Why so much hate and negativity?

[MrsKirkley]

The federal minimum wage has not kept up with inflation and needs a substantial increase. We have a health insurance law mandating Americans to purchase health insurance that many can't afford to use because premium and deductible lowering subsidies (called cost sharing subsidies) are too hard to qualify for. Surely everyone has heard of the family glitch and knows employer provided health insurance deductibles are not income based, yet there's an employer mandate. On top of all that our planet is in trouble. So why are so many people on here badmouthing a man who has always stood for a living wage, single-payer health care, and a healthy environment? Bernie Sanders knows he lost the primaries. We know he won't be the nominee. But what is so wrong with him trying to get Hillary Clinton to support a major minimum wage increase and single-payer health care? I think an insurance free zero deductible Public Option would be wonderful, but she's never going get it if she starts negotiations too far to the right. To get a public option she needs to start at single payer. To get a decent minimum wage, she needs to start negotiations with a higher amount. Bernie Sanders is trying to move Hillary Clinton further to the left. Shouldn't we be thanking him for that instead of bashing him?

[Cooley Hurd]

1. The value of the campaign waged by Senator Sanders cannot be underestimated...

He has made Secretary Clinton a stronger candidate (going into the GE) by voicing the concerns of the vast majority of Americans that she failed to do until his inclusion in the process.

[cali]

5. +1

[MADem]

2. She supports a minimum wage increase, and she was the person who introduced the term

"single payer" to the American public back in the nineties, and got excoriated for it.

I think candidates who come along and act like they invented the wheel may want to see how others who hit the national scene well before them have been rolling along.

Losers don't get to decide how winners fight their battles.

Clinton understands the politics of the possible, which is why she won so decisively. She is the best candidate, and that's why she'll win the general election.

Sanders can look childish and churlish by continuing to pretend that the has a "campaign" still in play, or he can display a measure of grace and concede like an adult. He'll catch more flies with a little honey, as opposed to the vinegar he's spitting--he's trashing his own legacy, but that's his choice. Even some of his own supporters are taking issue with his surly attitude, to say nothing of his failure to stand with his fellow Dems in the Senate the other day.

[treestar]

3. Bernie is not being hated

He's being criticized for his current proceedings. His supporters have done plenty of criticism of Hillary.

[Cooley Hurd]

7. Without even clicking on your profile...

...i just *knew* your transparency page would be showing, given the tone of your post.

I will give you the same, sage advice that I have given other Secretary Clinton supporters; stop driving votes away from your candidate *at the Secretary's peril*.

And, even though I should, I won't alert on your post since it is both over the top and a broadbrush smear of Senator Sanders supporters (i.e. your "sewer" comment).

Hopefully, my answer will sink in to you, but I doubt it, given your 8 hides...

[SFnomad]

8. Being that the jury system has been stacked with BS cheerleaders and I've dealt with alert stalking

I take all the transparency pages with a grain of salt until after the sewer has been cleaned out. And being that you're not clean of hidden posts, you really shouldn't throw stones from your glass house.

As to your "sage advice" ... puh-leeze. How can I drive votes away from someone that has no intention of voting for Secretary Clinton in the first place? And if my posts are what tips someone to the not voting for Secretary Clinton ... they're an idiot. Anyone that bases not voting for someone because of that person's supporters is an idiot.

I'll file your condescension where it rightfully deserves to be filed.

[Cooley Hurd]

9. Deaf ears, apparently...

Good luck with that stance.

On edit: aaaaaannnnd *another* hide!

[Nye Bevan]

13. Someone just lost their alerting privileges for 24 hours......

On Sat Jun 18, 2016, 09:45 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Being that the jury system has been stacked with BS cheerleaders and I've dealt with alert stalking
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2201791

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a tad over the top to say the least. Calling people idiots let alone the overall tone?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 18, 2016, 09:50 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Given the context in which the poster is responding to a very rude post, this doesn't meet the criteria for hiding it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Borderline but I don't think quite bad enough to be hidden.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why was this post even alerted? I see nothing wrong with it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster was NOT calling anyone "an idiot". This is what the alerter chose to make of it. LEAVE IT
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm tired of GDP jury duty, and it's past time these battles were over.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[CBHagman]

11. That's a rather threatening tone to adopt...

...and not a particularly helpful one.

For years I've been on DU and watched as terms of service were violated and either winked at or not applied at all because enough jury members were comfortable with the post alerted on even if it ran afoul of the TOS.

But during the primaries, there's been a near constant display of aggressive hostility towards Hillary Clinton supporters, including longtime progressive activists and allies, and it doesn't reflect well on the aggressors or suggest any particular gifts at political strategy.

[Cooley Hurd]

14. You and I have been in this rodeo for the same amount of time...

...by that, I mean we have a shared experience since 2002.

2004 and 2008 were contentious, but at the end of the day, we all came together. My plea for an accord is directed at BOTH sides.

We're nearing the convention, and it's clear who will get the nomination. But, given the contentiousness and tone (again, from BOTH sides), we need to:

[CBHagman]

17. Yeah, I think the loss of a common objective (i.e., dealing with GWB, Rove and so forth)...

...exposed the natural divisions and long-simmering tensions any group of people, let alone bunches of Democrats and progressive independents, would have.

That said, I think the fever hasn't burned itself out on yet, on DU or elsewhere, and as the late Molly Ivins used to say, no one should ever underestimate the Democrats' ability to screw things up. We may be the many and the proud, but we're also the paranoid, the self-destructive, the sanctimonious, the passive, the passive-aggressive, at least at times!

[Cooley Hurd]

19. Thank you for recognizing my point, my friend!

Certainly, at least here on DU, we've been thru an awful lot.

[LWolf]

6. Some of us are.

Some of us are too tied up in identity politics and making it all about "her" to really give a shit about anything else.

[CBHagman]

12. That's a host of logical fallacies...

...teamed with talking points employed by the GOP. Do you want to go there?

[LoverOfLiberty]

15. How is it possible

you cannot understand that the things you say about Clinton is what contributes the very problems we have that OP was addressing?

[brooklynite]

18. Two days of fun left...

[felix_numinous]

16. Politics of reactivism

focuses on 'the other' in order to distract from what they are up to. They project what they deny onto others. While not only manufacturing consent, they manufacture enemies where there are in actuality none.

We are not against our fellow brothers and sisters, we are fighting for rights for all, including people we disagree with. It is a time to stay focused on the work to be done, and not the ones programmed to interfere with it. That is the challenge as i see it, IMHO. Being proactive and not reactive.

It is why I will wean myself off of DU because I think our presence here feeds this unhealthy dynamic, a lot of money went into profiling in order to demoralize us--which seems to be the mission, not intelligent conversations.