I have never seen any Hillary supporter make a case against Bernie on any thread.

[King_Klonopin]

What specific positions do they refute or disavow ?
What has he said that they disagree with ?
What specific positions go against their ideology, which, I assume, to be "progressive" ?
What is it that they don't like about him as a person ?

Instead, this is what I see or read into the arguments, pro and con:

Support Hillary because she is Hillary
She's earned it. She has a long resume. It's her turn. She is winning.
We should vote for the front-runner because she is the front-runner.

Support Hillary because Bernie has no chance of winning the general election.
Simple cynicism to say the least, and NOT ACTUALLY SUPPORTED by the data of polls.

Don't support Bernie because his proposals are purely an unattainable fantasy.
A cynical, shameful, defeatist capitulation to the status quo. His positions, which are
the truer reflection of the principles of progressive dems, are dismissed as ideological --
A Left-Wing Tea Party candidacy, according to Bill Clinton -- shameful sell-outs !!!!

Don't support Bernie because he is not trusted by minorities or women.
A dishonest accusation, to say the least. A total fiction, created by the surrogates
of HRC camp. In regards to protecting women rights, minorities rights, the middle-class,
and the under-class, Bernie's resume is more impressive to me and I trust him more.


I am beginning to loathe "moderate, centrist democrats." The United States needs MORE
people like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren.

[jfern]

1. There was something about guns, but that was before

she started using NRA lobbyists for fundraisers. If anyone makes that attack now, they need to be reminded that we've always been at war with East Asia.

[JonLeibowitz]

2. Usually it's something like:

* guns (inevitable amtrak diversion!!!)
* F-35
* Crime Bill which he couldn't well vote against as part of an omnibus bill with the VAWA included as well
* Commodities Futures Modernization Act (voted against multiple times, then voted in favor after it was snuck into a budget)

[Live and Learn]

3. I think you covered it. nt

[JaneyVee]

5. Why bother?

[Warren DeMontague]

9. You could ask that about pretty much any activity.

[JaneyVee]

10. That is on the bottom of the to do list of life.

Priorities.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Yeah, and GDP is otherwise such a hive of productive behavior

or whatnot.

[JaneyVee]

14. Here I'll give it a quick whirl...

I think Bernie's campaign and ideas are very one-size-fits-all and rigid. Just broad emotionless govt policies. OTOH, I like how Hillary acknowledges identity politics, intersectionality, and nuance. And understands the obstacles of race and gender in society as individual and unique to each person. She seems to possess vast knowledge on a wide range of issues both globally and domestically, and she has built a broad and diverse coalition over decades. I also like that she is very involved in philanthropy and fighting global poverty and AIDS. I feel she is supremely qualified to be president of America. (Also I think she'd be incredible at kicking this economy into overdrive)

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Thanks. I mean that seriously.

I'll bite. I do like your answer, though.

I think Bernie's campaign and ideas are very one-size-fits-all and rigid. Just broad emotionless govt policies.

Believe it or not, I don't agree with all of Sanders's policy proposals, either. But I like that he has them, he's not afraid to make them, and he lays them out. And I have watched over the past several decades as the country drifts ever more towards the right in terms of economic policy. Hey, in some regards on a personal level, I benefit from that. But I see the fallout it leaves in our schools, our infrastructure, our safety net, and the lives of the less fortunate AND those making minimum wage or barely above. And "emotionless gov't policies" are, at the end of the day, a prime function of government, of which a primary function of the legislative and executive branch is the passing of laws, budgetary priorities, etc.

OTOH, I like how Hillary acknowledges identity politics, intersectionality, and nuance. And understands the obstacles of race and gender in society as individual and unique to each person.

I hear that, really i do. However on the other hand to my ears her saying those things can sound at times like a deflection. Yes, electing the first woman president will be a long overdue barrier breaking, however merely acknowledging racism, sexism and other isms is not going to make them go away. Without "broad emotionless govt policies", "I want to break barriers" is just.... a slogan.

She seems to possess vast knowledge on a wide range of issues both globally and domestically, and she has built a broad and diverse coalition over decades.

First part of the sentence I agree with 100%. Second part i think her coalition has weaknesses, particularly among young people and I suspect she will perform worse as she moves west where issues like real cannabis law reform- crucial or on the ballot in several key states- become more important.

I also like that she is very involved in philanthropy and fighting global poverty and AIDS. I feel she is supremely qualified to be president of America. (Also I think she'd be incredible at kicking this economy into overdrive)

Let me preface by saying, I enjoyed the 90s. I had a lot of fun in the 90s. Drank a lot of beer, broke a lot of hearts, you know, good times. Woke up with a splitting hangover right about when the towers came down. But there was no one who was a bigger defender of Bill Clinton at the time, I voted for him twice, was even in Chicago for the convention in '96. And its undeniable he left the country in better shape, in many ways, than he found it. But some of those decisions, as we all know, have not aged well. I don't want a nostalgia tour of Titanic, The Macarena, an expanded drug war, Clipper Chips and Communications Decency Acts. I would like our next President to understand the unique issues that we face in the 21st century where literally the entire game has changed for many reasons, not the least of which due to technology. For the record, I've never been convinced that Sanders would inherently grok all those questions either, and frankly I'd like our party to focus going forward on finding some younger leadership.

Someone the other day asked to list 3 things we like about both primary candidates, and I had no problem listing 3 for HRC, among them that she's super smart and extremely detail-knowledgeable, like on things like foreign affairs, and she is familiar with the way DC operates so she will not have a huge learning curve coming into the oval office.

I know there are other Sanders supporters who may have a problem backing her in the GE but I've never been one of them. I have issues with her- (I used to admire her a lot more, but the shine wore off somewhat during her time in the senate between the IWR vote and sponsoring flag burning legislation) but I do not question for a second that she'll be able to do the job.

I want our party to stand for more than just "we're not those crazy fucking Republicans", that's a big part of what has motivated me this cycle. And I firmly believe our party's national leadership needs to start recognizing that we're in a new century.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

37. Thank you for your thoughts, Janey.

[mdbl]

46. These were also my views on Hillary

in the early 1990's.

[King_Klonopin]

48. Sounds like a generic job referrence.

His policies are rigid" and "emotionless." Any specific one that you don't like? The socialist ones?

She has "vast knowledge" and "understands" stuff (like "race and gender", wink wink, see above list of talking points) OK, tough to measure and compare on that.

She will "kick the economy" (for whom?)

Still vagueries to me.

[asuhornets]

97. I agree with you on all counts..n/t

Madame President Hillary Rodham Clinton music to my ears

[treestar]

96. I agree and a "case against Bernie" has a good chance of getting a hide

regardless of it being perfectly civil - just being negative on Bernie is enough.

[YCHDT]

6. Someone already has and it had 62 recs and it was mostly ignored by Sanders supporters

Last edited Thu Mar 3, 2016, 05:13 AM - Edit history (2)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511230116

[Onlooker]

40. Thanks for that link

That's actually a very good case. Both Sanders and Clinton are equally good, in my opinion, but for different reasons. Hillary has been at the center of the fight for along time, while Sanders basically sat it out for the last 50 years and is not associated with any struggle. You won't find his name mentioned in any serious article about civil rights, the woman's movement, gay rights, labor rights, etc. That doesn't mean he hasn't always had good views, he just has not done much to challenge the establishment with those views until now.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. On 'gay rights' Hillary is on the record opposing, opposing, citing God's distaste for us.....

She railed against my right to marry for 20 years, of course she presents her own marriage and family as a living resume and proof of her excellence but she felt it was prudent to deny family rights to millions of Americans because of a 'belief' not reason, not facts just her gut feeling, her objections to us.

She was one of the longest, strongest Democratic opponents of marriage equality, so co-opting LGBT issues for her pisses me off and I am not the only one.

[Myrina]

76. He was a little bit busy being a mayor, a congressman and a senator to still be marching.

Jesus, give it a rest already, Onlooker.

[pangaia]

83. Bravo !!!!

[Onlooker]

85. I see it a lot differently

As a gay man, and the fourth married couple in the US, I remember Bill Clinton as being the first president to reach out to gays, invite gays to the White House, appoint gays, and argue on behalf of gays. He tried to get gays into the military, but then when Sam Nunn (the head of the Senate Defense Committee) threatened to legislate the exclusion of gays, Clinton was forced into Don't Ask/Don't Tell. In that era, Republicans were pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to discriminate against gays, and all over the country Republicans were amending their state constitutions to discriminate. It was against that backdrop that the Clintons adopted a more conservative position in order to woo independents to a more moderate position. It slowed the anti-gay push enough that the pro-gay forces were able to catch up and eventually prevail. What the Clintons did was strategic and gay groups understand that. That's why groups like HRC support Clinton. Bill Cinton actually created a safer environment for the pursuit of gay rights in the midst of the rise of the Christian Right, the Contract on America, and the Tea Party. The idea of Hillary co-opting pro gay positions is simplistic. They were in the middle of the struggle, unlike Bernie, who really never did anything for gay rights. The Clintons took risks and played politics to slow down the ascent of the right wing.

[jsmirman]

142. That poster is on suspension

seems fitting to the topic

[Warren DeMontague]

7. "sure, I'll talk about issu.... hey! look over there! berniebros!"

[pugetres]

8. I'm beginning to loathe

those who think that asking for accountability and answers from Clinton is the equivalent of "right wing smear tactics".

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

47. Hey, if that's all you got, roll with it I guess...

I'm sure Hillary will condemn these tactics any day now and start providing answers.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[SheilaT]

12. I've been noticing this for a while now.

It's almost weird, how the Hillary bots simply state that she's wonderful, and they NEVER refute specific allegations against her.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. "Weird" is not the word.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Lorien]

117. They keep saying that she's "vetted" because she isn't held accountable

for various actions. But neither are Bush, Cheney, and most of her buddies on Wall Street who caused the recession. Power protects it's loyal minions, and laws only apply to those who aren't well connected.

[Marr]

143. Right? "Vetted" like OJ Simpson, lol.

[Surya Gayatri]

13. "I am beginning to loathe "moderate, centrist democrats."

Perhaps you might want to reconsider your party affiliation?

The American two-party system necessarily engenders a "Big Tent" organic reality. If the broad coalitions of the Democratic Party are odious to you, there's always the "Democratic Socialists of America", who would surely be glad for your support. (membership: 2014--10,000)

American Politics 101:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America



Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a democratic-socialist and social-democratic organization and political party in the United States, which is a member of the Socialist International.

According to executive director Maria Svart, the DSA has its roots in the Socialist Party of America (SPA), whose most prominent leaders included Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas and Michael Harrington, and the New American Movement (NAM). In 1973 Harrington, the leader of the minority faction that had opposed the SPA's transformation into the Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) during the party's 1972 national convention, formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). The DSOC, in Harrington's words "the remnant of a remnant", soon became the largest democratic-socialist group in the United States, and in 1982 was merged with the NAM, a coalition of intellectuals with roots in the New Left movements of the 1960s and former members of Socialist and Communist parties of the Old Left, to form the DSA.

ETA: The DSA is Bernie's natural, philosophical political home. But, interestingly, he chose to use the Democratic Party and its broad coalitions, to make his run for the White House.

[King_Klonopin]

15. Do you know the meaning of the word "irony" ?

[Surya Gayatri]

17. What do you find particularly ironic? Personally, I find

it ironic to "loathe" a broad swath of the very party that Bernie has chosen to join, in order to reach his political ends.

[King_Klonopin]

23. You claim we live in a Big Tent, and then -- in the same breath -- tell me to screw.

I loathe the moderates who sell-out their ideals because they have been cowed by
the opposition party. I am not ashamed of being liberal. I don't need to hide it or
water it down. There is something to be commended about a person who has the
courage of his own convictions.

Those "moderate" dems I speak of are busy on other threads reminding us that
Bernie Sanders is a Socialist. He became a "Socialist" because he thought that
the democratic party was selling-out its collective soul.

I vehemently disagree with this political strategy, but I have never inferred
that moderates should just screw and leave the party.

[Surya Gayatri]

28. Pardon? Where did I tell you to "screw"? You expressed a loathing for a great swath

of the Democratic Party, and I suggested another alternative.

I don't "grok" hate and loathing, on either side of the political spectrum.

[Bluenorthwest]

75. You said this to a fellow Democrat: "Perhaps you might want to reconsider your party affiliation."

I offer that you totally misunderstand Party politics, if you tell other members to leave the Party you are not helping the Party, you are hurting the Party. Making and retaining Democratic voters should be job one in election cycle times unless of course you want Republican victory.

[Surya Gayatri]

86. If his expressed "loathing" for the centrist/moderate coalition

that comprises a broad tranche of today's Democratic Party becomes untenable, he might want to consider a change.

Hate and loathing have proven to be deleterious to human health. If only for his own mental and physical well-being, he might do well to find a less diverse and more narrowly-focused third party.

[Autumn Colors]

88. This person seems to be a DSA member INVITING the OP to his/her party

Not a Dem. telling OP to "get the f*** out"

At least that's how I'm reading it.

[Autumn Colors]

87. I'm reading the opposite from this poster

It sounds like you read the person's post as a Democrat telling you, "If you don't like the way things are, then get the f*** out!"

I read this person's post as an invitation to join their party, which is, in fact, an organization that Bernie is a member of. This person is suggesting, that you as a liberal would be welcomed with open arms by fellow liberals of the Sanders type in DSA.

If Clinton ends up being forced upon us by superdelegates NOT honoring the will of the people, then I see a whole lot of Bernie supporters moving away from the party that disregards their voice and joining DSA or going "unaffiliated" and possibly checking out what DSA has to offer.

I know that traditionally, superdelegates support the candidate who has the most pledged delegates, but this country, this party, has changed. If they break from tradition this year and force the party elite's "chosen one" on us despite the people choosing otherwise, it will be a clear sign that the Democratic party had no intention from day one of honoring the will of the people. At that point, will you still feel the Democratic party is a "big tent"? If that happens, I predict a huge (YUUUGE) exodus from the Democratic party, especially by young people who just registered this election cycle.

They will follow Bernie, and as the previous poster said, DSA is Bernie's "natural home" and it was his party of choice before becoming a Democrat to run for the Democratic nomination.

[Surya Gayatri]

90. Thank you for the "fair and balanced" reading of my observations.

Indeed, "DSA is Bernie's "natural home" and it was his party of choice before becoming a Democrat to run for the Democratic nomination."

[King_Klonopin]

133. I call BS. You're being coy, and you basically told me to get out of here if I didn't agree

with the conventionally wisdom re: Hillary vs Bernie.

Also being coy about his party affiliation. Hillary was a Republican back in the day, which is now irrelevant to
most -- including me.
Bernie left the Dems because they were NOT holding fast to their principles. People like Joe Lieberman were not
helping our party or the cause of protecting the under-class.

If you think DU is a "Big Tent" community, try mentioning that you believe in God, or --even worse --
that you are (gasp) a Catholic. Then, stand back and catch the venom.

[marions ghost]

92. the Big Tent seems only to cover some...

a large group is left out in the cold.

[countmyvote4real]

16. Thanks for the info.

Sounds better than the DWS DNC propelling HRC.

[Surya Gayatri]

19. The DSA needs very member they can get. Membership: 2014--10,000.

Here's their contact info:

Leader Maria Svart (Executive Director)

Founded 1982

Merger of Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee New American Movement

Headquarters 75 Maiden Lane, Ste 702
New York, NY 10038

Student wing Young Democratic Socialists

_______________________

They'd love to hear from you, I'm sure.

[eShirl]

30. Hey, at least you didn't suggest they move to a more socialist country, right?

[Surya Gayatri]

36. Well, that's also an option, but the logistics are MUCH more complicated...

ETA: I happen to reside permanently in a country with a Socialist government, and which I voted for.

[PatrickforO]

29. So, if you're too far left, then don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out,

is that it??? Really???

Because I have a problem with that, and the problem is this: I have never left the Democrats, but when the party when Third Way, which actually amounted to going right on economic issues while remaining somewhat socially liberal in a milquetoast kind of sense, THE PARTY LEFT ME.

I, and millions of others are trying to force the party back to its New Deal roots, because economic justice and a strong middle class are important to the future of the nation, which is decidedly going in the wrong direction really fast. 'Free trade,' mass incarceration and forever wars should NOT be what this party stands for.

[Surya Gayatri]

34. Moderate, centrist Democrats comprise a fairly large tranche of the modern Democratic Party.

If you "loathe" that verity, there are other choices available to you, i.e. the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

[flor-de-jasmim]

35. Agreed, 100%

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

52. Could not have said it better!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[sammythecat]

136. My thoughts as well n/t

[Lorien]

118. Hillary isn't a moderate or a centrist; she's solidly Right Wing

The party has been hijacked by the DLC, and it's time we took it back.

[JohnnyRingo]

18. Hillary supporters don't hate Bernie's guts.

I can't say the same for Sanders' supporters, but I've not seen one Clinton supporter say they'll leave the party or abstain from voting if she loses. Not one.

Instead, and it seems to drive Bernie people nuts, they just see her as the front runner with the best chance of winning in November and continuing Obama's course. Like most Clinton supporters I too will be glad to stand with Sanders if he pulls it off, it just doesn't seem likely. Not to me, the media pundits, or even the Republicans.

It's probably Bernie's enduring underdog status that is the reason his supporters come at all three Clintons with bared fangs. Your last paragraph of ideological intolerance illustrates the point.

[Surya Gayatri]

20. Johnny, you said a load of truth there!

"It's probably Bernie's enduring underdog status that is the reason his supporters come at all three Clintons with bared fangs. Your last paragraph of ideological intolerance illustrates the point."

[BlueMTexpat]

49. Very well said! eom

[salinsky]

61. Agreed ....

[yardwork]

68. Well said.

[RobertEarl]

122. Hillary hate?

No. But we do hate the war she voted for/

And sending our jobs to China.

And her BFF Kissinger.

And a lot of things she stands for. Yeah, we hate all that and more. So sue us.

What Jhonny said was mere pablum.

[treestar]

99. and if they loathe moderate Democrats

surely they must loathe Republicans (?) and that means they loathe most of their fellow citizens. This is why Bernie would never win.

[thereismore]

106. If you are insinuating that I have a problem with continuing Obama's course

than you come across as presumptuous and ignorant. I say it right here that wish Obama could stay another term. I love him. Hillary's tenure as his SoS is a serious stain on his legacy. Now tell me again how she can be trusted with his legacy. The past is preludebto the future. She is dangerous.

[JohnnyRingo]

114. Hillary and Obama are cut from the same political DNA

We learned this by the end of his first term. NSA wiretaps, endless war, and a lopsided tax structure, there's nothing Hillary can do that could be worse than what we've had for eight years. Despite all that, Obama has made incredible strides for the country and the working class, including bailing the auto industry and saving my pension.

Bernie's people say they can't trust her, but what does that mean? Do they fear nuclear Armageddon, Vice President David Koch, or that she'll steal the tooth fairy money from beneath your pillow? I promise you, nothing like that will happen.

[thereismore]

116. I am very happy with what Obama did, especially regarding the auto indistry, and I wish

his second stimulus package had gone into effect.

Hillary convinced Obama to bomb Libya. Obama's first instinct was against it, and I like that. No, I do not believe that Obama and Hillary are cut out of the same DNA, especially when it comes to foreign wars. I grew up abroad, it means a lot to me. I do not want Hillary. Domestically and economically they are the same, including their love of banks and trade deals. I am with you there. But I can't go all the way. We have a better candidate running!

[JohnnyRingo]

119. I don't dislike Sanders.

One has to realize though that Clinton is a woman, and as such she has to come off a little stronger on defense than her male counterpart to foil right wing attacks that would portray her as a sobbing little girl in the face of crisis, and you can bet they'd do it. That doesn't mean she'd actually govern like Idi Amin. The Iron Lady facade is more campaign image than practical foreign policy.

As for Libya, I'm not privy to the intelligence that prompted her advice so I can't second guess the call. Suffice to say that Obama trusted the judgement of her State Dept and the Pentagon and acted accordingly.

[thereismore]

120. I enjoyed our little discussion, thank you. I respect your approach re: Libya intelligence.

But I would disagree with you on "One has to realize though that Clinton is a woman, and as such she has to come off a little stronger on defense"
because I think perception of strength can be conveyed by logic and strength of argument, not just by over-reacting and reaching for weapons. Look at Tulsi Gabbard. She is nothing but strength and yet her strength comes through via logical reasoning and communication. I think if Hillary's neocon leanings are stemming from a need to impress then I think she should not be given the power to do so.

[JohnnyRingo]

131. I see your point

I still think her swagger is primarily campaign driven. Whether that's a good strategy or not is properly debatable.

Good luck to you and Bernie with the primary.

[marew]

22. Hillary is the "No we can't " candidate!

Robert Browning wrote— 'Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?'

We must aspire to do our best, to be the best for all. Just think of all the people who think like Hillary- "We can't do that, that's too much to hope for." Let the oligarchy, of which Hillary is a part, continue. Hillary lives by a self-fulfilling prophecy of we could never achieve that! Yet people will not do the research and see for themselves her personal ideology, her lies, and her constant fluctuations of her positions. Hillary is a paper tiger!

Self-delusion reigns when voters chose to ignore facts.

There are many reasons why Hillary is considered "untrustworthy." I have previously listed so many of her inconsistencies. Past behavior is indicative of future behavior and Hillary has lied and lied and lied. She is a chameleon whose words and ideas change with the wind. Chelsea got a position that paid her $600,000 a year right out of college. You really believe that nothing was expected in return? She gave favors while she was Sec. of State to corporations who donated to that Clinton Fund. And, as we know, she took $625,000 for three secretive speeches to Goldman Sachs! And on and on...

Something really smells here! I could never in a billion years vote for Hillary under any circumstances!

[Surya Gayatri]

44. There ARE other choices, in case Sanders flames out (and you still want to cast a vote?)

There's this guy...JOHN "GREEN" FERGUSON

THIS ALSO is My OFFICIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN HOME SITE of JOHN "GREEN" FERGUSON & MY NEWLY FORMED NATIONAL ECO/GREEN PARTY & THE Revolutionary "THIRD Party" Movement, For Being Elected YOUR Next New 45th USA PRESIDENT in 2016 !!!

Read More About My CampaignS & Political Views !
Click Here -------> Misc. Stuff Pages <-------
To Go to that Page Area !...
FORE, I KNOW that I can do a Better Job than THE Existing...

PLEASE SUPPORT & FOLLOW ME @ Other sites ALSO, CLICK & GO BELOW!

http://www.glowsabc.com/

___________________________

This is a direct link to his campaign headquarters.

[treestar]

100. this is just not true

I am sick of that meme. We have Republicans to convince. Just dreaming does not make it happen.

[marew]

146. Dreaming? Really?

It is more like settling! As Robert Browning said, "'Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?"

MLK had a dream, a very good one! I wonder what you would have said to him?

I am sick of lowered aspirations. Good thing you weren't around in 1776- we'd still be under British rule!

[treestar]

147. None of that grand language

means we are going to convince enough people to be progressive before November 2016.

It took many years for the American Revolution to build up.

It would have been the Bernie supporters who demanded we be free from British rule in 1750 when hardly anyone wanted to do it.

It would have been Bernie supporters trashing MLK for not running for President in 1964.

Your dream is like that. It would be my dream too, but I know it's going to take a lot longer than the 2016 election and that Bernie can't carry it out by being President in 2016. It's roughly like being a civil rights leader in 1950 and realizing it might take decades of hard work before there was ever a black President. Like being a Bostonian in 1773 and realizing it's going to take a lot of blood and struggle before this country was independent of Britain. Heck the BSers of today would and complaining that the British would not let us be independent without a war.

[youceyec]

24. its mainly

because we are not interested in tearing down another democrat. At least not in the same vicious way you folks act towards Hillary.

You might not agree with or like those reasons you mentioned but they are valid.

Also, Berine supporters are can be nasty and vindictive when they say stuff like they wont vote for her. Come on.

[King_Klonopin]

26. You still didn't answer the question.

Which of his positions or proposals do you find disagreeable? If you claim to disagree with him
on an issue, that is not a "personal attack on a fellow democrat. "

However, trying to paint him as a sexist, racist, delusional Socialist IS personal -- and NOT valid, I would add.

[youceyec]

27. my

support is mainly based on electability in November. I might be wrong, but that is my right to be.

[King_Klonopin]

32. The courage of one's convictions? good lord.

That was a list of bogus rationale I posted for voting against Bernie, BTW.

Trump will win the GOP slot. Bernie has better numbers against him right now than Hillary does.

I want the best outcome for the country. Bernie would be the best representative of my beliefs.

I don't want Bernie to win because I want HIM to win. I would vote for Warren if she were in the race.
I don't have any interest in backing "the winner" or going with a front-runner.

[eShirl]

33. Don't forget, coming at the Clintons with his fangs

just up-thread.

[jsmirman]

144. I think he would make a terrible president

are you happy? Is this what you are looking for? Believe me, I can explain my position.

But I've been bullied from pillar to post since returning to this site and I have no desire to come into GDP, which is basically the BS group and make a bunch of people angry and try to convince a bunch of people who I have exactly 0.00% chance of convincing of anything. This is a forum on the site that insists that the upcoming states are very favorable to Bernie and that Hillary's hit all the states that are good for her.

That you can pose this question with a straight face if you have been reading this forum is just too much.

The candidate I favor is doing very well. There's no point in me making people in this forum more upset than they already are.

[Autumn Colors]

91. A person saying they won't vote for Hillary is nasty and vindictive?

I'm a lifelong straight-ticket Democratic voter since age 18 (1980 election), but I won't be voting for Hillary.

Sorry.

If Bernie gets the most pledge delegates and the superdelegates don't honor the will of the people (as they TRADITIONALLY DO), then I must assume the Democratic party planned to force Hillary on us no matter how we voted, meaning that my vote means nothing to the party I've belonged to ever since I was old enough to vote.

At that point, I'll be leaving the party and taking a leave of absence from DU so I won't violate the TOS regarding the general election.

Yes, yes, I know .... Trump, blah, blah, blah .... you were never a Democrat, blah, blah, blah ....

[treestar]

101. [phone]

That's it in a nutshell. In case Bernie does win the nomination. We are not motivated to actually harm him because there is potential there for his being our candidate.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

25. We are a far larger country with a very different make up

to that of Scandanavia. They aren't leaders of the free world with massive responsibilities to being an ally to Israel - which is by far more expensive than a combined security budget for all of Europe. And that is just the budget for one small area we are invested in and committed to.

The sky high price tag for free college, when we don't have the votes in Congress that insists on a balanced budget, or a public willing to pay upwards of half of your income in taxes to fund all that is promised, on top of what else is covered by the federal budget, I see as fanciful at best and disaster at worst.

As a 75 year old battling for something there is little support for in DC, he could be dead in the water by the midterms when he'd be 77.

Actually legislating on behalf of the types of new people Trump's racist/KKK oriented voters are, and probably getting at least 47% of the popular vote, is going to be a nightmare. That 47% still thinks Obama was trying to kill them with the ACA. And the effort could not only go nowhere, but set back a road to Medicare For All indefinitely. (I personally think we should offer really low tuition to students wanting to be teachers and doctor and nurses who go to med school. WE NEED MORE DOCTORS AND NURSES in order to have a decent healthcare system)

Btw, that 47% likes us divided between winners and losers. I just don't like seeing it in DU.

[BlueMTexpat]

50. +1! eom

[Surya Gayatri]

58. ^^^WORD^^^!

[riversedge]

31. You just posted a rude, condesending OP toward Hillary supporters and you expect

a discussion. No thank you.

[Amimnoch]

38. Well. You got me. I can't answer any of those. Ideologically he's perfect.

However I do fall squarely under one of your pre-selected arguments:

Don't support Bernie because his proposals are purely an unattainable fantasy.
A cynical, shameful, defeatist capitulation to the status quo. His positions, which are
the truer reflection of the principles of progressive dems, are dismissed as ideological --
A Left-Wing Tea Party candidacy, according to Bill Clinton -- shameful sell-outs !!!!

Fair enough. I've asked many times over the months, what is his path to making his agenda happen? I concede his agenda is GREAT.

He's got the "What" he'll do down perfect. He's got the "why" he'll do what he want's do. What I can't get an answer on is "How".

From here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1273136

With our particular political process, though, there's a lot that can be quantified and given a very reasonable assessment of probability.

For a bill to be a law it takes a majority of Representatives to agree on and vote on the bill. It requires a Senate majority in some cases, and fillibuster proof majority in most cases to get the same bill passed. It then requires the President's approval, or the numbers in congress to override the Veto.

Senator Sanders has a very ambitious list of plans. With only the exception of a couple of his issues that may at least be partially executed through executive order, the vast majority will require a law to be passed by congress.

Despite decades of working directly in Congress, he's been unable to even drum up support of any sitting senators, and only 2 Representatives to endorse his candidacy from his own party.

Add to that, the upcoming 115th congress is not shaping up to be any friendlier to the next POTUS than the existing 114th, whom not only will not support expanded health care, but are continuously trying to kill the ACA as it exists.

The only problem I have with the Sanders revolution is it is only focusing on him, and not where it needs to focus most of all.. Getting Senators and Representatives in office that will make it a reality.

With regards to the November elections, where's the list of Senators that are running that Sanders is throwing his endorsements on? The list of Representatives? Where is the revolution movement to get THOSE candidates elected that will be so absolutely key to making his plan happen?

I've asked a few times already, and have yet to get any kind of answer, but where is the potential roll call vote of the house/senate that will pass these laws? I've got a spreadsheet I keep for myself of all Congressmen who are not up for election in the 115th, and those that are not really being challenged, and those who are in Democratic primary battlegrounds, and General battlegrounds. I have tried my best to come up with a potential roll call that even "might" be able and willing to pass some of Sanders plans, and I just don't see the numbers there. They aren't even close to being a "maybe".

I've even gone so far as trying to see if there was any appetite to do what HAS to be done in order for Bernie's agenda to start being feasible and lend a helping hand in building that apetite:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511320121

For those that follow my occasional posting, my only real issue with Bernie for POTUS was my firm belief that this revolution is starting on the wrong end of things and really needs to focus on the House and Senate. I've been asking.. sometimes begging for some information showing that this revolution is spreading to the House and the Senate to get people who will back those very admirable progressive causes that Sanders wants to make happen. So far, that request has been met with crickets. However, from another site that I frequent, someone that I've sparred with on this issue has provided me something that I think many of you who support Bernie might find useful:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MZGzbSWESE8t18GGzrgc2FfL0b5tz-vmNf-F_-w5yN4/htmlview

Just so you know, you can select all and directly copy into a spreadsheet and filter out.

Personally, I'm starting to take a closer look at all the ones that are on the Federal level, and some of those I'll try to donate some to. Unfortunately the only one in my state isn't in my District, but some of these might be in some of your states, and may very well be worth volunteering for.

I'm still with Hilary, not because her plan is better, but with the REALITY that is the current Congress.. the extreme likelihood of what's going to be the next congress, and since I'm seeing no expansion to this revolution equally likely to expand into the subsequent 116th congress makes her the candidate to make the most progress of the 2. You guys say it all the time.. she's establishment. She knows how to work the system. The reality is, that is how this, the next and unless we start to do something now to change it the subsequent congress will be. He's got the better plan, but she's the more capable of implementing a plan.. and frankly even her plan has fluff that she will NOT be able to pass... because the congress is NOT going to go for it.

Your side likes to compare him to FDR. In his vision, I'll agree. FDR was the orchestrator of the New Deal, but he didn't just ride into office, and declare the New Deal the law of the land. He had a New Deal Congress to make it happen with.

The 73rd congress.. that congress that passed the 100 days of legislation that made the new deal..

The Senate:
59 Democrats (most hand picked by FDR)
1 Independent (backed by FDR)
36 Republicans (scared shitless of FDR)

The House of Representatives:
313 Democrats (many hand picked by FDR, most linked to FDR and his administration)
117 Republicans (scared shitless by FDR)
5 Independents (haven't found a link yet, but since they went along with the New deal I'm guessing had at least some link to FDR)

FDR, being a Roosevelt, was as close as it came to Aristocracy in the US. He was not a political outsider, and over his political career had built an extremely strong coalition within the party.

Now.. fast forward to today and the 114th congress:
The Senate:
44 Democrats.. that Sanders has worked with for decades.. and still won't even endorse him in a primary.
54 Republicans.. That have built a wall of opposition to anything we want.
2 independents.. one of which IS Bernie.

The House:
188 Democrats.. That Sanders has worked with for decades, and only 5 have stepped up to endorse him.
246 Republicans.. That not only are not onboard with Universal healthcare but seem hell bent on destroying the progress that was made with the ACA.

I will say, I think Bill Clinton was wrong about a "Left wing tea party candidacy" comment. The Tea Party was smart enough to know they had to go after congress. They aggressively Primaried Incumbent Republicans that didn't meet their muster. If I see that starting to happen.. Bern baby Bern, and I'll be feeling it too.

[King_Klonopin]

41. If Hillary is the nominee, I will certainly vote for her. I have nothing against her personally.

This discussion is reminiscent of when she ran against Obama -- all that Hope, pie-in-the sky stuff.

Why settle for less when I may be able to get more ? If Bernie wins, I get everything Hillary would have
accomplished, at least, plus ..... ?????

This is only the primaries. We can vote on our ideological convictions and conscience. I don't have to hedge my bet right now.

I want the return of banking regulations, consumer protections, and universal health care. So I back Bernie.
That does not imply I am against Hillary. I am against Trump !

[Amimnoch]

109. I'll agree it is, and there's a lot of irony as well there.

See, in 2008, I wasn't feeling the hope and change thing either. My first pick was Kucinich (yes.. yes.. i do get the irony there as well).. Hillary was my 2nd pic. Once the Primary was over I fully backed President Obama.

My reply title states it as ironic because many who were die hard Obama supporters displayed feelings of betrayal when the level of hope and change they believed in never materialized, especially when the government option failed to take hold during the ACA act. In my estimation, however, President Obama greatly surpassed my own expectations. He did so especially in his first couple of years in office.. less so afterwards. Why did Obama's agenda grind to a halt after 2 years? The dynamics of Congress changed. We lost our majority. The dynamics haven't changed, and don't look like they aren't changing for at least the next couple of years, and very possibly the next 4+.. unless we collectively get off our duffs and reshape congress.

You call it settling. I call it voting for the candidate whom I think will be the most successful in getting SOME headway with her agenda with political reality.

On the return of banking regulations - Without a shift in congress, it's not possible. Republicans aren't going to be swayed by Sanders, and Republicans are not going to be swayed by Hillary.

On consumer protections - Some influence by the FTC is very possible by either Bernie or Hillary, but will be limited to law and judicial precedent. Hillary will likely keep on Edith, Bernie may do so as well, but because of his idealism I am concerned that he might go the route of cleaning house and that could do more to hinder progress (especially if the Senate keeps their Republican majority into the 115th).

Universal health care - I'd love to have a more positive outlook, but the ACA isn't going to be improved on or expanded in the foreseeable future. Hillary's promises to expand and build upon it - False. Bernie's promises for a universal healthcare implementation likewise false. There is no way to go around this other than through the legislature and passing a bill into law, and that takes a willing congress. Worse, if Trump does manage to pull of the primary and the General, we're in danger of going backwards. How many times has the current congress tried to repeal the ACA as it is with no replacement? I've lost count.

I, for one, will NOT insult you for believing and supporting Senator Sanders. I respect your decision. I can definitely understand the appeal. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit jealous and wish I could feel the bern as well

We're complete allies in being against Trump!

[renate]

124. damn, it's refreshing to see a genuine, friendly post from one candidate's supporter to another's

I started off trying to keep my posts in GD: P nice and respectful (and I hope I'm mostly succeeding), but I've been backsliding a little. I'm going to try to be more like you.

Mwah!

[Amimnoch]

149. It's hard not to backslide.

When we believe in our candidates, and support our candidates, it's really hard not to get overly defensive of our candidates.

Some of my earlier posts in this season were ugly and obnoxious, and in hind-sight I'm glad some got hidden.

Working to make it more positive, we can make a difference together!

[King_Klonopin]

132. Thanks for the pleasant discussion.

And I hope that this classified email stuff blows over for her as well. They won't let it die.

I liked Kucinich, too. Like Sanders now, he voiced my beliefs, confronted the issues of
economic injustice, etc. Obama had to compromise. I can accept that, although it feels
like a let down. Given the venomous opposition, he did an amazing job.

The country is more liberal than we are lead to believe. If only we could win Congress !

Trump gets scarier by the day.

Peace

[BlueMTexpat]

56. Very well laid out with

specifics on the realities of the political situation that we face today.

The fact is that most HRC supporters like Bernie a lot. Inconceivable as it may seem to some, we like Hillary better for a variety of reasons, mainly because of her wide breadth of qualifications and experience, some of which are specifically personal to our own life experiences, and her long-demonstrated ability to work effectively with coalitions of like-minded people. We will support her to the end, which we sincerely believe will be not only the GE, but the WH.

We do NOT need to tear Bernie down in the process. So we prefer to concentrate on Hillary's positives, while fully recognizing that there are negatives and that GOPers have and will hit very hard on every one - real or imagined - even though their OWN negatives FAR outweigh anything any Democrat has done in recent memory - if ever. Hillary is and has always been a fighter and her intelligence, poise and class have shone through in every encounter. Bernie has yet to be tested on anywhere near the scale that Hillary has already survived through 24+ years of relentless disparagement.

What we HATE is when those who call themselves "liberals/progressives" use those same GOPer smear tactics relentlessly against Hillary on a website intended to promote Democrats. I don't believe that the most stridently relentless are true Bernie supporters - certainly they are unlike any Bernie supporters whom I know personally - but the sheer volume of negativity and gratuitous snarks towards Hillary on DU 24/7 really make me wonder sometimes.

We will NOT sink to that level. But the GOP WILL if Bernie is the GE candidate. And gleefully so!

[Surya Gayatri]

57. ^^^AMEN to this!^^^

"Your side likes to compare him to FDR. In his vision, I'll agree. FDR was the orchestrator of the New Deal, but he didn't just ride into office, and declare the New Deal the law of the land. He had a New Deal Congress to make it happen with."

Like many in the HRC camp, I support Bernie's aspirations wholeheartedly. If only he could be acclaimed President today, and if only he could implement his vision through Executive Order, I would jump for joy.

Unfortunately, he can't.

[treestar]

103. Good info. They never give that Congress any credit but talk as if FDR

did it all by himself. They are obsessed with the concept that the POTUS "runs the country" and is the only election we have to worry about.

[YCHDT]

139. OP worthy post

[Cobalt Violet]

39. Thank god millennials aren't drinking the moderate centrist kool-aid.

gives me hope for the future but we're desperate now.

[Betty Karlson]

42. K&R for truth!

[MyNameGoesHere]

43. Another SG post.

And not a smart one considering it was quickly refuted.

[mdbl]

45. Unfortunately, politics is a big game to some

You have two camps in politics. Those that look at it like a game to be won with the winners getting all the spoils, and those who think of it in a life or death situation for millions of citizens. The two will never get along very well but I hope each side knows where they are and don't delude themselves into a false benevolence for their positions. The media and advertisers are doing most as much deception as the candidates can afford, which is why I don't side with the big money. Those few have a lot more to lose and the rest of the country can only try to regain all it has lost in the last 35 years involving social and economic policy. I will vote for the Dem candidate that has the least connections to money.

[Live and Learn]

53. Yep. nt

[ScottSchear]

54. I Do Not Support Sen. Sanders Because...

1) I'm a state employee working as a custodian at a top 50 in the world university. I enjoy my work environment and am happy with my station.
2) My health benefits have $0 copay, $150 p/m max prescription and costs me $25 p/m. Any funding scheme for single-payer will be more expensive. His proposals do not align with my "best interests."
3) I take classes that interest me without matriculation at 50% off tuition, and 25% off fees and supplies. Debt free tuition is irrelevant to me.
4) I am paying my daughter's student loan debt. Her debt is an established fact and is not going away. Reinforces irrelevancy.
5) He is disingenuous about his consistent and continuing support for funding the MIC.
6) He is disingenuous about his voting for 12 of 13 of our military involvements, yet has derided Sec. Clinton's vote for the one he voted against.
7) A 30 year politician is by definition establishment.
8) After 29 years as an Independent, his move to the Democratic Party to run for President is simply opportunistic.
9) As mayor of Burlington, he had people protesting at the Lockheed-Martin facility arrested by his city's police. Yet he highlights his own protest arrests.
10) He paints himself as above politics, yet he too is a creature of politics.
11) While Sen. Sanders has co-sponsored 8 reproductive rights bills, he has introduced none.
12) He voted to ban CDC research into gun-violence.
13) He voted against the Brady bill. Repeatedly.
14) He voted to provide gun-manufactures immunity from civil suit.
15) He has voting inconsistencies that he refuses to acknowledge. Yet he is running on his consistency.
16) In 2009 he voted to keep Guantanamo open, yet derides Sec. Clinton for and earlier vote prohibiting transfer of detainees to the US.
17) He derides Sec. Clinton for her support (as FLOTUS) of the 1994 crime bill, yet, as a Representative, he actually voted for that bill.
18) He defended his vote for that crime bill claiming it included an assault-weapons ban (call that 18A,) which was added by the Senate after his vote.
19) He voted for the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, easing regulations on Wall St. and giving rise to credit default swaps. (Remember 2008?) Yet, he's running on what? And who does he impune for ties to Wall St?
20) He's just another politician trying to paint himself as not just another politician.

[Surya Gayatri]

59. Welcome to DU, Scott. You should post this excellent argument as an OP.

[JohnnyLib2]

64. Welcome

And as Surya said, this could be an OP.

[EndElectoral]

77. You do know on #4 you'd get a lot more debt relief on your daughters student loan w/Sanders

Besides, there is more than just your daughter's debt, but perhaps your daughter's daughter debt, or your neighbor's daughter's debt.

It is not going away for any of them if you believe it is so.. Hope you choose not to believe that and fight for student debt relief and fight for free tuition at public colleges, and fight for a decent living wage so you've more money to pay down that debt. Rather than acquiesce to a perceived reality.

There are many issues here that I could address individually, but in #4 you've accepted a premise, rather than challenging it.

[kath]

94. Your first 3 totally embody the Republican "I've got mine, fuck you" attitude. How lovely.

Your medical insurance plan is like those that people had 20-25 years ago, but is EXTREMELY rare today. Most people pay thousands of dollars a year in premiums for shitty coverage that has very, very high deductibles, plus copays. So just because YOU have rarer-than-hen's teeth affordable, good coverage, the hell with everyone else?

You have a good job that you like and apparently feel is secure, so fuck everyone else who is unemployed, or underemployed, or underpaid?

You have access to free college courses, so you don't give a shit that college costs are unnaffordable for so many?

And you call yourself a Democrat?? Jeebus H. Christ on a Trailer Hitch.

[dana_b]

137. I worked for the University of California

and had very good benefits. This poster and I had the same benefits.

I want others to have what I had. Simple and fair. What is so bad about that??

[laundry_queen]

140. That was my thought after reading the first few on the list

and certainly reinforces what many people have been saying about those going for Hillary.

[uppityperson]

130. Who do you support?

1-4 seem rather self focused, you are doing well and uncaring of others who aren't. Some of the others are amusing, that anyone involved in politics is political and therefore you don't support them.

I am curious who you do support.

[NCTraveler]

55. This is one of the reasons debate fails here.

Not saying it's just you or Sanders supporters.

This is really just click bait for cred and it's happening constantly.

You say you have never seen a Clinton supporter make a case against Sanders. I and many others have presented serious issues high his history, votes and positions overall. Now you state that has happened knowing the statement is inaccurate.

[yardwork]

60. I don't say anything negative about any Democrat at this stage.

I have noticed that quite a few DUers are taking the same approach. We don't think it's a good idea to tear down Democrats right before the general election.

Whichever candidate we choose, I don't want to contribute to negative talking points that will be used by Republicans in the fall.

[Frances]

62. Could not agree more

The real opponents are trump, Cruz, and Rubio

They are all light years different from both Bernie and Clinton

It's good that Bernie is moving the party left but I will support him or Clinton against any repub

[yardwork]

63. Exactly!

[JohnnyLib2]

65. Same here.

[yardwork]

66. Negativity helps the Republicans.

[brooklynite]

67. I've posted several times that I like Bernie and have no problem with his policies...

...I just don't think he can get elected to implement them. With he coalescing of the Republicans around Trump, I feel more strongly about that issue.

[TCJ70]

69. Hillary folks don't have anything to lose in a Bernie nomination...

...it is not the same the other way around. There is no case against Sanders.

[NurseJackie]

70. It's too risky.

Note to Jury: I did not say anything negative about Bernie.

[R B Garr]

71. LOL, no one bothers because they are attacked until they get a hide.

Duh.

[kstewart33]

72. I've posted 2 long threads on this.

Basically: 1) Bernie's platform will never pass Congress due to simple math; 2) the Republicans, drawing from his biography and applying their usual smear tactics, will destroy him in the general election which will cost us victories in many down ballot races, essentially setting the liberal cause back many years; and 3) Bernie lacks the skills and experience to be an effective president. He's a wonderful advocate but sorely lacking in other qualities needed especially in foreign affairs and leadership in Congress. In his 25 years in Congress, Bernie has been the primary sponsor of 3 passed bills, 2 of them naming Vermont post offices. Not a great leadership record.

[EndElectoral]

74. I've heard he doesn't look presidential

[think]

78. To be fair there have been some. Not many. But there have been some. /nt

[Octafish]

79. They know how to use the ''Alert'' button real good.

Don't remember that compassion for correctness when that Capehart fellow was smearing Bernie all over TIME magazine and wherever else doesn't like democratic socialism.

[EndElectoral]

82. Amen to that. Got my first alert in over 13 years here and accused of being a right wing troll.

[Octafish]

89. Thanks for sharing.

You stand out, EndElectoral.

[DesertRat]

80. I'm not against Bernie

I'm For Hillary.

"Making a case against Bernie", isn't going to change the minds of his supporters and would most likely be hidden by a jury anyway.

If Bernie is the nominee, I will support him 100%.

[NurseJackie]

93. Winner for the Category: "Best Response in a Flame-Bait Thread"

Go, Hillary! We love you!

[treestar]

104. Nailed it.

[great white snark]

108. Agreed.

[ananda]

81. Sanders is being attacked because that's all they've got.

On issues, he's miles ahead and unassailable.

[Lizzie Poppet]

84. For many, their "contributions" have been reduced to snarky, condescending one-liners.

At least the brevity means reduced exposure to...well...don't need a hide this morning.

[treestar]

98. that certainly applies to Bernie side too

[Lizzie Poppet]

105. Sadly, there have been a few, yes.

I don't see nearly as much of that particular variety of fuckwittery. More common, embarrassingly, on our side of this mess is condemning an entire region of America for their votes. Makes me cringe...

[treestar]

95. Then you haven't read very much

Case against Bernie: he has not been a Democrat and though caucusing with them, does not really support the party - thus he has few allies in Congress and that is why he has almost no endorsements from his fellows there. Bernie does not have foreign policy experience and further shows no interest in learning about it (the argument he is like Obama there fails because Obama showed interest and was very smart, so we knew he'd handle it). Bernie does not seem at all as smart as Obama or Hillary. Bernie likes things to go his way and doesn't like compromise and we have to do that to get along with others and in Congress and the WH that is a big consideration. Bernie will lecture but gain no allies.

For some reason, AA voters do not prefer Bernie and overwhelmingly prefer Hillary and that goes a long way with me.

Bernie's liabilities for the GE even before the Republicans have gotten hold of him: his reputation as being unpleasant to work with from the people who worked with him as Mayor, his silly writings from the 70s, his lecturing style, his being at one time really a Marxist (the accusations with Obama were at one remove - he associated with one was all they could come up with). Then his apparent hypocrisy when it comes to toxic waste.

[thereismore]

102. I would not know. I have most of them in the bin.

But good luck with that.

[Qutzupalotl]

107. You won't get a lot of substantive replies beyond bluster and personality

or résumé, because:

single payer > ACA
free tuition > reduced student loan interest
decriminalizing mj > mass incarceration
considering the consequences > reckless interventionism
overturning CU > taking SuperPAC $ to maybe overturn it later
$15 > $12 (and is better policy)

and so on.

[Faux pas]

110. Kickin' for the truth!

[FlatBaroque]

111. The first step to a cure is to identify the disease: Moderate, centrist Democrats. /

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

112. But, they have become adept at obvious or implied red baiting.

[kydo]

113. Maybe you should open your eyes and read the stuff in black

Not the white spaces. Of course if you are really interested on hearing what they have to say, why not just read the posts instead of ignoring what HRC supporters have to say? For if you would have read said posts then you would have seen the case HRC supporters are making.

Now you might not agree with them and I am pretty sure they don't agree with you. But that's a completely different issue isn't it? I highly doubt no matter what case HRC supporters make to support their candidate those that don't agree will ever agree. And guess what? That's perfectly fine.

Have a great day.

[Haveadream]

115. Here you go

Why the United Farm Workers Are Not Feeling the Bern


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511403095

[Warren Stupidity]

121. They went on a yuuuge tirade over the awfulness of

universal healthcare.

For a short while they were all over what a good thing TPP was going to be. Then not so much.

[Nonhlanhla]

123. Could you please link to any such posts?

I don't remember any Hillary supporters arguing against universal healthcare. There is a distinction between universal healthcare (which Hilary is a lifelong advocate of) and single payer, you know? We all want universal healthcare.

[Warren Stupidity]

125. Oh whatever.

[Nonhlanhla]

127. In other words, you got nothing. nt.

[Warren Stupidity]

128. No I mean I'm not going to get into a hairsplitting idiotic

argument.

[Nonhlanhla]

129. OK, uh, to quote you, whatever.

Sorry that the facts got in the way of your narrative.

[sabrina 1]

126. No they lie about him instead. Because if they deal the issues as Democrats there is no

issue they can attack him and still call themselves Democrats.

So they lie and try to distort his record, using lame Brock talking points. And reach for the race and gender cards now signatures of a Hillary campaign.

She's is so divisive she can't seem to run a clean, non-negative campaign.

[Major Hogwash]

135. Do you mean like that thread that was started last week in which the author asked us . . .

. . . if we were now going to throw all of our values out, those that we have advocated for on this forum for the last 15 years, just to get Hillary to be the nominee?

I have to say, it doesn't make any sense to totally flip-flop 180 degrees like that, but Camp Weathervane expects that, I guess.

[sabrina 1]

141. She has a habit of declaring victory without a shred of evidence that she is even close to it

Sometimes, eg, when Obama was already ahead of her, when it's clear she's losing. It's a tactic she thinks we will fall for.

What it does for me is to make me even more determined to win for Bernie as it did re Obama.

I don't know WHY is advising her, Brock I suppose, but the tactic is just plain dumb. And a huge motivator for BERNIE supporters.

[AzDar]

134. Ayup.

[auntpurl]

138. I am voting FOR Hillary, not AGAINST Bernie.

I don't need to make a case against anyone. I choose to make a case for my candidate. That seems to engender more civil conversation.

[laureloak]

145. Here is one of the reasons I turned against Bernie

[Orsino]

148. I may never have seen anything helpful under a thread title including the word "supporter."

DU has unfortunately devolved during the primaries into a board in which we snipe at each other instead of at our real enemies.