Hillary big winner in Democratic Forum

[Cosmic Kitten]

She won the award for....
most words uttered WITHOUT
actually saying anything meaningful
or providing any pragmatic proposals
and using the most slippery political speak
of the three candidates.

When asked if shes and introvert or extrovert...
she's an "intro-extrovert"!!! lulz
Maybe even she doesn't know who she is?

Shes still pretending she was a leader
against the financial crimes of her
constituents (Wall St) when she told
them to "cut it out".
Of course they didn't listen to her,
so she failed to provide leadership.

And she shamelessly invoked families
and victims of our violent culture,
without providing any practical plan
to address the origins of violence...
while pretending it's a *gun" issue.

Maybe if she reflect on the mindset
of "we came, we saw, he died" she would
understand why sociopaths think violence
is acceptable.
And how her callous disregard for human life
is at the core of the violence epidemic?

She's *winning*

[RBInMaine]

1. She did fine, continued to appear thoughtful and presidential, and she will win the nomination.

Love Bernie, but he won't win the nomination. He's a declared socialist and was never even a member of the party. Not gonna happen.

[Cosmic Kitten]

3. She did fine if you don't want substance.

She *appears* lots of things
to lots of people, she's a politician.

People who vote for a candidate
who *appears* presidential will
vote for Ben Carson, or Hillary,
because they are NOT LISTENING
or LOOKING at what the candidates
are ACTUALLY saying or doing.

In fact, that's how Bush Jr was elected
people "wanted to have a beer" with him

[JaneyVee]

5. You think Ben Carson looks presidential??

[Cosmic Kitten]

38. The *Polls* show the GOP does

I live in a dark red county,
rural agricultural, lots of
confederate flags, AND...
as many Carson bumper stickers
as Trump stickers.

Carson does *appear* presidential
to GOP voters, voters who hate Obama
because of his race, and sochulist politics.
Merica!

[JaneyVee]

42. We're not Republicans. YOU said he looked presidential.

[Cosmic Kitten]

61. Show me where I said he looks presidential

People who vote for a candidate
who *appears* presidential will
vote for Ben Carson, or Hillary,
because they are NOT LISTENING
or LOOKING at what the candidates
are ACTUALLY saying or doing.

pitiful

[SheilaT]

73. Yeah, I remember that crap about people

"wanted to have a beer" with Bush. Which struck me as beyond creepy. Back in 2000 he was pretty much the last man I'd want to have a beer with. In fact, his smarminess reminded too much of guys I had known, some of whom I'd had a date or two with back in my younger days. One date was always more than enough, and after a while I knew enough to say no to even a first date with a guy like that.

Actually, it could be sort of fun and amusing to select a candidate and the drink you'd have with them.

I could probably knock back a cosmo or two with Hillary. With Bernie, I'd have a glass of red wine, not sure what he'd be drinking. Alas, I don't have a good enough sense of O'Malley to say what I'd drink with him. If he's a beer guy, then I'd be having a nice IPA, but if he orders a Coors or a Bud Lite, then I'm outta here.

[Cosmic Kitten]

77. Ditto on the O'Malley

[Armstead]

87. Bernie would be nursing beer.

Some basic brand.

[Plucketeer]

84. Yeah

"appear" and "be" are two different things. Obama "appeared" to be at least somewhat progressive. What he turned out to BE was something somewhat short of that.

[riversedge]

2. Whow-a post full of hate. Nothing new from you though.

[Cosmic Kitten]

7. No hate.

Hillary is not leadership material.

The Clinton Doctrine is a catastrophic failure.

She is a pro-war, pro-corporate politician.

She offeres NOTHING for the majority
of the Public, except an opportunity to
vote AGAINST their own self-interests.

No hate, just a clear eyed, pragmatic
assessment of a candidate who has failed
to provide meaningful leadership in her career.

[Awknid]

57. My husband says she's a

Manager type personality. Very quick, very sharp, but goes too far into details too fast. To be a leader one has to keep the big picture in mind at all times. Mrs. Clinton has many good qualities, but leadership is not one.

[Bernie-2016]

140. She is a follower

So far she is adapting Bernie's policies as her own with trumpeting noisy spin. Her campaign is now more or less "Everything Bernie says, but pretend I said it first" kind of campaign.

She either authored or assisted in creating parts of the TPP agreement, and she now opposes what she did. I think that sounds like something that she would give up on later and pretend that she was against for it.

[earthside]

10. Hate?

The OP is a political critique; it has a point of view.

It is not hate ... unless the Hillary sycophants really have descended to the level that any criticism of Mrs. Clinton is 'hate'.

That kind of labelling does nothing for the civility of the discourse here or anywhere else.

But sadly what has come to be expected from Clinton supporters.

[Cosmic Kitten]

15. Some seek to drag the discourse down...

in hopes of baiting others into ToS violations.

They swarm and alert stalk to silence
any dissenting views, then try to turn
black to white and assert victim status.

It's getting very transparent.

[Skidmore]

29. Your post

elevates discourse in what manner? Please enlighten me?

[Cosmic Kitten]

41. The Emperor wears no clothes

[Skidmore]

59. ?

[NuclearDem]

40. Nobody who uses "lulz" as part of their "politician critique"

gets to complain about the lowering of political discourse.

[Cosmic Kitten]

44. Oh really? What page and paragraph in the handbook is that rule found?

[NuclearDem]

55. No rulebook. It's just not expected from somebody over the age of 15.

[aspirant]

58. Again, the expected rules handbook.

[NurseJackie]

119. Thank you. (y)

[Cal33]

94. Please read "Confession from a Hillary Shill" by Le Taz Hot in the following link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251773551

I wonder how many others are being paid by the Hillary campaign to post here..

[NuclearDem]

118. You mean the story that was deleted by the Reddit moderators when the poster

couldn't provide a shred of proof?

[Cal33]

125. I haven't read the post you're talking about, but this one looks like a good enough evidence.

[JTFrog]

128. I thought only Fox Viewers believed everything they read on the internet or were spoon fed.

Unbelievable that people are still trying to link that shit here.

Whatever floats your boat I guess.

[SheilaT]

76. At the risk of being a bit

pedantic, it does appear as if any comment about Hillary Clinton that is not glowing praise about her is perceived here as being hate. They don't even seem to understand that there can be valid differences of opinion about her, or that one might think her Iraq War Vote was wrong, and someone else think it was a huge mistake. Two differences of opinion, but they will invariably cast the first one as hating her.

[LibDemAlways]

114. In response to a lengthy, snarky post dissing Bernie voters yesterday, I mentioned that

it would be wise for Hillary supporters to be more focused on her positives rather than reflexively tearing into those backing Bernie in the primary -- especially since she would need their support if she wins the nomination. My post was in no way hateful or disrespectful. However, it was met with outrage and indignation by the pro Hillary crowd, who repeatedly accused me of "making a threat." Absolutey ridiculous. If you are supporting a candidate, you should be able to explain what makes that candidate attractive without resorting to mean-spirited attacks on those who prefer someone else.

[Cal33]

85. To you, anyone who mentions some negative aspects of Hillary must be "full of hate." Not

a word from you challenging whether or not the contents of what was said contained any
truth.

[coyote]

90. Hate? More like the truth...

And yes sometimes the truth hurts.

[JaneyVee]

4. A year before the financial crisis she brought numerous bills to the floor.

Short term memory: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/15/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/

[Cosmic Kitten]

9. But she FAILED to effect meaningful leadership

IOW, she innefective, can't deliver,
all talk no results.

We don't need a feckless president.

[JaneyVee]

12. Bernie's been in govt 40 years... How has he...

Reigned in Wall Street? Helped income inequality?

Hillary had to deal with Bush. Bernie can't even effect Obama.

[Cosmic Kitten]

18. You rationalize Hillary's FAIL, by draging Bernie into the discussion

How about you tell us about
how Hillary the *pragmatic moderate*
gets things done?

In order to *appear* presidential
she should have some accomplishments
to illustrate why she deserve to *appear*
presidential, right?

IS regime change in Syria and Libya
examples of her foreign policy successes?

[JaneyVee]

30. You failed to do your homework so now you're moving goal posts.

Again, Hillary was bringing bills to address wall st a year before crash. Where's Bernie's pre-crash bills?

[Armstead]

37. Bernie fighting to stop Wall St. excesses? You can start in the 1990's

He was among the progressives who were fighting to stop the disastrous policies that were being inflicted back in the 90's, when the Clinton and Corporate Democrats were praising Alan Greenspan's right wing economic policy.

If people had listened to Bernie and other real progressives back then, we could have avoided a lot of subsequent crap, and we'd be a lot better off.

And before you say he was ineffective.....Well yeah. He and a small faction of progressive Dems were not able to overcome the combined muscle of the Clinton/DLC/Wall St. machine and GOP who were pushing us onto the path toward the cliff, through financial deregulation combined with Favored Nation Trade status for China, free trade, etc.

[JaneyVee]

45. And we're talking about effectiveness.

[Cosmic Kitten]

51. Wall St REGULATES Congress.

We need a Political Revolution.

Got a link to Hillary telling NASDAQ
to "Cut IT Out"?

[JaneyVee]

53. Still moving those goal posts! Bernie: 40 years in govt. 0 effect.

Show me Bernie's pre-crash bills.

[aspirant]

60. Hills presents bills and the economy crashes

That's some success.

[JaneyVee]

91. She had Bush to deal with. What's Bernie's excuse for...

Getting nothing done with a Dem super majority?

[aspirant]

95. Aren't Bush and Clinton buddies?

Didn't Hillary deal with Bush by supporting his phony Iraq War?

[Armstead]

120. So am I

The Clintons DLC and their big money allies and the GOP were very effective an ramming things through that were not good for us. People like Bernie, Wellstone and others who tried to stop bad things were steamrolled by Big Money, Big Power and Big Media.

Bernie isn't Superman. No he wasn't effective at single handidly stopping crap that Big Money/Power pushed through.

No matter that they effectively screwed us up royally ( see a monopolistic economy, crash of 2008, falling middle/class working class,concentration of wealth at the top, deserted industrial cities, poor thrown to wolves, etc.).

Difference now is that things got so bad that more people are waking up to the bullshit, and challenging it in greater numbers. Big Money and Big Power don;t want to let go of their grip

That's what this is about. Not how many goddamn bills Bernie was able to push through a bought and sold Congress.

[Cosmic Kitten]

46. Still cannot show any Hillary accomplisments?

[JaneyVee]

50. 40 years. Zero effectiveness.

Get over it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

52. So there are NO Hillary Successes to post up?

[JaneyVee]

54. You first.

[aspirant]

62. The "Champion" has no successes and "no clothes"

[Historic NY]

81. THey certainly do...

Press Release - Senator Clinton Calls for Immediate Action to Strengthen Financial Market Regulation and Help Keep Families in Their Homes
March 31, 2008


To help move the debate beyond words, working groups and white papers, Senator Clinton called for six immediate steps to strengthen regulation of our financial markets and address our immediate housing and credit crises.


Establish a federal minimum standard for mortgage originators, including subjecting mortgage originators to minimum licensing, supervision and capital requirements, and bringing mortgage bankers more fully under the scope of the Community Reinvestment Act.

Immediate action to enable more effective near-term management of systemic risk, which would, at minimum, subject all institutions that are eligible to access the Federal Reserve's credit to regulations equivalent to commercial banks.

More transparency and oversight of new, exotic financial products like complex derivatives that have exploded in recent years, including ensuring that financial institutions which hold, or are parties to, complex instruments like collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps are subject to minimum capital requirements.

Strengthen the independence of, and reduce conflicts-of-interest for, rating agencies.

Strengthen consumer protections for credit cards and student loans with an immediate annual interest rate cap of 30 percent on all credit cards - and a directive to regulators to work toward a lower cap.

Immediate action to keep families in their homes by pushing forward on Representative Frank and Senator Dodd's legislation to expand the FHA's capacity to guarantee restructured mortgages and by standing ready to have the Federal Housing Administration purchase at risk mortgages to help unlock our mortgage market and keep families in their homes.


http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=96569

[NurseJackie]

6. "She's *winning*" ..... Looking at the polls and trends, I'd say you're correct.

[JaneyVee]

8. Winning is correct.

[Cosmic Kitten]

11. Ah, the ole, "polls" retort

A survey of 1000 people
is NO MEASURE of millions.

Voters can be fooled, but the
majority are not stupid.

The polls show the majority KNOW
Hillary is untrustworthy, and they don't
trust her.

How do you like those poll numbers?

[JaneyVee]

14. Actually, polling is very accurate.

[leftofcool]

21. Now, Janey, how can they be accurate if they don't come from Reddit?

[riversedge]

39. Chuckle.

[aspirant]

65. giggle, giggle

[aspirant]

64. Because they come from the corrupt MSM

[Cosmic Kitten]

22. Very accurate under what definition?

That the majority believe
Hillary is untrustworthy?

So if polls are *very accurate*
Hillary is indeed untrustworthy?

[JaneyVee]

35. Very accurate as in +/-4 margin of error.

Let me know when Bernie pulls within MOE.

[Cosmic Kitten]

66. For any who are interested, Obama vs Hillary POLL trendlines...

At this time, Nov, 7, 2007
Hillary was *leading in the polls*
46 to 23...
and then *poof* she lost

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

[NurseJackie]

79. It's not 2007. Bernie is not Obama. (And Hillary is MUCH stronger than before.)

I know that the truth can be painful and disappointing. Keep hanging on to hope. It may soften the thud of reality when Sanders doesn't win the nomination.

[Cosmic Kitten]

93. OK, whatever lol

The thud of reality is going to be
the 99% of the public taking on the oligarchs.

There is a revolution brewing.
No one on Main St give a hoot
for Hillary, and she won't get enough
votes to beat the republicans.

This is the anti-establishment election.

[aspirant]

63. Like the Kentucky polls?

[JaneyVee]

80. Depends on the organization.

But reputable pollsters are very good at what they do.

[aspirant]

86. Which pollsters are "scientific"

and can be verified and proven?

[NurseJackie]

23. I know you're trying to be serious, but it's actually very amusing.

Polls can't be trusted!!! How can a poll of 1000 represent millions?!!
Look! Here's an online poll I found! It says Hillary can't be trusted!!
So there! Mnyahh! What do you think of that??! Explain THAT!!

But, I guess I have to admire your "passion". It leaves very little doubt in my mind as to why you follow Bernie. It's a perfect match.

[Cosmic Kitten]

34. Illustrating the absurd with absurdity?

Political polls serve to persuade not predict.
Or they serve to determine how best to pander.


If Hillary supporters want to use polls
to construct their narrative, they need
to embrace the negative poll results as well.

Pretending a poll shows inevitably, while
simultaneously showing vulnerability,
clearly illustrates the absurdity of
presenting polling data as anything meaningful.

[NurseJackie]

43. I understand how denying the validity of scientific poll trends would be of great comfort to you.

Considering Bernie's numbers, his trends, and his actual chances of being the nominee, I can understand where the rage is coming from.

Take comfort in the fact that Bernie has helped to shape the discussion and he's been able to use the nomination process to get his message out there. He hasn't been a TOTAL failure.

But he WILL FAIL to be nominated.

[aspirant]

67. "scientific" verify, replicate and prove it.

[NurseJackie]

70. Good advice for pollsters. (I'm not a pollster.)

[aspirant]

74. But you advocate for your friendly pollster

When you are on the same team you should back each other up.

[Cosmic Kitten]

72. Scientifically valid is not the same are accurate

Just because a data set is
statistically accurate does NOT
mean it reflects reality accurately.

Heaven and Hell are *real*
according to Gallop Poll!

Since 1997, belief in heaven has ranged between 72% and 83%. According to Gallup's most recent May 2004 Values and Beliefs poll*, 81% of Americans currently say they believe in heaven, 10% are unsure, and 8% do not believe. As expected, regular churchgoers are more likely than others to say they believe: Virtually all (98%) of those who attend church weekly do so versus 89% who attend "nearly weekly" and 64% of those who say they attend church seldom or never.

Belief in heaven is relatively high across all other demographic groups. The relatively high religiosity of Republicans is reflected here: 90% say they believe in heaven, compared with 82% of Democrats and 72% of political independents. Nonwhites are somewhat more likely than whites to believe in heaven (89% compared with 80%). Regionally, Southerners are somewhat more likely to believe in heaven (90%) than those in other regions are. Those with a high school education or less are more likely to believe than those with at least some college education.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/11770/eternal-destinations-americans-believe-heaven-hell.aspx

Well, we can't argue with the
well respected Gallup poll,
nor those polled!

The poll is SCIENTIFICALLY VALID therefor;
HEAVEN EXISTS!

[NurseJackie]

97. A silly example, but I understand what you're saying. I always have. But it's wishful thinking.

Such valiant efforts show a level of desperation that I've never seen before. In your heart, you know that Bernie is doomed to fail. Comparing polls about religion to political polls does not change the validity, methods, or accuracy of the political polls you happen to disagree with. Comparing oranges to baseballs won't change the fact that he's not going to be the nominee.

You may as well be arguing and trying to convince me: "Oranges are round. Oranges taste good. Baseballs are round. Therefore baseballs taste good."

You'll fail at that just as much as you've failed to convince me that the polls and trendlines are wrong.

[aspirant]

102. Then prove your polls are right

Pick any poll you choose and call the pollsters and get names and #'s of all respondents so we can verify and replicate there results insuring no respondent was counted multiple times.

If you can't convince us, then you fail

[Cosmic Kitten]

107. If there is desperation, it's about Hillary losing, AGAIN

It's her turn, right.

The Clinton Doctrine, corporate cronyism
pandering to the left, *evolution*, etc
all speaks to how uncertain and insecure
Hillary's campaign actually is.

She can't point to any success as SoS.
She had to *evolve* and is still fighting
the culture war from the 1990's.
She has no *bedrock principles*.
And she's pandering to the left of Bernie,
who actually has bedrock principles.

You are the one trying to convince
others that Hillary is INEVITABLE,
because polls.

[aspirant]

109. You don't change "bedrock principles"

coming from the heart.

When you change your fluctuating mind it can come from anywhere

[NurseJackie]

111. None of this matters. (Well, I'm sure it matters to you.) However …

… Bernie will not be the nominee. No matter how angry you get, Bernie will not be the nominee. No matter how absurd your argument or accusation, Bernie will not be the nominee. It's not going to happen. You are in the minority. As passionate as you may be about the issues that are important to you, and the candidate you like the most, you're still in the minority. Bernie won't win unless he gets more votes than Hillary. No amount of badgering or arguing will change that simple fact.

Yes, Hillary's nomination is (to use your word) inevitable. Time to face the truth. I know it's going to be difficult for you at first, but you seem like a determined and resilient individual. You'll come through just fine.

[Ed Suspicious]

112. Broken record.

Bernie will not... Bernie will not.. Bernie will not.

[Armstead]

121. You are selectively looking at polls yourself

yeah polls show she is ahead in the primary.

But polls from the same sources also show that she either comes very close or loses to GOP opponents. They also show that a lot of people who are non partisan Democrats don't like or trust her.

Polls also show that in match ups, Sanders generally does either better, or about the same give-or-take as Clinton.

That may or may not change. But you canl;t cherry pick, and then accuse others of cherry picking.

[NuclearDem]

49. "A survey of 1000 people is NO MEASURE of millions."

You would benefit from taking a statistics course, or at least looking up explanations of how sampling works.

[aspirant]

69. Prove any poll is "scientific"

"trust us" is not a "scientific" calculation

Get the all contact names and #'s so we can verify that respondents were not counted multiple times.

[Cosmic Kitten]

88. Benchmarks, weighting, sample bias....

Graduate level research methods and statistics.

A *random sample* of 1000 ping pong balls
is NOTHING like the *random sample*
of 1000 telephone interviews.

In order to get 1000 interviews the
polling agency needs to call nearly
10,000 numbers. 90% refusal rate.

So between no answers, and refusals
those who do participate are essentially
*self-selected* in that they agree to the poll.

Because that population is inherently outside
the mainstream, benchmarks and various
weighting needs to be applied to ensue the
results more credibly reflect the general population.

Would you give any credence to a survey that
says 600 people would vote for Hillary,
or does 60% sound more impressive.

[Godhumor]

113. You know, I tried. I really tried to help you with your baffling beliefs when it comes to statistics

But it is clear that isn't what you wanted. So I am going to simply say that your understanding of statistical analysis is nothing more than a hodge podge of buzzwords combined with conspiracy level misunderstandings on the very basics of the science of polling.

If you ever feel like actually learning how this works let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to leave you to just charge the windmills.

[Cosmic Kitten]

124. OK, lets start a thread hich speaking to political polling

I think it would be useful and
instructive to have and open
and intellectually honest
discussion about the use
and misuse of polling.

Claiming something is
*scientifically valid* has
no bearing on whether
it reflects any*reality*,
as many here either believe
or pretend to believe.

Start a thread with the basic premise
regarding political polling and the
use or misuse of data to support a position.

[Hepburn]

13. People also elected Reagan -- does that mean he is a "winner"

So does that mean that he or she who is ahead is the best?

[COLGATE4]

16. As in "he won the election"? Yes, yes he is.

[Cosmic Kitten]

25. Well, Saint Ronny did *appear* presidential!

People will fall for a candidate
who says nothing but looks
good acting the part of President.

[Hepburn]

47. It was his "Gumby" hair cut, right? n/t

[riversedge]

20. Who do unions support? .@HillaryClinton overwhelmingly! Hillary is the choice of labor!

JW4Hillary ‏@JW4Hillary 2m2 minutes ago

Who do unions support? .@HillaryClinton overwhelmingly! Hillary is the choice of labor! #HillYes #ImWithHer pic.twitter.com/igjf6RNhiW

:large

[Cosmic Kitten]

26. BZZZZ, wrong, Union LEADERS support Hillary NOT labor

Proximity to power is a strong aphrodisiac

[JaneyVee]

32. I'm a union member, surrounded by union members at my job.

You were saying?

[Cosmic Kitten]

96. What job is that?

Are you a steamfitter, an electrician...

[cantbeserious]

17. Well Said - HRC - The Biggest Loser

eom

[leftofcool]

19. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[riversedge]

24. Refreshing that @HillaryClinton didn't need to attack or otherwise mention Sanders or O'Malley to ma

WolfNW @WolfNW

Refreshing that @HillaryClinton didn't need to attack or otherwise mention Sanders or O'Malley to make her points. @maddow #MSNBC2016

Nancy Counter ‏@easynan2 12h12 hours ago

@WolfNW @nhdogmom @HillaryClinton @maddow Both Sanders and O'Malley had to make their digs, obviously not comfortable within themselves
3 retweets 7 likes

[Cosmic Kitten]

28. Not so good she tossed many words without substance

I would say borderline word salad.

It's looks un-presidential when a candidate
cannot make bold statement of position
and leave the viewer feeling they have
just been sold snake oil.

It's why the majority think she is
UNTRUSTWORTHY, political doublespeak.

[riversedge]

31. So sorry you were tuned into your Recording of the last Republican debate. But good news...

I hear msnbc will do a rerun today.

[Cosmic Kitten]

27. Why? do you earn points for posts?

[Fred Sanders]

92. I will join you....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....wake me up when someone has a proper analysis not laden

with pre-packaged derision.

Every time Clinton takes the stage she only gets better and more refined in her presentation and details of issues.....what 20 minutes will allow.

Compare and contrast to anything the enemy camp* has to offer.

* meaning the GOP, for those not sure where the enemy camp is

[Cosmic Kitten]

98. Because power point presentations = *presidential*

[Fred Sanders]

99. What equals Presidential to folks? Educating the folks is a good idea...visual aides are actually a

good thing!

Why do you hate education?

Sorry, still zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Cosmic Kitten]

103. Lulz

[Reter]

33. Can you link it, I missed it

Also what is the difference between a forum and a debate?

[Cosmic Kitten]

36. No link I know of MSNBC copyright stuffs

Forum is moderator addresses
the candidates one at a time.

Debate allows candidates to
address or rebut one another.

Although what passes for debate
today is hardly a real debate by
traditional standards.

[TheFarseer]

48. she just spouts platitudes

On gun control and police brutality, she just kept telling anecdotes but never had a policy or a solution. I know choking Eric Gardner to death was wrong. What are you going to do about it? You have no idea from listening to her.

[Cosmic Kitten]

56. ^^^^ You get it ^^^^

Political weasel speak.

She invokes the emotional
buzzwords but has NO PLAN
to address what everone knows
is wrong.

Maybe she will write a sternly
worded letter or do some finger
wagging to solve our social crisis?

because she offers no solution.

[aspirant]

71. No solutions = Non-Presidential

[Auggie]

68. Exactly

[ismnotwasm]

75. ...

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[quickesst]

78. The rolling around...

....laughing smilie is one I never use. Just looks fake, insincere, and looks as though he's doing it because he thinks petty insults are somehow.....clever. I'm talking about the rolling around laughing smilie.

[Volaris]

82. By every measure I can judge, Hillary Clinton is an INTJ personality type.

Same mental processing aptitude as Don Rumsfeld, she's just a smarter human being.
She's had to LEARN how to be in the Public Eye, because it's not her natural state of being. To that, I give her enormous credit, as it can't have been an easy thing for her to learn and she's dedicated herself to the learning process itself and done a good job to this point. But when INTJS are wrong, they are MASSIVELY SO (see unknown unknowns for a reference) and that bothers me, it's not a quality I prefer in a President

[Cosmic Kitten]

100. I was thinking Narcissist

With a heaping helping of shame
imparted by her emotionally
abusive father.

(according to what's been written about her)

In this leafy environment of postwar promise and prosperity, the Rodhams were distinctly a family of odd ducks, isolated from their neighbors by the difficult character of her father, Hugh Rodham, a sour, unfulfilled man whose children suffered his relentless, demeaning sarcasm and misanthropic inclination, endured his embarrassing parsimony, and silently accepted his humiliation and verbal abuse of their mother.
http://www.carlbernstein.com/awic_excerpt.php

[treestar]

130. You dislike another Democrat that much?

As to get into this? I mean it's one thing to prefer one Democrat over another for an office, but this level of hate is beyond me. I could only hate Republicans that much.

[UglyGreed]

83. Hillary has been the big winner

since the campaign began. No need to have any others run since she is the chosen one.

[JoePhilly]

89. Sounds like you could use some ...

[Cosmic Kitten]

101. Wow, you actually made an effort to post THAT?

[JoePhilly]

132. Seemed like you might need at least a full bottle

[longship]

104. For Christ sakes! What a counter productive post!!!!

Do you know who won?

Everybody! Because Rachel and the three candidates showed how adults act, unlike so many here at DU who insist on making every campaign appearance by any Dem candidate an excuse to act like a two year old pitching a tantrum. Of course, this in the name of supporting or opposing a particular candidate. It makes DU suck.

Sorry. I just do not think your post is at all helpful to any reasonable discussion.

[Cosmic Kitten]

108. And you are being helpful how?

[longship]

110. By encouraging people to engage in reasonable discussion.

Instead of posting infantile posts like this one. Far, far too much of that going on here.

So I will stand my post.

My best regards.

[Vinca]

105. I don't think there were any winners or losers.

Although my husband was impressed with Martin O'Malley which caught me by surprise. The most striking thing is how totally sane and well informed the Democratic candidates are. What a contrast with the clown car/bus!

[SoapBox]

106. Gosh...but she sure is the

"Gold Standard"!

No...More...Third...Way. Period.

[Walk away]

115. This is what happens when people worship a candidate and that candidate is losing badly...

Folks seem to get a little "dramatic". It's understandable.

[Tarc]

116. I hope this CosmicKitten is not an example of a typical Sanders voter

These posts are just...bad. Like strange deviantart.com-esque personal ramblings.

[NurseJackie]

117. HA! :-) Endless haikus, perhaps.

[Cosmic Kitten]

123. These personal smears are nasty.

Trying to denigrate me personally,
and by extension *typical Sanders voters*,
is reprehensible.

The inverse is actually the problem...
Hillary's fans can't refrain from
smearing or besmirching peoples character
to defend her lack of substance.

It's these sorts of personal attacks
that make social media nasty.

Shame on anyone who supports personal attacks

[treestar]

131. but it's OK to do that to Hillary

[Tarc]

135. You have been saying terrible, unfounded, vile things in this forum for quite awhile now

Every single thing I have read from you recently is just vile, if not an outright lie. This is not the kind of campaign that Bernie Sanders is running, and I seriously doubt he would be in favor of people dong it on his behalf.

Sorry, but you're in seriously need of some self-reflection, as there is nothin even remotely democratic, liberal, or progressive in any of your DU screeds. It is just hate. Day after day.

[JTFrog]

136. Exactly.

[Beacool]

122. Meh, I rather laugh all the way to the nomination.

[Cosmic Kitten]

126. Remarkable there are no examples of Hillary presenting any SUBSTANCE?

Of all the views and retorts
NONE present any evidence of Hillary
advancing any substance on how
to remedy all the problems she identified.

Hillary spoke at length using emotionally
filled language while managing to say
virtually nothing.

And all her best and most vocal supports
have managed to retort is... but Bernie,
she *appears* presidential, or attacks
on both DU and Bernie supporters.

That's it in a nutshell folks, Hillary has NOTHING
to offer as real change, and the best her supporters
have managed is deflection or attacks.

In the final analysis, Bernie is the best
candidate and the Hillary campaign vacillates
between mimicking Bernie or is desperately
defending the indefensible.

We Will Win

[NurseJackie]

127. Substantive replies are generally saved for substantive OP's. (If you get my drift.)

From all appearances, it's easy to determine that this OP seeks to be argumentative and confrontational. Oddly enough, you act surprised (and disappointed?) that nobody is willing to invest time in the type of responses that you deem to be of sufficient quality. I think it's fair to say that the reality is that you got exactly the type of reply that you were seeking. Sit back and enjoy your creation. A masterpiece! Mission accomplished!

[mak3cats]

133. My method has been to not participate in posts that are argumentative and confrontational...

...whether I agree with the post or not. Like yourself, I don't see that they serve a useful purpose. (But also see my post #129.)

[NurseJackie]

134. I admire you for that.

(And I agree with your other post as well. It's a not a great post, but also not really a post that's hide-worthy. The "trash thread" button was probably the best option for the alerter.)

[mak3cats]

129. Jury results on the OP...

And I have no problem saying that I am Juror #1. Nor that if the post would have been about my preferred candidate (Sanders), and containing a similar level of "hate and hyperbole," my vote would have been the same. Really tired of these kinds of alerts.

On Sat Nov 7, 2015, 02:40 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary big winner in Democratic Forum
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251777432

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is way over the top bashing of a democratic candidate. It's not filled with any facts, just a bunch of hate and hyperbole.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Nov 7, 2015, 02:43 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is full of opinion, just like thousands of other posts on this site. One person's opinion is another's "bunch of hate and hyperbole." Everybody needs to get over it and stop with the bullshit alerts.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: sad
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alert
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is over the top and deliberately disruptive, it meets the criteria for hiding it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

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

[JTFrog]

137. So you aren't tired of the vile hate filled posts directed at candidates and their supporters,

you are tired of people alerting on said vile hate filled posts?

I guess that's one way to uphold community standards.

[mak3cats]

138. Yes, I'm even MORE tired of those...

...but there's not much I can do about that other than not participate in them, which keeps kicking them to the top. Hint, hint...

[JTFrog]

139. Well, this wouldn't get kicked if it had been hidden.

Just sayin...