLM activist not BLM activist, I'm not a LIV... I prolly post here too much... but relatively few BLM activist are supporting candidates right now.
Either way, he's pragmatic on tenants of the left.... just like the rest of them... I'm not putting out for slightly better
w4rma
(31,700 posts)You already admit you won't vote on candidates based on criminal justice reform.
uponit7771
(90,226 posts)... that would be ...
Revolutionary
no?
tia
w4rma
(31,700 posts)I think you're lying, but whatever. I don't think you actually care a whit about any of the topics you listed beyond their use as a hammer to hammer your progressive opposition with.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Does his campaign have a quota on "black" issue and have to pick just one? Or are we allowed to care about more than one "black" issue?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)There are far more Bernie supporters here and on social media than Hillary supporters. So, obviously you will see more kickback. It's the real numbers, not the percentages you are seeing. And they are no more vicious coming from the Bernie side. It's very easy to overlook those posts that don't attack your own guy, and only focus on those that do.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)"It's very easy to overlook those posts that don't attack your own guy, and only focus on those that do"
frylock
(34,825 posts)It's a real easy test. Merely calling yourself a progressive doesn't make you one.
uponit7771
(90,226 posts)Response to uponit7771 (Reply #4)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Iggy Knorr
(247 posts)pay attention, don't vote like you are already in the 1% and just hoping to get a crack at holding the whip.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Interpretations differ.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)If you believe, sincerely and completely, it becomes very difficult to understand how any other thinking person can believe differently. It doesn't matter if it's a political candidate, or a version of God. It's the honest belief in one's own thinking that makes it so hard to understand that anyone else can possibly believe differently.
At least with political campaigns, in the end most people wind up supporting their party's candidate. But in the area of religion, because there's not an end to the campaign, things tend to get worse and worse.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)the candidate must be supported no matter what the cost to America because they're the candidate, that's a damn big moral failing
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)the stronger the identity the stronger the behavior,
And given an audience of one's in-group peers, the greater the rewards for the behavior.
I see that in-group reward as a likely reason why so many secondary websites have been started that promote anti-out group conversations.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I also post on with folks from here was formed because of people getting banned for making statements about their primary vote that are purely hypothetical until the nominee is selected, and other folks figuring there's a good chance they'll get banned along the road as well. Not to be an 'in-group' or an 'out-group', but simply to avoid being silenced entirely by selective interpretation of the rules.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)'those ' who are seen as threatening or disagreeable 'others'. To me even as your reply is caste as an explanation/justification it still draws upon the tradition of us vs them.
I'm not really surprised by that for several reasons.. first, humans are evolved to be gregarious and not surprisingly exist largely within coalitions. One might think that's only a latent feature of humanity from our deep past, but it's an active and integral part of contemporary life which is very pronounced in social media and internet forums. In those environments lack of reinforcing physical proximity must be replaced with reinforcing language and even alternative virtual spaces to separate the us and the them.
Second, my life experiences, and the biases I have developed via those experiences within and outside of coalitions, shape my need, sensitivity and awareness of the coalitions I encounter. Like everyone, I see what I look for...my in-groups are good and justified, just like yours are. My out-groups are not so good and they have values that are deviant and they do bad things.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)administration. No one else has the power to ban users.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)renate
(13,776 posts)I get really sad when I see over-the-top criticisms of either one here on DU, because one of them is going to be the Democratic candidate and they are both, IMO, good people and I would be proud to vote for either one.
I do think there is something pretty wrong with people who support Trump, Cruz, or Christie. Of course good people can be Republican, but I genuinely think there is something sub-average about the discernment of people who fall for that kind of belligerent, bullying, mean-spirited-for-the-sake-of-being-mean-spirited bullpoo.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)SheenaR
(2,052 posts)of the colonists to throw Tea in the harbor
We are fighting for our nation's future. I don't care if it's impolite. Revolutions are not polite and mature. Sorry.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)aidbo
(2,328 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,350 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Squinch
(50,776 posts)say, "No. It is not possible that those supporting the other candidate can be decent people. They are morally repugnant and we are morally superior."
Now note which candidate those particular posters support.
I think that will answer the question posed by the OP. Apparently, for a certain type of person, it is impossible to believe that decent people can support the other candidate.
Another mechanism that is at work here that seems to have gone over many heads: DU is about 90 - 95% Sanders supporters at this point. Yet there are frequent OP's by Bernie supporters bemoaning all the "hatred" on DU.
But the fact is that right now, Bernie supporters ARE DU.
Plenty of them are great people. But others are simply unwilling to acknowledge that their opponents could be anything but horrible. They say so in this very thread. If you hate the hatred on DU, you have to look to those people.
And for those who feel that Hillary supporters are the primary culprits of the vitriol, you are obviously mistaken. Check your math. There are simply not enough remaining Hillary supporters willing to post here to be able to match the pervasive Hillary hate. They've all been driven away by the nastiness.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)This is the straight up truth, but I certainly don't expect the people who need to hear it will hear it at all -
But it needs to be said - Thanks!
elana i am
(814 posts)it would only be a matter of a few degrees, nowhere near as much fundamental difference.
but this is closer to a paradigm shift, where the difference is a 180 change in direction, a potential solution, a reversal of fortunes if you will, away from what's wrong and toward what is right. it couldn't possibly be any more moral and ethical.