All supporters of all Democratic primary candidates should feel comfortable here

[Armstead]

That is a serious statement. This is not supposed to be an exclusive club where supporters of any candidate can push out supporters of other candidates so it just becomes an "attaboy" clubhouse. Nor is it some teenagers Facebook page (no offense to teenagers), to flame and pout and form cliques or storm off in a huff.

For the sake of honesty I should acknowledge that I'm a Bernie guy, and I do my share of arguing here. I punch and I've gotten punched. I try to behave myself, but sometimes I get overheated.

That's okay. A discussion board should be about discussion and debate. And if it gets, er, vigorous, that's okay. And even if people want to criticize others' tactics or methods of making points, that's not great, but it's okay.

However, it ought to be about the candidates and the issues. It ought to be a place where people of different positions can hash things out, refine arguments, exchange and pick apart opinions, look for common ground...and have some fun while doing it.

That ALSO means recognizing that criticizing a candidate is not automatically "h..ing" or "bashing" or anything other than disagreeing with or perhaps disliking a candidate.

We shouldn't engage in personalized attacks, tribal memes, oversensitivity, "taking my marbles and going home," or disliking (I won't use the "h..e" word) supporters of other candidates, or alert stalking and all that other nonsense.

Just remember we're all a mix of

[Warren Stupidity]

1. The HRC gang couldn't believe that they were not the kool kids.

They had expectations of being the leaders here, what with Skinner being a huge HRC supporter and everything, and thought that with no opposition to her nomination DU would be all about Hillary. Then the ridiculous Sanders campaign started and that was no threat, although of course it was a shock that so many people here supported him, but seriously, Sanders? Clinton was still Her Inevitableness, so it was ridicule the funny looking senator from vermont and laugh at his supporters and it was all good. Until it wasn't and the poll numbers started to show the real story and suddenly it was WTF! And then the bitter bullshit started in. Red baiting, race baiting, age bainting, even jew baiting for christ's sake,, shit slinging of the worst sort, accompanied by self imposed victim status as they flamed out one by one, while marching off to ask the admins, whining about the rules, the unfairness of it all and then pulling up stakes and marching en masse to their wretched little Old Elm Tree clone for their PUMA moment.

[DanTex]

9. Actually, given the amount of Obama-bashing, even going as far as to express the wish

that McCain had won in 2008, none of us are surprised about the amount of anti-Democratic vitriol from the fringe left here. And we always understood that that the "kool kids" and hipsters were going to be all about "taking down the system, man." Reasoned support of the best candidate and intelligent discussion of policy aren't usually "kool."

[Warren Stupidity]

10. exactly. Thanks for making my point.

Have fun in your new forum.

[DanTex]

13. Sorry, I'm sticking around. I still believe DU is for Democrats.

Once Hillary wins the primary, things will calm down a bit. Of course, once she wins the general it will be back to Hillary bashing, but the good news is at that point we'll have a Democratic president.

[brooklynite]

84. ...and at least the folks on our side are prepared to support the TOS...

Nobody over here threatening to not support a possible Democratic nominee.

[senz]

96. I've seen Hillary supporters say they wouldn't vote for Bernie in the GE.

The difference is that I do not automatically think of threatening them with banning, now or in the future, for expressing their feelings. In the context of this forum, banning is ultimate force, and using TOS to make other commenters feel uneasy and insecure in expressing their preferences is the heart -- the heart, brooklynite -- of authoritarianism.

[brooklynite]

105. It's Skinner's world, and we live in it.

[senz]

112. Skinner sets the rules, but we don't "live" here. And I doubt that Skinner

would want his rules to be used as a club by commenters for the purpose of browbeating fellow commenters, brooklynite.

[Deny and Shred]

17. Your OP from a couple days ago, promoting intelligent discussion

"Clinton and Sanders supporters simply have different priorities about which issues matter most.

The priorities of Sanders supporters, at least here on DU, are:
--email servers
--blowjobs
--speaking fees
--recollections of war zone landings

On the other hand, the issues that matter most to Clinton supporters are things like:
--Climate change
--Unions and wages
--Reproductive rights
--Healthcare "


When you consider this reasonable support, there can be no discussion.

[DanTex]

19. Crazy that got a hide, right? Tell me honestly, would a similar OP by a Bernie supporter

have gotten even 2 hide votes? Not a chance.

But, yeah, I stand by the OP. The obsession over inconsequential personal details coupled with the insistence by Hillary bashers that they care about policy is remarkably hypocritical.

[Deny and Shred]

21. The OP tried making a point

You COULD let the bashing go, and have intelligent discussion on real non-personal issues.

You could also continue to focus on the bashing, and make the OPs case.

[DanTex]

22. Making the OP's case...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=634513

[Deny and Shred]

24. I agree, its inflammatory

Not nearly as hide-worthy, but distasteful.

None of us need to rise to the bait and broadbrush fellow democrats.

Its already been said that 'the left' is' fucking retarded', just let the bile for them go and focus on intellegent discussion of the issues. If their views are bankrupt, that will be apparent pretty quick. If not, try not to close your mind to them.

[DanTex]

25. And it's the first response to this OP, and yet you decide to go after me.

Not only that, but you dig up another OP of mine in order to do it. Hmm.

And by the way, if do a little searching you'll see that my OP is right. Hillary bashers do continually talk about irrelevant nonsense like the emails, while at the same time insisting that it's all about issues. For example, if you have a strong flamesuit, try posting an OP asking how Bernie is going to pay for half of the stuff he proposes.

[Deny and Shred]

33. I saw your OP the other day and was appalled

When you attempted to claim the high ground of intelligent discussion and reasonable support, I felt compelled to act. Simple as that.

Hmm? If you want to see conspiracies behind every tree, that's for you. This is among the only times I've called anyone out on this sort of thing.

If I do a little searching, I see both sides have supporters that are childish, not just one side.

Sen. Sanders has proposed raising taxes significantly on the highest earners, corporations, and financial transactions to pay for his proposals.

Flamesuit? I figured this would get silly.

[DanTex]

34. Appalled, huh? Conspiracies, huh? You mean like the theory that every union that has endorsed

Hillary is somehow manipulated by her apparatchiks? Or the theory that BLM activists were funded by George Soros in order to take down Bernie Sanders? Or that she is "owned by Wall Street" due to the fact that 3.4% of her campaign contributions come from financial sector employees? Or even the one (see below) that the 10% or so of DUers that support Hillary are somehow gaming the alert system (in which the juries are mostly made of Sanders supporters).

But of all the "conspiracies", the one you decide to call out is the obvious fact that Hillary bashers here are obsessed with things like emails and warzone landings. Hmm...

[Deny and Shred]

35. Yes, appalled.

Since it was hidden, I'm clearly not the only one.

You keep standing by it, though. Its noble work you're doing.

As for the rest, you have a dizzying intellect.

Thanks for the 'intellegent discussion.'

[DanTex]

36. Of course I stand by it. It was factual. And, yes, you're not the only person on DU who

thinks that anything remotely critical of Bernie or his supporters should be hidden. Like I said, Clinton supporters are about 10%, maybe 20 tops of DUers. Another recent OP was hidden simply for quoting Bernie saying that the US had overcome racism.

But, like I told the other poster, DU is still for Democrats, so I'll continue making factual posts.

[AgingAmerican]

81. For someone

Who is such a total anti-Sanders conspiracy OP pusher, you sure are thin skinned.

[merrily]

44. Calling supporters of Sanders Hillary bashers is "irrelevant nonsense."

Posting a news story from a credible source is not irrelevant, regardless of how many time you say that.

[AgingAmerican]

79. "Self imposed victim status"

Truer words were never spoken

[pocoloco]

40. Speaking of blow jobs, you want to put Bill

back in the White House?

What is your solution for protecting young interns?

[Deny and Shred]

42. I am going to go out on a limb

and say this wasn't meant for me.

I was re-posting a previous OP to refute the claiming of the 'intelligent discussion' high ground.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

48. So you think 22 year old adults need their chastity protected?

Interesting. What is the age at which you feel women should be allowed to make their own decisions?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. What level of effort?

Speaking of blow jobs, you want to put Bill back in the White House?

What is your solution for protecting young interns?

What level of effort do you exert and what tactics do you employ to protect yourself from being the recipient of blow jobs?

I am trying to establish a baseline.

Thank you in advance.

[JoePhilly]

128. Chicks can't control themselves ...

... is that the point you are trying to make?

You probably should not be trying to make that point on DU.

But there are plenty of RW sites that would love to join you in that view.

[merrily]

43. I call bullshit. Link please. "even going as far as to express the wish that McCain

had won in 2008." As I understand it, that was ONE poster and you have misquoted and taken out of context.

And we always understood that that the "kool kids" and hipsters were going to be all about "taking down the system, man."

"Understood?" Doesn't look like you understand. Kindly explain how supporting a candidate in the Democratic primary other than Hillary is (wince) "taking down they system, man."

Reasoned support of the best candidate and intelligent discussion of policy aren't usually "kool."

When can we look forward to some reasoned support of the best and intelligent discussion of policy?

When I compare the Op's in Hillary Group with those in the Bernie Group, there is a marked difference and it does not favor the posts in the Hillary Group.


When I look at a thread like this one, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251633637, I see smears from one side and rebutting links from the other.

[DanTex]

45. A hugely popular anti-Hillary poster, and it wasn't remotely taken out of context.

Not only did he want the 2008 election overturned, he wanted it overturned more than any other election since 1976, including both 2000 and 1980. Wow!

Then you see the massive number of recs here when any Bernie fan declares they won't vote in the general if he's not the candidate, and the picture becomes clearer.

[merrily]

50. IOW, calling bs on your prior post was correct. You admit it was only ONE poster, yet your prior

post gave a very different impression. You provided no link to support your current claim that your characterizations of that one post are accurate and you did not even address the third point at all.

O for 3

[restorefreedom]

83. sometimes the "system"

needs a serious reset. i think we are living in those times.

time for the oligarchy to go from rich and powerful to non powerful and rich who pay their fair share

[sabrina 1]

118. And there is a perfect example, complete with what has become known as 'hippy punching', a silly

frame of reference, rather like the red baiting, since most people don't relate to those long ago memes anymore. But thanks, I promote my candidate and try to avoid 'bashing' other candidates. Pointing out policy flaws in any candidate is not bashing.

I find it easy to defend my candidate from criticisms or outright lies, see Brock eg, so don't mind it when I see them as it is easy to set the record straight without throwing a temper tantrum.

I suppose if it was difficult to defend the positions of my candidate I might be more easily rattled, OR I might decide I'm supporting the wrong candidate.

[DanTex]

120. I like hippies and I'm nonviolent, so that's an absurd accusation.

Also, hipsters and hippies are not the same thing.

Hippie:

Hipster:

[Metric System]

26. The attacks on Hillary from the likes of you on DU began before either she or Bernie declared.

[jwirr]

41. Attacks or disagreement with her policies - there is a difference.

[sabrina 1]

122. Criticizing policy decisions is not bashing or attacking. People will just have to get used to the

fact that when someone chooses, no one forces anyone, to run for high office in this country voters are going to look at their RECORDS because that is the only way they can decide if a candidate is qualified for that office.

If anyone thinks they can protect their favorite candidate from scrutiny on their policies, they shouldn't be supporting that candidate. Because if it is hard to defend someone on their policies, that is a clue that maybe it's the wrong candidate.

I did that for several years, it was stressful and difficult to defend the Clintons as fiercely as I did and sometimes I just could not win against some of the FACTS people were presenting, though I definitely tried.

Then when I saw the Clintons in such cozy relationships with the very people whose supporters we had all battled on their behalf, I learned a very important lesson. Should have known better at the time, but I am a Dem after all and was fairly blinded by loyalty to my party.

Now I want Dems who can easily be defended because their records are so good, all I have to do is state the facts and not try to 'explain' why s/he voted over and over again, or took positions against the very principles Dems claim to support.

[HereSince1628]

30. Their spring initiative seemed to be about pushing others out.

All other candidates were inevitable losers, all supporters of other candidates were setting the party up for inevitable failure.

That was pretty obviously rudely dismissive

On that alone it was predictable that it would meet push-back.

It did. Painfully so.

[Waiting For Everyman]

32. That was so well said and so true.

Wish I could rec your post.

[bvf]

38. That sums it up nicely. n/t

[senz]

66. Thanks, Warren. Background, context, & explanations do help.

I got my only hide and also got banned from the Hillary group back in July when I started commenting with any frequency. Both happened post haste, so fast it made my head spin. The actions were taken in response to to entirely well-meaning comments on 1) the reasons why I went from Hillary sympathizer to disillusioned former Hillary sympathizer back in 2008, and 2) the reason I think it is foolish to try to argue Hillary supporters out of their support. Now I have a sense of what must have been by then a siege mentality on their part. I still find it difficult to understand the behavior of some of them, behavior that I consider extremely unhealthy.

But now it all makes a little more sense. So, appreciated.

[Android3.14]

70. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Wed Sep 30, 2015, 11:23 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

The HRC gang couldn't believe that they were not the kool kids.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=634513

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Are we making personal attacks on Skinner and all supporters of a candidate now? This post is completely over the top, especially attacking Skinner.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Sep 30, 2015, 11:34 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Last I checked, this is not "HRC Underground".
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Attacking Skinner with a forest of strawmen is the kind of attack Bernie tells his fans to stop...but some choose to double down.

Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Trying to change a mere pointing out of Skinners candidate preference is no attack. It's a poor attempt to sucker Skinner into the fray. I don't think he will fall for it. It sure props up the writers point though.

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

**
I voted to leave it alone.

[senz]

77. Lordy! It's their first line of response.

No sense talking when you can do some real damage, right?

[Warren Stupidity]

102. Well there it is, a completely dishonest alert.

But what the heck, go for it, amirite?

[frylock]

119. Excellent summary.

Sanders and his supporters were ridiculed from jump, and they are shocked, SHOCKED to receive push back. It reminds me of baggers in comment threads on FB that run their mouths and are then shocked that the dirty hippy libs aren't just lying there and taking their truncheon blows.

[leftofcool]

2. That was the old DU.

Just appreciate what you have here and don't worry about where the AA's go or the Hillary supporters go. We are fine.

[Armstead]

6. Well, for me the old DU was post 9-11, Bush era stuff where we argued but had certain solidarity

Some of what's happening now is par for the course. Substitute Sanders for Nader, Dean, Kucinich, Iraq, Pattriot Act...etc. Even candidate Obama. So I'm a little jaded.

But this does seem more personalized and polarized and snitty than usual....But maybe it's a case of old fartdom.

[merrily]

54. That was the original DU. Democrats' being against Dimson was a no brainer.

DU after that reflects the rift in the Party caused by the DLC types.

[frylock]

121. It became obvious in 2008 that the only thing we had in common was a shared hatred of Cheney.

[MoveIt]

47. complete fabrication

also known as making shit up.

[uponit7771]

3. I don't see that everyone feels comfortable here, there has been overt alert stalking on people

...

[SwampG8r]

4. Yes there has been

And it is coordinated at Hillary Clinton supporters.com
By our own mirt members
Smdh

[leftofcool]

5. Actually, Skinner has already said he saw no evidence of that at all and he is correct

You can check the administrators forum

[Warren Stupidity]

7. They should open up the stats.

The question of alert stalking has been plaguing this place since DU3 started. If the stats really do confirm the admins official position that there is no problem, publish them on a regular basis.

[SwampG8r]

8. I have no doubt he said that in the past

Now we have evidence so I expect to hear more
Do you think mirt members should be allowed to maintain office when they act in this way?

[leftofcool]

14. Actually the complaint was made about Hillarysupporters.com

I believe he said this just a couple of days ago. MIRT members here have nothing to do with a private site run by private people who can do and say as they please. If that bothers you, start your own site.

[JTFrog]

51. Skinner has already answered those questions in ATA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598763

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598758

[merrily]

49. LOL!

[DanTex]

11. The idea that somehow the 10% or so Clinton supporters would even be able to alert stalk in any

useful way given that juries are going to be primarily made out of Hillary bashers is ludicrous. Of course, so is the idea that a socialist is going to win the general election, so it's not much of a surprise that those two beliefs go together.

[SwampG8r]

12. Whatever makes you quiet

The evidence is there and mirt has been corrupted

[DanTex]

16. LOL. "Evidence."

[mopinko]

37. i am not following you. i am not sure you know what mirt does.

mirt members have nothing to do with juries. they get called like anybody else. i got no more calls while on mirt than i usually do. they have one vote like anyone else.

and they have no say whatsoever about long term members. they can ppr posters w 100 posts or less.
they theoretically can ppr a longer term member within 1 hour of a 7-0 hide. but they must have consensus of the team, and that usually takes more than an hour. i never saw it happen.
the purpose of that rule is to be able to act on someone who goes off the deep end in the middle of the night. iow, to end a flame out.
like i said, never saw it come close to happening.

just exactly what is it you are accusing mirt of here?

[MineralMan]

56. Like you, I have served on MIRT.

That group of DUers has nothing to do with anyone but new DUers and disruptive posts by new DUers. Being on MIRT simply affects nothing else. I guess people don't understand that.

[leftofcool]

15. They can't stand the fact that people are actually waking up and reporting some truths.

[merrily]

55. Not ludicrous at all, neither statement.

The idea that Hillary will win the general, however, is dubious.i

[Metric System]

29. Jury results lately seem to allow anything nasty posted about Hillary to stand, so even if there's

alert stalking it always results in Sanders supporters' favor anyway.

[merrily]

57. Absolutely untrue. I've seen bad hides on both sides. I've seen bad leaves on both sides.

I've seen jury results on both sides saying this is worst alert I've seen in my life. We have ALL seen all those things.

The notion that Hillary supporters are angelic victims was always a joke and now has been indisputably exposed for what it is by posts on the other board.

[uponit7771]

131. +1

[JackInGreen]

18. Thanks for this, Arm

I'm a snarky shit head but we get way out of hand sometimes.

[Armstead]

20. Snark is like seasoning...

Not necessarily bad in itself. It's a matter of how much and in what combination.

People are gonna get snarky about candidates (of brands of Democrats). But when it's too much it tastes bitter. And also when i's personalized "Waaaaaaaa you supporters of (x-candidate) are all so mean and awful."

[merrily]

60. Notice how admissions of this kind come only from one side--and no, that is not

because the other side is blameless and victimized. Same thing on brentspeak's thread. Two or three Bernie supporters chastised the OP. However, let someone imply that Bernie is a pedophile and no such chastisements are forthcoming from the OP's fellow Hillary supporters. An OP about Bernie that was blatantly anti-Semitic got hidden in about a minute not long ago, but not before a Hillary supporter rec'd it. Yet, Bernie's supporters are supposed to be devil's dung on the oh, so high road allegedly taken by Hillary's supporters.

I could not be more over that bullshit noise.

[senz]

75. I've noticed the same thing. It used to separate Democrats from Republicans for me.

Rethugs had a "kill the opposition" mindset while Dems were always, "Now, now, let's play nice."

So, thinking about that, I'm glad I'm still on the side of the Dems, the real Dems, the ones who try to create and sustain inclusive community. This thread is but one example of that.

A Rethug would reply with something to the tune of, "No way! We saw you fight back. You aren't supposed to fight back; you're supposed to be roll-over pacifists and take our shit without complaint." But...back in the 1990s, Democrats began to wake up -- and fight back. We still do. Only now we're resisting DLC abuses as well as those of Rethugs.

You could say we're refining the concept, taking it beyond labels to actions.

[merrily]

78. Yes, we could say that, senz.

We woke up and need to stay woken. Fair is one thing. Wearing a "Kick me hard" sign is quite another.

[senz]

92. Yes, labels don't tell us much anymore.

It's the entire mindset of a group, the allowable behavior, the repeated words and actions, the pattern of relational aggressions or lack thereof -- and of course more than just these things -- that defines who the group is. They/we can call themselves anything they/we want.

Thanks so much. I'm clumsy and slow, and always will be (and have come to terms with that), but I try.

[merrily]

94. Your posts are astute. I don't think you have any reason to be hard on yourself.

[senz]

100. Thanks, but knowing one's limitations and being hard on oneself are

two different things. When I finally realized I didn't have to be faultless in order to be perfectly okay, my life changed. It's a helpful insight that I recommend to everyone on earth.

[merrily]

104. If it works for you, I'll shut up

even though I'm right. LOL!

In fact, most people who hear my honest (in my own mind) description of my limitations say I am being much too hard on myself too.

Or, as my husband once put it, "Every time you have a spare minute, you put yourself down. You're relentless."

Actually, that was one of very few times he criticized me.

[senz]

109. Yeah, we know what works for us as individuals.

Admitting one's faults is very different from considering oneself not good enough. The inner relationship of self to self is extremely important for basic well-being, and it has to be one of love. (Not trying to sound like Dr. Phil here.)

Your husband sounds, or sounded, like a sweetie.

[merrily]

111. Exceeded only by his Dad. That, of course, is based only on my own observations of people I know.

Perhaps Mahatma Ghandi was sweeter than my FIL, but I don't know. My FIL was pretty special.


I think one can exaggerate one's faults while thinking they are making an honest assessment of them. Not you or I, of course, but someone.

[senz]

116. Sometimes exaggerating one's faults is a way of

paying homage to one's ideals. You're fortunate to have had a FIL like that. My relationship to my former FIL was contentious based on his treatment of my former husband. But we've all aged and mellowed, and now my feelings for him are entirely sympathetic and loving.

Okay, I have pressing things to do in RL (meatspace?). Aye, now. Later...

[seaglass]

23. I am so glad I have ZERO passion for any of the candidates (so far) because I'm afraid the "passion"

Last edited Wed Sep 30, 2015, 09:38 AM - Edit history (1)

for candidates has turned many decent DUers into myopic, biased, flaming assholes. It's sad.

GDP is not welcoming for people who want to discuss issues and treat all candidates with respect. It is Thunderdome.

on edit: WOW I posted before seeing the post below - fucking incredible! And a special shout out to the Bernie supporters reccing this garbage.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=634015

[senz]

90. I had not seen that thread before. But I find NOTHING wrong with the OP.

I've privately wondered the same thing myself.

[seaglass]

93. Don't care. n/t

[senz]

98. You care like crazy or you wouldn't have brought it up.

I know that you are trying to say that you don't care what I think. But oh boy do you care about that OP. Which, frankly, amazes me. Yes, yes, you don't care what I think, etc., etc.

[seaglass]

99. You've got one thing right, I've seen your posts, I've seen your consistent nasty comments.

I do not care what you think. Kindly buzz off.

[senz]

101. Wow.

Be well and please stay far, far away from me.

Thanks for your time. Adios.

[Turbineguy]

27. Indeed!

The tent is big enough for all.

[Gamecock Lefty]

28. I Just Hope . . .

if Bernie is the nominee that he is NOTHING like his supporters here on DU! Man, some of them are n-a-s-t-y!

I actually liked Bernie before I 'met' some of his supporters on DU. I get that some don't like who I support, but when some of them are so mean-spirited towards Hillary, I fight back.

I swear some of us Dems act like Repubs!

[Armstead]

31. that's what I am talking about

some supports of all candidates are obnoxious and insufferable. Some are reasonable. And some vary between erasonable and insufferable, depending on circumstances and provocations.

But this putting people into little boxes based on which candidates they support is, er, misguided, in my opinion.

It is inevitable that people who opposed to Clinton, Sanders, whomever are going to be critical, sometimes legitimately, sometimes too much so. Some of that is also a matter of perspective, As the saying goes "Your mileage may vary."

[floriduck]

39. Good point but

It really goes both ways. We all have made our choices and feel strongly about our decisions. It's called passion.

[Trajan]

52. I just take folks like you

Those that purposely exaggerate the acrimony from those who simply disagree with a candidate and misrepresent their statements as 'hatred'

I take those posters, and remove them from my DU experience ... One button press and gone ...

Bye ..

[merrily]

53. I just hope you open your eyes to how nasty some of the supporters of Hillary have been.

And then have the honesty to retract your post.

A man who spent 43 fighting for equal rights for members of the LGBT community is, as I type, being smeared by bullshit on another thread on this board. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251633637 One thread even implied he is a pedophile. Somehow people who complain that Bernie's supporters seem never to see shit like that, or to be honest about it. And, btw, look at the OPs in the Bernie versus the posts in the Hillary Group and on the other board and then tell the truth about them.

I actually liked Bernie before I 'met' some of his supporters on DU.

If you changed your mind about any candidate for POTUS because of your opinion of what a few DUers posted about Hillary, I can't help you and I don't know who can.

[kenfrequed]

58. Huh

And you can claim that after only 171 posts?

Glad to see you aren't calling names or making accusations.

I will try not to get offended by your generalization.

Enjoy your stay.

[Bluenorthwest]

67. Lucky for me I consider candidates not their self declared cohorts because every candidate now and

in the past has self identified ardent supporters that make me ill. I support Bernie Sanders, I can't stand some of his other supporters and I don't have to. They are not my family. If Hillary is the nominee, I support her in spite of the fact that some of her supporters are very much not to my liking. I don't have to like them. I'm not voting for them.

To win a national election, any candidate needs millions of votes. Any group containing millions will contain all sorts of people. It will also contain people who claim to be supporting only to undermine. These facts mean that anyone who favors or rejects any candidate based on random persons self associating with that candidate is engaged in chumpish behavior.
Think for yourself, look with your own eyes and look at the candidate you are considering not the person who claims to be in charge of your thinking about that candidate.

[Armstead]

91. Yep. The only single thing supporters of a candidate have in common is....

their support for a particular candidate.

Beyond that, it's a mixed bag of "it takes all kinds..."

[For Freddie]

68. Maybe they are...

Republicans that is. I always wondered who they would pay off to knock Hillary out and take her down. And now it appears they planted them among our dear Berners. I LOVE Bernie. If he is the nominee I am behind him 100%. If not I don't care if they put Satan up I will vote for Old Nick.

I no longer have the energy to put into primaries. And there are so many out there too busy raising their kids and making a living, or trying to, who do not have the energy to spare for the bickering here. "Spirited Debate" is not something that is "fun" for those of us in survival mode, it is a rather elitist luxury of those comfortable and well fed enough to expend the time, energy and endocrinology, set up by "founding fathers" of democrazies. And all those guys had servants so they could sit around in their puffy shirts and pontificate.
Raised cortisol and outrage ARE a luxury, none of us can afford without universal health care. This is a well known conservative strategy taken from old LDS culture called "Bleeding the Beast".

If Bernie is the nominee we won't be ALLOWED to win. Do you honestly believe at this late date ,being part of a Global Capitalist Economy they will LET Bernie be president? Really? Like we have any control of any of this? For "them" Bernie is a great steam valve letting them see just how the wind is blowing. Then they will take that and use it and massage it and make it media worthy in some way. You think they will allow another Winter Palace? A universal complete change? I think not. To get that takes more than one election.And a lot more people in the streets and not on our asses in front of computers.
So... I keep me blood pressure down and abstain from the bar fights.

I often wonder when broken down how it lines up with women
and men in this bar fight. I get the wiff of testosterone run amuck lately. Boys like to go to war one way or other as an outlet for all the pent up emotion. And it is SO easy to do so on the computer. It seems to come out here largely between males. On the other hand when some one passes or there is trouble more women turn up. Not that we girls aren't capable of fearsome power.

However, the War Sports model is too alive and well here. The War Sports model IS Capitalism.
Maybe we all need to step back and ponder on the wisdom that fighting of ANY kind is based on FEAR. And there seems to be a lot of folks here scared shitless. This is not strength. This is NOT Strength. Strength is RESPECT, KINDNESS and HUMAN VALUES. As soon as we flip out on each other we have "lost".

We may not always be able to agree but we can always
express Respect and Human Kindness. We DO NOT HAVE TO GO TO WAR WITH EACH OTHER. It seems the pent up rage and frustration many of us carry toward our family of origin Republicans, who hurt and frustrate us, we deem acceptable to unload here on our DU family. In-fighting was one of Karl's and Lee Atwater's most successful tricks. And they never deviate from that play book much. "Reality TV" seems to be the "new thing" for them now. Which is only Morton Downey Jr. all over again.

THIS CONFLICT HERE WEAKENS ALL OF US. "THEY" have won doing this dividing up and polarizing us with vehemence. "War, What is it good for. Absolutely Nothing". But great profits for the Demon Class. Their greatest goal was to knock out Hillary and there is a lot of money to spend to make that happen. And much of it is happening right here. Hillary isn't perfect. She has flaws.
Just like Obama is not responsible for everything bad in the world, neither is Hillary. Bernie isn't perfect either. No one is perfect.
We are being played.

[MindfulOne]

108. "I actually liked Bernie before I 'met' some of his supporters on DU."

[PowerToThePeople]

46. I have not been comfortable on DU for years

until Bernie. DU was way too right wing for a long time. I am glad for the new leftist strength on this board.

[LannyDeVaney]

59. Please, the Primary forum has turned into a Bernie echo chamber...

[merrily]

64. Are Bernie's supporters responsible for the lack of positive posts about Hillary, too?

Jeebus, just no end to OUR failings, is there?

Hillary's supporters were a minority on this board to begin with. Skinner started Hillary mojo for them and they started their own board as well. On top of all that, she has been in semi seclusion more than Bernie has.

If you want more wonderful posts about Hillary in the Primary forum, get to posting them and try to convince others to do the same. Bernie's supporters are not going to post them for you, nor will they stop posting positive things about their own candidate.

[For Freddie]

74. Young Folks

This is the first time in their lives many of them have even heard anything like Bernie. It excites them and gives them hope. It "restores" faith in our politics. They were not alive during FDR or 1968 or JFK or MLK or Malcolm. They have never experienced this in real life in their life times. So they are excited and militant. They are young. So they go overboard. They are impatient. That is the nature of being young and having energy.

Bernie has been needed to restore the dream that we live in a
representative Democracy and we are not just a cog in the great wheel of Global Capitalism. Bernie restores some of the feeling
the people are heard. And all the fairy tales about the Constitution and the "Democratic Process" is still alive.

Everyone is disgusted with everything political in our culture now,
exhausted. And if they want to hold sham elections they desperately need new strategy and something to attract the young back into believing in it. Hedge Fund folks are saying the pitchforks are coming and change has to happen, so it is beyond the time for some balance to be present. Like always, the rich take it over the line. The rich dip into their own product and can't stay straight themselves. They decay out. Donald Trump is a visual reminder of how that works.

I am not so sure I believe this. That it is not just one more
game to keep the Big Game going. A big Hail Mary to keep the illusion of democrazy alive in a new generation in the age of
instant information.

For now we have a lot of excited kids of all ages participating in politics in a way they haven't for a long time. People are jacked up.
And it all comes out here on the DU. So I excuse them all.
But it would be nice if everyone could be a little kinder to each other. We are all One Family here.

[olddots]

62. is discussion and or debate on line more about action/reaction ?

[Todays_Illusion]

63. Ok Armstead I agree and I can say that as someone who only stops in now and then,

I find the largest problem on this site is the control exercised by the lefty libertarian third way members.
They are entirely dishonest in their failure to identify the policies and ideas they are promoting.

[merrily]

65. what on earth is a "lefty libertarian third way member?"

[Todays_Illusion]

69. You can identify them by what they promote and the ideas they support.

Right now until November of 2016, they will be creating as much disruption among the Democratic as possible and promoting their own libertarian as Democratic candidates.

Can you identify the libertarian Democratic?

[merrily]

71. See Reply 65. In this race, third way is represented most closely by Hillary and the left of the

Democratic Party, but not left libertarians, most closely by Sanders. You've made up a nonsensical or oxymoronic compound term, so no, I can't identify what you mean by it or I would not have asked. See also replies 53 and 60.

[Maedhros]

106. Gotta agree with Merrily - you are making no sense. [n/t]

[FSogol]

72. LOL, you know, the radical liberal/conservative, hot/cold, light/dark, pro-choice/pro-life,

boxers/brief-wearing, wet/dry, blond/brunette, living/dead type of person.

[merrily]

76. I know who you mean, and I hope that fucker stops disrupting "the Democratic" yesterday.

Never liked him/her/it.

[Todays_Illusion]

82. Honestly I am trying to discern some meaning from your comment but haven't found any so far.

Are you saying the libertarians promote the different definition of the ideas?

Or are you like libertarians everywhere claiming there is no difference in being pro-reproductive rights and anti-reproductive rights?

[FSogol]

86. You don't see the nonsensical oxymoron in you post?

Pity. Just keep slapping labels on things, regardless of whether they make sense or not.

[Todays_Illusion]

117. I see that as a signal this discussion is over.

[bigwillq]

73. If folks feel uncomfortable, that's their problem

This is a discussion board filled with folks most of us have never met. I could never allow myself to feel uncomfortable in this setting. Why anyone takes any of us seriously is beyond me.

[Todays_Illusion]

85. That would be your personal view and ignores all the angst that occurs on this site and you are

wrong, if the personally directed attacks weren't harmful, they would vanish. They are a cruel tool to stop discussion.
The conservative think tanks develop many of the attack talking points for exactly that purpose.

[Maedhros]

107. Can you give some examples of the talking points developed by the conservative think tanks

so that I can understand exactly to what you're referring?

[Todays_Illusion]

110. Remember the Heritage Found and other conservative sites and their directions to the tea party sign

writers. Not to mention the standard daily deliverings on talk radio, and that cloud of email forwards, of course one of the earliest two talking point lies are:

All liberals are anti-war peace-nik hippie druggies
cleverly at the same time promoting the talking point, all liberals are Democratic devils who started the Vietnam War.

[Maedhros]

114. Have you seen that kind of rhetoric on DU?

Granted, I have most of the asshats on ignore, but I would be surprised to see that here.

[Todays_Illusion]

124. Perhaps I need a list of the asshats. I frequent a site that allows unlimited user IDs so habitually

dont' pay much attention to user names. I forget that I am at good old third way lefty libertarian DU.

[Maedhros]

125. What do you mean by "third way lefty libertarian?"

"Third Way", "Lefty", and "Libertarian" are for the most part exclusive of one another.

[Todays_Illusion]

129. Maedhros, I am not a poly sci teacher, just another internet liberal. If you haven't untangled the

political dialog of the different groups, and to me one way is,

Traditional U.S. Conservatives.
Bircher/Heritage Conservatives.
Bircher/libertarian Conservatives, conversely includes the atheists and the bible thumpers.
The newer tech libertarians, and from here the deceptive liberal sounding gibberish and the name third way Democratic, progressives, populists, left libertarian. They pose as liberal and are elected as Democratic. By their home pages you can find them. Compare the pages of the two Senators from Oregon for an example of a liberal Democratic, Merkel and a libertrian Democratic Wyden.

Each group has its own special dictionary of terms and policy issues they specifically promote or attack.

[Maedhros]

132. I disagree with your interpretations. [n/a]

[Todays_Illusion]

133. Thanks for the one sided dialog.

You solicited my opinion and are unwilling to share your own.

[For Freddie]

88. Family

For some this is a Family or Community much like the Civil Rights Movement was, where folks felt connected to each other on a deeper level. This is a VERY diverse community. Of differing genders, race, age. So some approach this with more RESPECT, because we are aware there are other Human Beings on the other end. We are not sending our thoughts and yes, our feelings, out into a vacume. There are Hearts and Souls out there.

To take the detached anonymous stance is a youthful practice. Snark comes easy to the young. And they don't give a rats ass about "feelings". Because someone is not in your face physically many feel "safe" and above it all. Detached. The NSA notes this as it is a marker of sociopaths and serial murders.

Now some of us have been put in jail, beaten and deprived of our voting rights. Some of us have been raped, beaten and abused. Some of us do not have a home or food all the time to eat. So the detachment aloof stance is not ours. Some of us were raped in prison. Some of us lost children and mates to war. Some of us live lives where PTSD is a reality of everyday.

So detached and snark is no longer present.
So.. Dear bigwillq of the GIANTS. THIS is why some take things more seriously than you do. It is great you have that sense of humor. But not everyone is YOU. Detachment is a state of being often reserved for the safe, well fed, privileged more likely young male and white. In Amurika this is how it rolls.

And YES you are correct
it is "their" problem. But it might also be yours in your lack of empathy and kindness. You sound very young. My most wise
caution is WAIT, in time you too will "feel uncomfortable" in some way and understand.

[NealK]

113. +1

[ancianita]

80. Comfort shouldn't be valued over truth in DU. Now isn't the time for "comfortable." Now is the time

to truthfully foreground and prioritize issues that affect everyone in this country.

To afflict the comfortable and to comfort the afflicted is a human value more honored in the breach than in the observance in this country.

I'm all for taking a break, but that's how the other guys also tend to get ahead.

I'm all for unity, not uniformity. And sorting out our truths is more important than comfort.

Thanks for bringing up the ideas about how we do that. Just wanted to add mine.

[Todays_Illusion]

87. When does delivering truth require a personal insult? I believe it is the personal attacks Armstead

believes are quite out of control here.

[ancianita]

89. I do agree with that. Absolutely. I'm all for reminding each other of that.

[Skidmore]

95. It is not just supporters of candidates but there has been concerted effort for some time

put toward running off women and people of color here, some of whom were longstanding members. For people claiming to embrace a wide coalition, the tent is being made dangerously small.

[Armstead]

97. I don't agree.

[Skidmore]

103. You are wrong.

This has happened.

[Armstead]

115. Its much more complicated than that

No "side" is at fault and no "side" is blameless.

A lot of different factors have been involved.

[liberal_at_heart]

123. I'm a woman. I don't feel like anyone has tried to run me off because I'm a woman.

I have felt like some would prefer I leave because I don't automatically support any Democratic candidate. For me, a candidate has to earn my vote and I get told to shut up and vote Democratic and then get blamed if the Republicans win. That is what runs me off the board. I have been using my ignore button a lot lately. I don't put up with that crap anymore. The ignore button helps me behave more because I don't feel the need to respond to the bullying because I don't have to see it.

[Blue_Tires]

126. +1

[LWolf]

127. I agree with that.

I have nothing to say at all about the supporters of other candidates, except that I wish some would spend more time talking about their candidates than other DUers.

I'm all about issues.

[workinclasszero]

130. This is no longer a democratic board

Its a Bernie Sander's board. Most Hillary supporters have been run off or banned.

The jury system is packed with Bernie supporters who aren't interested if being fair to other viewpoints.