Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
Thu May 28, 2015, 08:44 AM May 2015

What does it say that mild criticism of Bernie is met with great vengeance and furious anger?

Last edited Thu May 28, 2015, 11:18 AM - Edit history (1)

It's an interesting phenomenon, and it speaks to the fact that the main thrust for Bernie's nomination resides in a pure good-vs-evil world. Bernie good, Hillary and Republicans evil.

The fact that Bernie, like any other candidate, is flawed and better on some issues than others, challenges this worldview. Once we get into weighing positives and negatives, we also have to realize that Hillary is mostly positive as well, and also that, unlike Bernie, she can actually beat the GOP in the general election. The argument for Bernie doesn't do so well in rational, nuanced world, which is to say, the real world.

265 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What does it say that mild criticism of Bernie is met with great vengeance and furious anger? (Original Post) DanTex May 2015 OP
Bernie Sanders very well CAN beat the GOP. pangaia May 2015 #1
+1, no make that 10, n/t ejbr May 2015 #61
and so can every other candidate, however, whoever our nominee is, it is far from a slam dunk still_one May 2015 #87
But can he beat Hillary? hack89 May 2015 #134
Well, there are different kinds of intelligences. pangaia May 2015 #245
The best is shaped by experience and practical thinking hack89 May 2015 #246
Who said anything about emotion and wishful thinking? Not I. pangaia May 2015 #247
Of course not. Nt hack89 May 2015 #251
The Smart Money can bugger off. Oakenshield May 2015 #253
Not in an election. Maybe at bowling. nt stevenleser May 2015 #198
So if he's the Democratic nominee you won't vote for him? BeanMusical May 2015 #240
I've answered that question many times. I won't again in response to your straw man. Nt stevenleser May 2015 #243
It was a rhetorical question. BeanMusical May 2015 #255
No, it was a straw man. Nt stevenleser May 2015 #259
Lol! BeanMusical May 2015 #260
I don't see any path to victory for Sanders in a national general election. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #210
No he can not , independents will not vote for him. Florencenj2point0 May 2015 #244
Who will Independants vote for? frylock May 2015 #248
I find it a fascinating exercise that I am told by Partisans who nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #262
I don't see vehemence and anger. morningfog May 2015 #2
Silly indeed - just primary season getting started. polichick May 2015 #26
Of course you don't. Bobbie Jo May 2015 #73
+10^10^100 nt stevenleser May 2015 #199
I dismiss your silly comment out of hand and without bitterness. morningfog May 2015 #209
Don't care Bobbie Jo May 2015 #214
End ? ... what end? Trajan May 2015 #231
huh? Bobbie Jo May 2015 #241
It's exactly the same as 2008. MoonRiver May 2015 #3
Seems that some posters support for Obama in 2008 was based in Hillary hate. boston bean May 2015 #8
Yes, and oh the irony. Now Obama is practically the anti-Christ in their minds. MoonRiver May 2015 #12
I mean why would anyone trust their opinion again? boston bean May 2015 #13
Exactly. It's hardly worth responding to. MoonRiver May 2015 #18
The thoughts you are drawing on here are an important metric. NCTraveler May 2015 #20
IKR? workinclasszero May 2015 #82
I laugh every time I see one poster who absolutely hated Hillary and called her morally depraved Autumn May 2015 #86
who? seabeyond May 2015 #93
I won't mention the name but I can send you a link to that post if you want it. Autumn May 2015 #107
i supported obama. i also had to call out misogyny toward clinton. so i hear ya. i stayed seabeyond May 2015 #112
I sent you some links. We hear the same things today being used all over again Autumn May 2015 #159
What'cha trying to say there? QC May 2015 #235
I remember it quit differently brush May 2015 #141
pumas? i thought that was drama from the obama supporters. i was squarely in obamas camp. seabeyond May 2015 #142
Re-read my post brush May 2015 #151
yet, obama people used to attack clinton. those that still hate clinton are now using it as attack seabeyond May 2015 #153
Again, I don't remember it that way brush May 2015 #160
no way. i was edwards, as were many then obama. never clinton. i didnt want another clinton. seabeyond May 2015 #161
Okay, that's you brush May 2015 #165
ha. i was far from the only, which is the point. ya. that you will not even acknowledge that, from seabeyond May 2015 #167
It's serious to me. I'm just giving you my opinion . . . brush May 2015 #174
you ignore a lot that happened in 2008. so ya. i do not take you seriously. i am allowed. seabeyond May 2015 #175
There was A LOT of misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton in 2008 by Jamastiene May 2015 #224
That ridiculousness didn't exist in my circles brush May 2015 #242
I agree. Jamastiene May 2015 #261
There was a lot of nastiness from that faction. Skidmore May 2015 #192
i was obama and really hated the whole puma thing, all the way around. i ignored it. nt seabeyond May 2015 #193
I'd say that's a fair assessment DFW May 2015 #64
That is just beautiful. MoonRiver May 2015 #72
Yeah, good luck with that. DFW May 2015 #188
Bernie Sanders is NO Barack Obama, not even close. MoonRiver May 2015 #220
It would be nice.. sendero May 2015 #154
To me that term means about as much as when the whacko right calls me a "libbrul." DFW May 2015 #187
I think "corporatist" has a definite image Art_from_Ark May 2015 #225
I wouldn't call what is being lobbed at him 'mild criticism'. JaneyVee May 2015 #4
Yep it's unreasonable for anybody to support someone who isn't married to corporate and wall-street el_bryanto May 2015 #5
why would "the corporations" and "Wall Street" treestar May 2015 #29
You really asked that question? el_bryanto May 2015 #31
How often do they tank it? treestar May 2015 #91
After the great depression we put in regulation that worked really well for a long time el_bryanto May 2015 #103
obama implemented a weak version. now with repugs, has been lessened. this is where our govt seabeyond May 2015 #110
Still all those people thought they were going to create a booming economy treestar May 2015 #120
Corporations don't think tennstar May 2015 #127
Indeed. One only needs to pay the mildest of attention to our natural world. raouldukelives May 2015 #155
You said it better tennstar May 2015 #196
It's not so much that any one person "wants to" but rather ideology drives them that way Fumesucker May 2015 #32
Because they are chasing personal incentives. jeff47 May 2015 #39
Still there's a point where their fortune would disappear too treestar May 2015 #95
Not really. They would still be the "haves" in a dystopia. jeff47 May 2015 #111
They deliberately tanked the economy in 2007? treestar May 2015 #116
Yes, because they were extracting money. jeff47 May 2015 #131
"They believe their fortresses are impregnable" because they are privatizing the military. ieoeja May 2015 #162
Not really. They don't pay their private guards enough. jeff47 May 2015 #168
You know- like Bill Clinton sank the economy redstateblues May 2015 #52
Well if it is a center right country treestar May 2015 #99
a few scattered sentences without specifics Javaman May 2015 #6
It says pretty much what Skinner said it was. n/t leftofcool May 2015 #7
You keep saying that in different threads. DisgustipatedinCA May 2015 #125
No, my brother died of AIDS about 8 years ago. leftofcool May 2015 #201
Or, you could just post the thing instead of obliquely referring to it in several places. DisgustipatedinCA May 2015 #212
Here ya go, it was easy to find. leftofcool May 2015 #222
I didn't even try to find it. Thanks for posting. Now I'll read it. nt DisgustipatedinCA May 2015 #223
OK, I've read Skinner's reply now. DisgustipatedinCA May 2015 #227
your op lacks intellectual honesty on more than one front cali May 2015 #9
Interestingly, the fact that you accuse people of implying that Sanders is "racist" is part of what DanTex May 2015 #23
cali consistently changes peoples words to create her own argument. watch. i am a sander supporter seabeyond May 2015 #34
You backing the corporate candidate, while charging Bernie has not done onecaliberal May 2015 #79
but see. you made up an argument so you could laugh. meh.... seabeyond May 2015 #115
And Hillary's campaign launch treestar May 2015 #122
I didn't criticize her video. In fact, I complimented it. I liked it. onecaliberal May 2015 #183
No one insinuated he is a racist- this is exactly why POC suggest LISTENING as step one in bettyellen May 2015 #177
Lol remember the last primary? GusBob May 2015 #10
But only after he does his infamous scream first. Jamastiene May 2015 #263
What utter, unmitigated horseshit, completely unsupported by any specifics. Bernie was an KingCharlemagne May 2015 #11
You are a perfect example of what Skinner talked about yesterday. leftofcool May 2015 #15
Alert on me. - nt KingCharlemagne May 2015 #16
What did he say? n/t MoonRiver May 2015 #19
He was talking about.... Adrahil May 2015 #38
Spot on Skinner, as usual! MoonRiver May 2015 #51
When Democrats support warmed over moderate Republican policy and idealogy they should be criticized LondonReign2 May 2015 #156
when posters change our dems to repugs, it is time for dems to say,... no. you do not get to do that seabeyond May 2015 #163
In an answer to a question in Ask the Administrators... Spazito May 2015 #58
Well said, indeed. Also, how very sad. MoonRiver May 2015 #69
I would imagine that being a "democrat" kinda means you're gonna argue passionately for the issues CTyankee May 2015 #75
Nothing wrong with arguing about issues... Adrahil May 2015 #84
i want more from both obama and clinton, too. i want to hear more. i am disappointed more isnt seabeyond May 2015 #98
Your position just ins't realistic in our political system. Adrahil May 2015 #158
people use "lesser of two evils". i agree. that is bullshit. i disagree and call that shit out. nt seabeyond May 2015 #164
I agree. When it dissolves into name calling and hurling insults against people, it's time to go CTyankee May 2015 #102
people are refusing the argument. OP's asking, what can we do. then a whole list of supporters seabeyond May 2015 #119
No, being a Democrat is a lot more than being able/willing to slug it out with other Democrats. MoonRiver May 2015 #114
My point is (and I'm sorry you missed it) that we are diverse in the way we think and we value the CTyankee May 2015 #129
You said I should think about belonging to a different party MoonRiver May 2015 #136
I thought progressive democrats could both value dissenting views and remain true to our own values. CTyankee May 2015 #140
You said I should change parties. Just what party were you suggesting I should change to? MoonRiver May 2015 #152
My humble opinion tennstar May 2015 #148
Senator Sanders is running under the Democratic party banner... Spazito May 2015 #180
Been a dem forever tennstar May 2015 #194
Yet you state the following... Spazito May 2015 #197
Well yes and no tennstar May 2015 #229
I think DU has done a great job standing against republicans and republican ideals. nt raouldukelives May 2015 #171
It's obvious Skinner is more than a little unhappy at this turn of events. stevenleser May 2015 #204
Given DU was started when bush was selected by the Supreme Court... Spazito May 2015 #208
Bullshit! TM99 May 2015 #14
Yes. cwydro May 2015 #30
+1 deutsey May 2015 #189
"Bernie good, Hillary and Republicans evil." NCTraveler May 2015 #17
This is all getting very confusing. OilemFirchen May 2015 #27
Oh, good grief. Hissyspit May 2015 #21
I think he can win gollygee May 2015 #22
It says that people still respond to roaminronin May 2015 #24
It would be nice if they would reflect their candidate's character and integrity BainsBane May 2015 #50
The enraged sputtering is quite amusing. Sheldon Cooper May 2015 #25
I feel the same way... Adrahil May 2015 #40
It's why I'm not a Christian. MohRokTah May 2015 #211
The fact you lumped Hillary in with Republicans should answer your own question. Exilednight May 2015 #28
nah, it just says it's primary season here at DU fishwax May 2015 #33
Hillary cannot win. Too much baggage. Too polarizing. Lacks the charisma of Bill & Barack. peacebird May 2015 #35
+1 truebluegreen May 2015 #113
+2 donf May 2015 #150
"Sanders is a racist" is not mild criticism. (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #36
No, but of course, nobody actually said that. DanTex May 2015 #37
Heavily implied it. jeff47 May 2015 #43
Not even close. They just said he didn't address race enough. DanTex May 2015 #46
wrong. you do not get to make up false accusations. no one said that. cause YOU interpret it seabeyond May 2015 #48
Or more heavily inferred it... LanternWaste May 2015 #186
ya. nobody said that. nt seabeyond May 2015 #41
Nobody said Clinton personally ordered Benghazi either. jeff47 May 2015 #45
i am glad you acknowledge that your statement "sanders is a racist" is bullshit. self delete the bs seabeyond May 2015 #49
No, my point is the desired message is sent without the explicit statement. jeff47 May 2015 #55
YOU are making shit up. YOU are creating an argument that is NOT. YOU proudly are standing on a lie. seabeyond May 2015 #56
And what do you think is implied by "There weren't a lot of blacks in the audience"? jeff47 May 2015 #59
people are flat out stating, ... his DEMOGRAPHICS are middle/upper middle, white, men. what he is seabeyond May 2015 #62
The thread in question based those demographics on the color of the skin in the crowd. jeff47 May 2015 #66
facts. this discussion has been going on for 3 weeks on du. the dynamic of ones lives with the seabeyond May 2015 #89
And more damage control jeff47 May 2015 #108
we, and that includes you, have been having this conversation a good 3 weeks. if that alone, has to seabeyond May 2015 #123
Again, you are trying to have a different conversation. I'm talking about posts yesterday jeff47 May 2015 #133
yes. people noticed the demographics in the crowd yesterday. we have talked about it for 3 weeks. seabeyond May 2015 #137
Wow, you talked about an event yesterday for 3 weeks? Can I borrow your time machine? jeff47 May 2015 #166
whatever jeff. a glance, 'hillary spewing vile'. not reading all that has nothing to do with my post seabeyond May 2015 #169
I hope you enjoy discussing petunias on any subject you give a shit about. (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #170
again, wtf ever seabeyond May 2015 #173
oh. btw, htis is what i was talking about 3 weeks ago. people, and minorities noticed sanders seabeyond May 2015 #138
Who said that? BainsBane May 2015 #78
Link please. MohRokTah May 2015 #121
Completely unrecommended. Enthusiast May 2015 #42
It says that people actively oppose civic engagement BainsBane May 2015 #44
That you project a lot more emotion onto people than exists? nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #47
That they are Pulp Fiction fans? nt Bonobo May 2015 #53
To me it simply points out... DeadLetterOffice May 2015 #54
It says we've got a little contest going BeyondGeography May 2015 #57
Clearly you don't have Sanders in your heart Recursion May 2015 #60
Bernie fans carrying water for the right wing workinclasszero May 2015 #63
Hillary fans carrying water for the same big money that took our country into a recession. L0oniX May 2015 #70
Really? workinclasszero May 2015 #76
Reading comprehension skill lacking? L0oniX May 2015 #92
I am a fan of Bernie's and I don't hate Hillary. I voted for her in our CT primary back in 08. CTyankee May 2015 #135
Hyperbole at its best. LWolf May 2015 #65
Black people saying Sanders didn't address race enough is playing the race card? leftofcool May 2015 #71
Not all black people! TM99 May 2015 #80
That's certainly not what I said, but please... LWolf May 2015 #96
Mission Accomplished RufusTFirefly May 2015 #67
^^^^^^^^ This is the correct answer ^^^^^^^^ woo me with science May 2015 #217
Talented marketers are paid good money to develop and disseminate these memes. Zorra May 2015 #257
"Bernie doesn't do so well in rational, nuanced world, which is to say, the real world" L0oniX May 2015 #68
Meh. I don't even criticize Bernie, and his screamers do their best to drive everyone away ConservativeDemocrat May 2015 #74
You guys keep throwing out these unsubstantiated memes AgingAmerican May 2015 #77
Well, "he can't win" is the biggest beef I have with Bernie. DanTex May 2015 #81
Cuz you say so AgingAmerican May 2015 #90
By every possible measure of electability. Polls, fundraising, campaign infrastructure, DanTex May 2015 #94
The first primary is 9 months out AgingAmerican May 2015 #106
Well, I guess we disagree. But winning the White House is important to me, and I don't think DanTex May 2015 #109
Cuz you say so. AgingAmerican May 2015 #118
You are right workinclasszero May 2015 #117
It's not "mild criticism." It's swiftboating. And the "great CharlotteVale May 2015 #83
addressing demographics, hence where he'll get votes, is swiftboating? i thought that was politics? seabeyond May 2015 #130
People are just buckling their seat belts for the predictable onslaught, financed by raindaddy May 2015 #85
Now I'm really pissed! workinclasszero May 2015 #237
I wonder what the jury vote was on your post. MohRokTah May 2015 #88
Me too. Anyone have the jury? Please post. DanTex May 2015 #100
At least it was nice to see a jury voted 7-0 to hide the post that called you a troll. MohRokTah May 2015 #124
"Vengeance"??? Whatever. I'll stick to my dictionary definitions. WinkyDink May 2015 #97
It's from Pulp Fiction. DanTex May 2015 #101
"Bernie good, Hillary and Republicans evil." Thanks for that, DanTex. Short and sweet. n/t jtuck004 May 2015 #104
Post removed Post removed May 2015 #105
Some of these folks are absolutely vicious. Bobbie Jo May 2015 #126
Two legs BETTER. n/t Orsino May 2015 #128
what does it say that any alternative to Hillary is met with hyperbolic pearl clutching & lies? TheSarcastinator May 2015 #132
mild criticism, like inferring that he's a gun nut? frylock May 2015 #139
Which he is by voting against the Brady Bill workinclasszero May 2015 #238
yeah.. frylock May 2015 #239
I refuse to post HRC ops in GD because i do not want to go a 1000 rounds. hrmjustin May 2015 #143
Open your eyes, DanTex senz May 2015 #144
It says that karma happens, even if you support Hillary Android3.14 May 2015 #145
Criticism or lies and innuendo? TexasMommaWithAHat May 2015 #146
And therein is the problem. I get angry at the lies. jwirr May 2015 #149
Nice try but no cigar. Phlem May 2015 #147
Funny, I haven't seen that. davidthegnome May 2015 #157
So much this. Oakenshield May 2015 #254
It has been said... tonedevil May 2015 #172
Uhm kenfrequed May 2015 #176
You had me right up until this JustAnotherGen May 2015 #178
i totally agree it is too early to write sanders off. i replied to those, early on. i ignore that seabeyond May 2015 #179
I also don't like the implication JustAnotherGen May 2015 #182
links please? I'd like to see how a single poster magical thyme May 2015 #181
Congratulations on your use of the GOP tactic of projection tularetom May 2015 #184
SUBTEXT: Sanders supporters are irrational, and they live in a fantasy world.. frylock May 2015 #249
Mild criticism of both candidates is met with great vengeance LanternWaste May 2015 #185
. deutsey May 2015 #190
It means that Samuel L. Jackson is a Bernie supporter? nt Buns_of_Fire May 2015 #191
Either Samuel Jackson, or monks working for King James II (of King James Bible fame) DisgustipatedinCA May 2015 #233
+1 Quayblue May 2015 #195
You few that love making thread after thread playing 'politics' are amusing I will admit. Rex May 2015 #200
Well, I skipped the whole thread, except for the OP...and I don't think calling him a racist is a libdem4life May 2015 #202
I agree with you, but since nobody called him racist, that's a bit of a strange non-sequitor. DanTex May 2015 #203
Where have you been? It's all over DU...he didn't speak about black people so he's lost his creds libdem4life May 2015 #207
What's there to criticize about Bernie Sanders? JDPriestly May 2015 #205
Please define "mild criticism". Avalux May 2015 #206
His most devoted supporters here LordGlenconner May 2015 #213
Calling him a racist is "mild criticism"? KamaAina May 2015 #215
Of course not. But nobody did that. DanTex May 2015 #216
This is a very sensible post ibegurpard May 2015 #218
And it also seems very serious. ibegurpard May 2015 #219
Very Serious People have Very Serious concerns frylock May 2015 #250
Uhm, Republicans ARE evil. Jamastiene May 2015 #221
Really, what's to criticize? Outside of nitpicking.... TheNutcracker May 2015 #226
Says to me that maybe his fans are as terrified that he'll lose as they keep saying Hillary Number23 May 2015 #228
Maybe it means you watch too many Tarantino movies ... Trajan May 2015 #230
You can criticize Bernie all you want...that's fine...but you're not entitled to special deference. Ken Burch May 2015 #232
When did I ask for special deference? DanTex May 2015 #234
Oh, please...Try mildly criticizing Greenwald, Snowden or Hersh on this forum Blue_Tires May 2015 #236
You two have a very strange interpretation of "mild criticism" frylock May 2015 #252
To be fair... Blue_Tires May 2015 #256
It's the manufactured outrage AgingAmerican May 2015 #258
Oh, FFS. Is this getting old. nt Logical May 2015 #264
Don't see that at all G_j Feb 2016 #265

Oakenshield

(614 posts)
253. The Smart Money can bugger off.
Fri May 29, 2015, 10:11 PM
May 2015

Why anyone should care what the "smart money" thinks is why the Democratic party has become so conservative economically.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
262. I find it a fascinating exercise that I am told by Partisans who
Sun May 31, 2015, 06:24 PM
May 2015

I will vote for. Yes, I am one of those elusive indies.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
8. Seems that some posters support for Obama in 2008 was based in Hillary hate.
Thu May 28, 2015, 08:50 AM
May 2015

Lots of vociferous 2008 Primary Obama supporters, still hating on Clinton. Not all... but quite a few recognizable...

harrumph!

That is why I take the "criticism" with the tiniest grain of salt.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
13. I mean why would anyone trust their opinion again?
Thu May 28, 2015, 08:57 AM
May 2015

If they were so wrong (as they say they were), what makes them think they are so right this time.

I've come to recognize a lot bloviating... and I am convinced it is just plain and simple Hillary hate. They just don't want her as president.

Ok, fine. Vote for who you want is my advice to them.

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
18. Exactly. It's hardly worth responding to.
Thu May 28, 2015, 09:01 AM
May 2015

The book True Believer really represents some here.

The book analyzes and attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements; why and how mass movements start, progress and end; and the similarities between them, whether religious, political, radical or reactionary. Hoffer argues that even when their stated goals or values differ mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable. Thus, religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics and rhetorical tools


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
20. The thoughts you are drawing on here are an important metric.
Thu May 28, 2015, 09:03 AM
May 2015

One that cannot be openly and honestly discussed here, but important none-the-less.

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
86. I laugh every time I see one poster who absolutely hated Hillary and called her morally depraved
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:46 AM
May 2015

supporting her now and castigating DUers who don't support Hillary this time. And calling Hillary 'morally depraved' was one of that posters nice comments. Hillary was a 'lying war monger and she had lost her support when Hillary voted for the IWR'. You got to laugh at that nonsense.

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
107. I won't mention the name but I can send you a link to that post if you want it.
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:54 AM
May 2015

I was looking though my bookmarks from back then and found it. That was a rough time to support Hillary she was trashed up one side and down the other as being a racist. Funny thing is, Hillary doesn't have a racist bone in her body,neither does Bernie. Hillary was called every name in the book and so were her supporters

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
112. i supported obama. i also had to call out misogyny toward clinton. so i hear ya. i stayed
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:58 AM
May 2015

out of the whole puma shit dynamics. i thought stupid with both sides. i think dems did well. i mean... obama and cinton, acting like grown ups.

not so much du itself.

i am curious. i am not retaining the past like i use to

pm?

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
159. I sent you some links. We hear the same things today being used all over again
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:50 AM
May 2015
It is what it is sea

QC

(26,371 posts)
235. What'cha trying to say there?
Thu May 28, 2015, 08:01 PM
May 2015

i also remember cracks about cankles and cigar jokes coming from some of that crowd as well.

brush

(53,467 posts)
141. I remember it quit differently
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:26 AM
May 2015

Obama supporters didn't hate Hillary, in fact we were all Hillary supporters at one time, and many are right now.

I can't say the same for those "pumas" though. Remember them? They were some pieces of work in voicing their Obama hatred loud and clear.



 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
142. pumas? i thought that was drama from the obama supporters. i was squarely in obamas camp.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:28 AM
May 2015

are you starting the puma shit again?

brush

(53,467 posts)
151. Re-read my post
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:36 AM
May 2015

I worked the '08 campaign in New York and was confronted quite rudely many times by pumas.

It was not an Obama campaign creation. But we understood it was not Hillary's creation either, just over zealous fans of hers.

Like I said, we were Hillary fans before the Obama campaign became a monumental historic reality that we wanted to be a part of.

And I will certainly vote for Hillary if/when she wins the nomination.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
153. yet, obama people used to attack clinton. those that still hate clinton are now using it as attack
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:40 AM
May 2015

brush

(53,467 posts)
160. Again, I don't remember it that way
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:50 AM
May 2015

Obama fans were just about all Clinton fans before he came along.

Maybe you ran into individual Clinton haters but I didn't, because, IMO, there was (and still is) residual goodwill for both Clintons among Obama fans, who I dare say, will vote for Hillary when and if she gets the nomination.

And might I add, I am personally so tired of this current Hillary/Bernie back-and-forth bashing.

It's divisive, hateful and needs to stop.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
161. no way. i was edwards, as were many then obama. never clinton. i didnt want another clinton.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:52 AM
May 2015

simple as that.

she never had it that easy.

lots and lots and lots did not like clinton. before her hat was out, had sexist bullshit thrown her way. and again. i never wanted clinton in office because of the simple fact she was a clinton.

brush

(53,467 posts)
165. Okay, that's you
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:58 AM
May 2015

I never felt that way.

Never felt that way about Edwards either — and am I glad about that — he didn't turn out too well.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
167. ha. i was far from the only, which is the point. ya. that you will not even acknowledge that, from
Thu May 28, 2015, 12:01 PM
May 2015

2008 is clear we are not have a serious conversation.

brush

(53,467 posts)
174. It's serious to me. I'm just giving you my opinion . . .
Thu May 28, 2015, 12:32 PM
May 2015

and you choose to call it "not serious".

What is that about?

It can be a serious conversation without me agreeing with you. I wasn't an Edwards supporter. You were. To each his own.

Now I'm done, and I'm serious about that.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
175. you ignore a lot that happened in 2008. so ya. i do not take you seriously. i am allowed.
Thu May 28, 2015, 12:36 PM
May 2015

you can address with others.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
224. There was A LOT of misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton in 2008 by
Thu May 28, 2015, 07:27 PM
May 2015

a lot of Obama supporters. Not all, but a lot of them were really horrible in some of the things they posted. I remember one time, someone posted a picture of her Photoshopped to look like she was bound and gagged and tied up to a stake. It was weird.

brush

(53,467 posts)
242. That ridiculousness didn't exist in my circles
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:59 PM
May 2015

How foolish for dems to degrade other dem candidates.

With dems like that who needs repugs.

And that goes for the tit-for-tat Bernie/Hllary bashers — they need to grow up, respect the other dem candidates and act like adults.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
261. I agree.
Sun May 31, 2015, 06:23 PM
May 2015

It is one thing to point out a particular policy and say why you disagree on that policy, but a lot of the fighting is overboard. No candidate is going to be perfect, whether someone is to the left, center, or right. In the primaries, it is a matter of which one each person prefers. I would think we can all agree that the Democratic Party candidate that wins the nomination is going to be tons better than any Republican, by leaps and bounds, to the nth degree.

I don't hate Hillary or Bernie. I agree with him on some things and with her on some things. In the primaries, I'll lean toward him, but reality says in the general election, she'll be the nominee and I'll vote for her. I have a few minor caveats, but overall, she's miles better than any Republican, not just MOR, but way better.

Now, there are some conservative Democrats, I do feel are not much better, because I know them in my local area and they rule the place, horribly. They are really Republicans using the Democratic Party, imo. They are nothing like the party at the national level, even those considered conservative by most on DU are still way more liberal than the ones where I live. The ones where I live are unreasonable and ultra conservative on social as well as economic issues. That doesn't leave me much room to stand, because I can't get with social conservatives. It is just not safe for me.

So, there are Democrats I have real beefs with, and they are mostly the local ones and a few I think we all get pissed off at from time to time. Hillary is not in that category. I hate the misogyny by some. That crap needs to go. It is not necessary to point out a difference of opinion.

Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
192. There was a lot of nastiness from that faction.
Thu May 28, 2015, 03:35 PM
May 2015

Hillary dropped off of my radar due to her selection of some advisors, her inability to manage her campaign and its finances, and her willingness to let go remarks of supporters who did engage in dog whistling. Particularly, every time I saw that slob Republican in a food stained sweater, Mark Whatshisname, speaking on behalf of her campaign, it would make me livid. As much as I want to see a woman in the WH before I die, it wasn't going to be her in 2008.

DFW

(54,047 posts)
64. I'd say that's a fair assessment
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:26 AM
May 2015

I wish Howard Dean and Al Gore would come back for an encore of that night in New York 7 years ago---

Remember this from 2008 on the GDP ("primaries&quot board?.....................

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3369762

I don't even have a favorite yet in this race, and probably won't until next year. So far, my one contribution has gone to Bernie Sanders because I want his voice heard loud and clear, even if I don't think his chances are too great for the nomination (and less so for the general--since when has the American public shown a clear tendency to overwhelmingly vote its own interests?).

But the emotions are flying high here just like they were in 2008. We are Astérix's village, and we don't seem to learn.

It would be nice to NOT hear "socialist!" or corporatist!" for a few days, but that's apparently like asking not to hear French in Paris for a week.

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
220. Bernie Sanders is NO Barack Obama, not even close.
Thu May 28, 2015, 06:39 PM
May 2015

OMG, I think I am going to bust a gut laughing at your ridiculous post!

sendero

(28,552 posts)
154. It would be nice..
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:41 AM
May 2015

... if "corporatist" wasn't a pretty accurate description of certain candidates, but it would be a lie to say it isn't.

A lie sort of like "if you don't talk about my pet issue enough, you're a racist". Pure idiocy and that is why it gets the reaction it does.

DFW

(54,047 posts)
187. To me that term means about as much as when the whacko right calls me a "libbrul."
Thu May 28, 2015, 03:10 PM
May 2015

i.e. it's a vague derogatory term that means pretty much whatever the accuser wants it to mean, and nothing at all to the accused.

But like I said, French in Paris......

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
225. I think "corporatist" has a definite image
Thu May 28, 2015, 07:27 PM
May 2015

of someone who puts the welfare of corporations above the (financial) welfare of ordinary citizens.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
4. I wouldn't call what is being lobbed at him 'mild criticism'.
Thu May 28, 2015, 08:49 AM
May 2015

And I'm sure he is more than willing to address any concerns of the American voters. When have we ever seen Bernie back down.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
5. Yep it's unreasonable for anybody to support someone who isn't married to corporate and wall-street
Thu May 28, 2015, 08:49 AM
May 2015

power. You need someone like HRC who will be a good friend to corporations and wall street, and give them all the rope they need to sink the economy - it's unreasonable to suggest that someone like Sanders could be President. Laughable really.

I mean this is clearly a center right country - we just need to accept that and support a center right candidate who can win, and not pin our hopes on a real liberal.

Bryant

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
31. You really asked that question?
Thu May 28, 2015, 09:53 AM
May 2015

Odd.

They don't want to. But they are greedy and short sighted. So they will unless they are well regulated and reigned in. Witness what happened in 2008 - when the various financial vehicles did considerable damage to the economy.

More to the point being on the top of the financial pile isn't a bad deal in any society - Wall Street can happily let the rest of us go on starvation wages while maintaining their own enormous piece of the pie. You might well argue that that is a bad plan in the long run, even for wall street (and I'd agree with you) but that doesn't mean they won't do it.

Bryant

treestar

(82,383 posts)
91. How often do they tank it?
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:47 AM
May 2015

It works for the most part. That's what most of the voters think.

They were stupid in the Depression and 2007 and a few other times?

And the other posters talk as if that's what they want to do. When it is not even in their interests.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
103. After the great depression we put in regulation that worked really well for a long time
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:52 AM
May 2015

But that was systematically gutted in the years from Reagan to George W Bush (with Clinton playing a big hand).

Bryant

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
110. obama implemented a weak version. now with repugs, has been lessened. this is where our govt
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:56 AM
May 2015

sits. it is not like obama has not addressed it. not as much as i would like, or as hard. but he has addressed it. and repugs have weakened a weak bill.

one of the reasons i am going sanders. i want aggressive. i would be aggressive all over the place. i am that on du. how receptive is that aggressiveness? would it work for sanders? i would like to see.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
120. Still all those people thought they were going to create a booming economy
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:02 AM
May 2015

And people were satisfied with it in the 80s. I recall a short stock market crash in 1987 and then it righted itself. People liked the economy in the 90s. When it tanks, people don't like it and demand the government do something.

The regulations was scaled back but not "gutted."

 

tennstar

(45 posts)
127. Corporations don't think
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:06 AM
May 2015

Corporations don't think beyond pleasing their investors.
All you have to do is look at every bubble we have had, look at the banking fiasco.
look at who makes up the boards of all the large corps, that alone tells you everything. Corporations do not have morals or thoughts they are machines to make money. today they no longer even care about quality. They never cared about labor, or the environment ,why do you think regulations are so important? Why do you think we had the formation of unions. They don't think, and someone has to step in and fix their mess and clean it up.
The next time they tank the economy watch what happens cause I don't think Americans are going to be willing to pay to clean up their mess again and than we will see the shit hit the fan.

raouldukelives

(5,178 posts)
155. Indeed. One only needs to pay the mildest of attention to our natural world.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:46 AM
May 2015

The investors care only about the money. The corporations are doing all they can to ensure the investors get the only thing they care about. Up to and including the end of life as we know it on this planet.

Literally, no hyperbole needed.
The end of life as we know it.

Care about not tanking the economy? Sure, but only so there is no hiccup in the cash infusions from individuals unburdened by things like a moral compass.

They literally don't even care they are making the planet inhospitable to the very ecosystems and wildlife that have taken eons to evolve here. Day in and day out they clock in and are humble servants in the gaze of those who not only do nothing of value but do all they can to ensure the truth is buried, that lipstick is applied heavily to the pig and that the thievery and willful destruction will continue until it cannot.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
32. It's not so much that any one person "wants to" but rather ideology drives them that way
Thu May 28, 2015, 09:55 AM
May 2015

Profit over everything eventually drives out humanity, nothing personal just bidness.

It's hard to keep from hating the player when the game is so harmful and ultimately amoral.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
39. Because they are chasing personal incentives.
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:06 AM
May 2015

The individuals running these corporations make more money if they are short-sighted. They get paid a large pile of money now, and then "retire" when the shit hits the fan. Usually with a large golden parachute.

They already made their fortune, so it really doesn't matter if the result is an economic collapse.

They could make even more money with a longer-term strategy, but it's much, much riskier. People will take a 95% chance to make $100M over a 50% chance to make $10B.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
95. Still there's a point where their fortune would disappear too
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:49 AM
May 2015

They need to be regulated and are to an extent. Granted they whine a lot about that. But they have no interest in tanking the economy as they would go with it.

They don't even have an interest in taking all the money and leaving the rest of us poor. They just need to let the rest of us have "enough."

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
111. Not really. They would still be the "haves" in a dystopia.
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:58 AM
May 2015

As long as they're the 1%, they're happy. Even if they're the 1% of people living in caves.

But they have no interest in tanking the economy as they would go with it.

2007 says "Hi".

You remember, when they tanked the economy to make a lot of short-term gains?

treestar

(82,383 posts)
116. They deliberately tanked the economy in 2007?
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:00 AM
May 2015

I thought it was incompetence of some kind. If you really think they do these things, you're in a dystopia. A few of them can tank the economy any time for the mere thrill of getting even way more than they have and they do it for fun? And they got all the response from the government's actions in 2009 which they could have done without.

They don't want people with pitchforks at the gates. The middle class is in their interest.



jeff47

(26,549 posts)
131. Yes, because they were extracting money.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:09 AM
May 2015

They thought they could extract just a little more from the economy. And then just a little more. And a little more. And then the whole thing came crashing down.

It's not intentional as in they were twisting their handlebar mustache and shouting "Muahahaha!". It is intentional in that they knew there were risks, but kept going and going and going because it paid more.

I suppose it would be more like "depraved indifference murder" than "premeditated murder".

A few of them can tank the economy any time for the mere thrill of getting even way more than they have and they do it for fun?

They don't do it for fun. They do it because they are pathological hoarders. They hoard money instead of cats.

They don't want people with pitchforks at the gates.

They believe their fortresses are impregnable.

The middle class is in their interest.

The fact that they have already split marketing of products into the wealthy and the poor demonstrate otherwise.
 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
162. "They believe their fortresses are impregnable" because they are privatizing the military.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:53 AM
May 2015

That whole XE/Academi/whatever thing could just be a coincidence. But the timing of it sure is handy for the 0.01%.



jeff47

(26,549 posts)
168. Not really. They don't pay their private guards enough.
Thu May 28, 2015, 12:01 PM
May 2015

And they don't have enough bullets to stop everyone. But they still believe they are immune from retaliation.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
99. Well if it is a center right country
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:50 AM
May 2015

then center right candidates will win and that's democracy.

Your liberal candidate has to convince those voters to move to the left and so do you.

So much on DU is mere complaining that the other voters don't agree.

Javaman

(62,435 posts)
6. a few scattered sentences without specifics
Thu May 28, 2015, 08:50 AM
May 2015

isn't a great technique to dissuade people from voting or supporting Bernie.

Of which I'm still doing.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
125. You keep saying that in different threads.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:06 AM
May 2015

Do you also have a big brother who can beat people up when they're mean to you? At the very least, you could link to whatever it is that Skinner said.

leftofcool

(19,460 posts)
201. No, my brother died of AIDS about 8 years ago.
Thu May 28, 2015, 04:23 PM
May 2015

But, I think he would find it amusing that someone would think he could beat someone up. Since I am 65 and he would have been 63, it would be unlikely that either one of use would do well in a fight at our ages. You can do a DU search for Skinner's exact quote.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
212. Or, you could just post the thing instead of obliquely referring to it in several places.
Thu May 28, 2015, 04:55 PM
May 2015

There should be a term for taking something literally that you obviously know isn't literal, but you decide to interpret it literally in order to achieve some effect.

But if you don't do metaphor, I'll spell it out directly for you: you sound for all the world like you're appealing to Skinner's authority at DU in the absence of having anything to say on the topic yourself. No doubt, he owns the place and as such, he gets to make the rules. But instead of calling on a "higher power", you could just use your own argument instead. And if you want to go with Skinner's statement, whatever it was, it would be courteous to paste that statement or link to it.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
227. OK, I've read Skinner's reply now.
Thu May 28, 2015, 07:35 PM
May 2015

He says the "underground" part of Democratic Underground came from wanting a name that signified it was foursquare against Republicans. Over the years, he's seen that many Democrats here engage in fighting other Democrats here. Is that a pretty fair summary?

If so, this is much ado about nothing. Skinner didn't say anything controversial. He didn't pick one side over some other side. He didn't threaten to do whatever owners of websites can do when their ire is raised. He just lamented Democrats infighting. I do see that there are many responses to the post you linked to in the HRC group, but that doesn't mean the HRC group owns Skinner's lamentation.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
9. your op lacks intellectual honesty on more than one front
Thu May 28, 2015, 08:50 AM
May 2015

first of all there at lots of HRC supporters here who react with utter fury against any criticism of her and the majority of you blast ALL criticism of her as "right wing". Never mind that it may be criticism from someone like Zephyr Teachout or Charlie Pierce, it's blasted as "right wing".

Secondly, of course Bernie is flawed, but insinuating that he's racist? that should make people mad. It's nothing but an ugly smear- and it sure ain't merely mild criticism. duh.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
23. Interestingly, the fact that you accuse people of implying that Sanders is "racist" is part of what
Thu May 28, 2015, 09:20 AM
May 2015

I'm talking about. You can't handle the actual criticism -- that he didn't do enough to address race in his campaign launch -- so instead you attack the critics and change their words.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
34. cali consistently changes peoples words to create her own argument. watch. i am a sander supporter
Thu May 28, 2015, 09:56 AM
May 2015

she replies. no you arent. i know better

what?

she can not argue what is being said. she has to fabricate an argument.

onecaliberal

(32,471 posts)
79. You backing the corporate candidate, while charging Bernie has not done
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:42 AM
May 2015

Enough is laughable. It defies reality.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
122. And Hillary's campaign launch
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:03 AM
May 2015

was taken apart with a fine tooth comb, everything from the video to the timing. It was thoroughly criticized from all angles. Yet we can't criticize Bernie's at all.



onecaliberal

(32,471 posts)
183. I didn't criticize her video. In fact, I complimented it. I liked it.
Thu May 28, 2015, 01:10 PM
May 2015

My point is that I'm certain there are points to criticize Senator Sanders. I just think this particular criticism is hugely off base.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
177. No one insinuated he is a racist- this is exactly why POC suggest LISTENING as step one in
Thu May 28, 2015, 12:50 PM
May 2015

Being a good ally. Because making up shit about what they say makes you part of the problem.

Is it really that hard to listen, instead of knee jerkedly dismissing people - with accusations of them playing the race card? Pretty fucking embarrassing to miss the point so very profoundly. No empathy for POC at all.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
11. What utter, unmitigated horseshit, completely unsupported by any specifics. Bernie was an
Thu May 28, 2015, 08:52 AM
May 2015

organizer for SNCC while Hillary was busy organizing support for that genocidal mass murderer Goldwater. WTF?

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
38. He was talking about....
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:04 AM
May 2015

How DU has seemingly become a place where Democrats hate other Democrats, rather than fighting the Republicans.

He's right.

I used to recommend this place to place to my Democratic friends. Not anymore. I've seen a whole lot of ugliness here directed at other Democrats, including our President.

LondonReign2

(5,213 posts)
156. When Democrats support warmed over moderate Republican policy and idealogy they should be criticized
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:47 AM
May 2015

It is a given that the Republican party has swung so far right that they are in the bat shit insane category and wrong in almost every single particular. When the Democratic party moves right to fill that void to the point where the leader of the party describes himself as a moderate Republican to the right of Nixon we sure as hell need to criticize the direction of the party.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
163. when posters change our dems to repugs, it is time for dems to say,... no. you do not get to do that
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:53 AM
May 2015

Spazito

(49,733 posts)
58. In an answer to a question in Ask the Administrators...
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:19 AM
May 2015

regarding what was the background or significance of the name "Democratic Underground". Here's his response:

"It was intended to imply an aggressive anti-Republican orientation.

We were the "Underground" fighting against the Republicans, who were in power at the time.

Ironically, it seems that many people took the name to mean "Underground fighting against Democrats." I was so naive. Back when I started this site I had no clue so many Democrats hated Democrats."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=7954

Well said, Skinner.

CTyankee

(63,768 posts)
75. I would imagine that being a "democrat" kinda means you're gonna argue passionately for the issues
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:41 AM
May 2015

you care deeply about. And of course in such a freewheeling atmosphere you are going to have deeply felt disagreements. It was ever thus. As Progressives, we hold dissent very dearly as a value we respect. If you don't like the rough and tumble of political arguments then you are in the wrong party...

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
84. Nothing wrong with arguing about issues...
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:45 AM
May 2015

There is something wrong with the incredible vitriol I see here. Calling the President a "POS used car salesman" or the "Trojan horse" President is over the line, IMO.

Also, the incredible attacks on Hillary are a bit much as well.

So was the assertion that Bernie somehow doesn't care about racial issues.

All bullshit, IMO.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
98. i want more from both obama and clinton, too. i want to hear more. i am disappointed more isnt
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:50 AM
May 2015

being done. i dunno, maybe i am off and this is norm.

i want more

but, i am not going to create either in a false "lesser of two evil" fuckin bullshit and literally a lie.

surely. in competitive, we can have a LITTLE integrity.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
158. Your position just ins't realistic in our political system.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:48 AM
May 2015


I don't think either Obama or Clinton represent a lesser of two evils because they don't agree with me on every position.

In fact, there is NO candidate I agree with on all issues.

But ya know what? ANY democrat running right now is better than ANY Republican running right now, and in the end, we live a real actual world. Not some theoretical la-la land where losing while standing on principal actually means anything.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
164. people use "lesser of two evils". i agree. that is bullshit. i disagree and call that shit out. nt
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:56 AM
May 2015

CTyankee

(63,768 posts)
102. I agree. When it dissolves into name calling and hurling insults against people, it's time to go
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:51 AM
May 2015

back and reframe the arguments pro and con. Ad hominem attacks among our own don't do us any good in our political battles against republicans.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
119. people are refusing the argument. OP's asking, what can we do. then a whole list of supporters
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:02 AM
May 2015

trashing.

and when i or others talk? actually about the issue. it is ignored

then

supporters say, i called sanders racist.

in the last to do?

i was accused of saying sanders racist and sexist.

i am a supporter. i would not support a racist and sexist.

at a certain point, we should adhere to simple logic.

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
114. No, being a Democrat is a lot more than being able/willing to slug it out with other Democrats.
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:58 AM
May 2015

I seriously cannot believe you said that. My principles are 100% with the Democratic Party and 0% with the Rethuglican Party. is wrong with you?

CTyankee

(63,768 posts)
129. My point is (and I'm sorry you missed it) that we are diverse in the way we think and we value the
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:07 AM
May 2015

free exchange of ideas. Of course we have a party platform and principles. OF COURSE. But we value other democrats views on how to achieve our goals. I have very strong views on many issues but I am willing to listen to other democrats both here and otherwise in the public arena. I think there is strength in our diversity and it is a deficit in the republican party. That is all I was trying to say.

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
136. You said I should think about belonging to a different party
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:14 AM
May 2015

because I don't like insulting and attacking other Democrats. I demand an apology. No, I don't like conflict in my personal life or online. You implied that because of that I am a Republican. DISGUSTING.

CTyankee

(63,768 posts)
140. I thought progressive democrats could both value dissenting views and remain true to our own values.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:20 AM
May 2015

And I never called you a Republican and I never would. What a thing to say about me...really...

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
152. You said I should change parties. Just what party were you suggesting I should change to?
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:37 AM
May 2015

Anyway, I'm letting this go, but something has gone horribly wrong on DU. It is clear as day.

 

tennstar

(45 posts)
148. My humble opinion
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:33 AM
May 2015

I have spent years as a lurker here and it is TPP that has finally made me start posting.

What I have watched over the years was the fight against Bush and war for starters.

A war that HR supported

I believe that it is not surprising that we are having these fights among ourselves.

For me and many many others probably most of us I am really afraid of what the future holds for my children. I have watched as democrats and republicans have sold us down the pike. from Reagan
To whom ever is our next president we have been sold out.
Corporations now own us and Dem's do not get off the hook for this because they are Dem's. Presidents don't get off the hook cause we voted for them or that they are Dem's.
What this has created is the lessor of to evils frame work and that is going to create in fighting.
As I see it for myself, we are running out of time and Hillary is part of the problem and I can't go their anymore, I did that with Bill, Kerry, and Obama. And I am done. I believe the Democratic Party needs to re find its mission and run canadidates who stand up for that. In the case of Bernie and Hillary they both have records that speak for themselves.

Spazito

(49,733 posts)
180. Senator Sanders is running under the Democratic party banner...
Thu May 28, 2015, 01:07 PM
May 2015

and is hoping to become the Democratic party candidate for President. Given your position as stated in your post, you will not be voting for any candidate running under the Democratic or Republican banner, right?

Spazito

(49,733 posts)
197. Yet you state the following...
Thu May 28, 2015, 04:05 PM
May 2015

"To whom ever is our next president we have been sold out." "And I am done." You can see why I took that to mean no Democrat or Republican will get your vote because you are "done". I am relieved that you will be voting for whomever becomes the Democratic candidate for President, assuming I am reading your above post correctly.

 

tennstar

(45 posts)
229. Well yes and no
Thu May 28, 2015, 07:41 PM
May 2015

I will work as hard as I can for Bernie but I will not vote for a republican even one with a d in front of their name I am done doing that. The lessor of two evils is evil and if we need to hit bottom so be it. One way or another if we keep electing corporate candidates we will hit bottom, your choice is fast or slow. I guess I just as soon get it over with so we can pick up the pieces. I would love to see Bernie win and from all the young people I am dealing with I see something good starting to happen.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
204. It's obvious Skinner is more than a little unhappy at this turn of events.
Thu May 28, 2015, 04:32 PM
May 2015

I wish I knew how to fix the problem. If this is how he saw DU and wanted it to be, it has clearly been going off the rails for the last 8 years or so.

My instinct is to lay the blame at two things.

#1 - Removing the rule requiring any criticism of elected Democrats to be civil

#2 - The jury system where the mob rules whether something is over the top or not.

The jury system may save the admins time in administering the site, but if it allowed the site to morph into something he would rather it not be, I would say it's not worth it.

Spazito

(49,733 posts)
208. Given DU was started when bush was selected by the Supreme Court...
Thu May 28, 2015, 04:47 PM
May 2015

there certainly was comity, a common cause, among DUers in fighting the repubs, putting aside the primaries in 2004/2008. Once a Democrat became President, the infighting grew exponentially while comity went by the wayside, imo.

I do think the jury system replacing the mods has allowed more vitriol to remain in posts but the mod system had flaws as well. I liked the idea of DU members having a greater say in what is appropriate, acceptable, etc. but it really is a case of 'be careful what you ask for' because, when it happens, it rarely resembles what you thought it would be. I, naively, thought DUers would be more civil under the jury system than has happened, more fool I it seems.

 

TM99

(8,352 posts)
14. Bullshit!
Thu May 28, 2015, 08:58 AM
May 2015

Jesus the bullshit that is has been flying is ridiculous.

Mild criticisms are fine with data and well-reasoned arguments to back them up.

Hit pieces trying to conflate Sanders with police violence and racism are a totally different thing.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
17. "Bernie good, Hillary and Republicans evil."
Thu May 28, 2015, 09:01 AM
May 2015

That is not my take-away from their supporters posts. At all. The underside of the bus is filling fast. Even the progressive governor from the state of Vermont is called "Scummy" by a group of the perpetually outraged. Insults are being hurled at good progressives because they are free thinkers supporting who they think will be best to run the country.

OilemFirchen

(7,143 posts)
27. This is all getting very confusing.
Thu May 28, 2015, 09:46 AM
May 2015

For those of us who don't live here, who are the "perpetually outraged"? The "good progressives"? The "free thinkers"?

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
22. I think he can win
Thu May 28, 2015, 09:14 AM
May 2015

however I don't think he can win without people of color, women, and LGBT folks getting behind him. He can't just assume he's going to get people's votes. He has to speak to their concerns.

So far, I plan to vote for Sanders myself, depending on what happens until the primary here in Michigan. But I do want to hear him talk about our issues.

roaminronin

(49 posts)
24. It says that people still respond to
Thu May 28, 2015, 09:25 AM
May 2015

public representatives with integrity and character, which has been sorely missing in the last 30 years.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
50. It would be nice if they would reflect their candidate's character and integrity
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:13 AM
May 2015

themselves. I think it's pretty safe to say that Sanders himself would not seek to silence questions about his policies but rather embrace the opportunity to engage with voters. For some reason his supporters here don't want anyone to ask about his plans or accomplishments.

Sheldon Cooper

(3,724 posts)
25. The enraged sputtering is quite amusing.
Thu May 28, 2015, 09:41 AM
May 2015

And I say this as someone who isn't particularly enthralled with Hillary, and could easily vote for Bernie. But some of his fans here...boy howdy what a hoot.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
40. I feel the same way...
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:06 AM
May 2015

I like Bernie a lot. I'm a Hillary supporter, but Bernie is a fantastic guy. Some of his supporters here really turn me off, however. Not all by any stretch, but man....

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
211. It's why I'm not a Christian.
Thu May 28, 2015, 04:51 PM
May 2015

I really dig the things Jesus had to say, but his fans, boy howdy what a hoot!

It's why I never joined the fan club.

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
35. Hillary cannot win. Too much baggage. Too polarizing. Lacks the charisma of Bill & Barack.
Thu May 28, 2015, 09:58 AM
May 2015

Big dollar donors give her big bucks because they know she will be a continuation of corporate friendly policies, big banks know she is their friend. Corp giants don't care which dynasty wins as long as the basic status quo remains. That means money policy and environmental and foreign policies remain pretty much as is.
But in order to win there have to be votes, by actual voters.
I don't see Hillary getting all the wqy to the White House. Yes, she is better than the republican clown car, but she is NOT the best we can do. Frankly I fully expect her to implode before the primary season ends.
I think you Hillary supporters fear that, and fear Bernie's popularity will cause it, which is why you constantly push the 'he can't win' meme.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
43. Heavily implied it.
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:09 AM
May 2015

Claiming it must be explicitly stated is an attempt to weasel out of the accusation.

Fox never actually said Clinton personally ordered the deaths in Benghazi. But they've made it abundantly clear that is what they want their viewers to believe.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
48. wrong. you do not get to make up false accusations. no one said that. cause YOU interpret it
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:11 AM
May 2015

as someone saying he is racist, is your problem.

you do not get to merely throw that bullshit out and say... well, that is how i see it when people talk about his DEMOGRAPHICS.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
45. Nobody said Clinton personally ordered Benghazi either.
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:10 AM
May 2015

Yet the folks on Fox do an excellent job of convincing their viewers of that.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
49. i am glad you acknowledge that your statement "sanders is a racist" is bullshit. self delete the bs
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:12 AM
May 2015

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
55. No, my point is the desired message is sent without the explicit statement.
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:15 AM
May 2015

And given all your posts about sex and race privilege, you should be extremely familiar with that concept.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
56. YOU are making shit up. YOU are creating an argument that is NOT. YOU proudly are standing on a lie.
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:17 AM
May 2015

no one thinks he is a racist. no one called him a racist. you say people did.

yea... now you have an argument that no one is making

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
59. And what do you think is implied by "There weren't a lot of blacks in the audience"?
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:20 AM
May 2015

The literal color of the skin of the people in the audience was the subject of the post. Go ahead and explain how that isn't a big, steaming pile of "Sanders is racist".

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
62. people are flat out stating, ... his DEMOGRAPHICS are middle/upper middle, white, men. what he is
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:23 AM
May 2015

campaigning on reaches our young college kids and middle/upper middle, white and men.

THAT is what people are saying. that is NOT saying he is white. that is what people have been saying for a month now and people like you have ignored it. well you know... it comes to roost. cause it was a HUGE duh a month ago. hence me addressing being the sander supporter i am. addressing that he had a limited demographics.

it is called fuckin .... POLITICS.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
66. The thread in question based those demographics on the color of the skin in the crowd.
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:29 AM
May 2015

Then damage control started, and people like you tried to steer it away from the giant turd that was left in GD. Now you want to pretend the turd was never dropped.

I'll pretend that didn't happen as soon as the ex-boyfriend's apology regarding Gamergate means you don't think Gamergate happened.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
89. facts. this discussion has been going on for 3 weeks on du. the dynamic of ones lives with the
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:47 AM
May 2015

message being said, by the populists... and sanders campaign.

we have had a LOT of conversation. lots. lots and lots. you know. hte conversation you and so many sander people do not want to have.

well. 3 weeks, it is further than du. that is the whole fuckin in your face point.

you and others have accused me of some amazing shit, ... as i feel i was the one TRUE supporter of sander. looking at the "not so pretty" he would have to address to become INCLUSIVE. getting those black, women, gay votes.

is any of this sinking in?

YOU did not want to hear it. YOU and others demanded i not talk about it.

came to roost. we are just starting. we have a fuckin choice.

deal and address. not a biggie since snaders is right there on social issues. i am sure. hence, me supporting him

i meaN... you still gonn refuse to look? cause that is not supporting your candidate, in my opinion.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
108. And more damage control
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:55 AM
May 2015
this discussion has been going on for 3 weeks on du.

The thread in question was from yesterday. It was followed by many "boy that crowd was white" replies all over DU.

you and others have accused me of some amazing shit

All I have "accused" you of is being against white privilege and male privilege. You did not post the thread in question, nor the other "boy that crowd was white" posts since then.

But that thread and those posts exist, even if you want to have a different discussion.

i meaN... you still gonn refuse to look?

No, I already did look. And as you said, there is no "there" there. Sanders's record is similar-to-slightly-better to Clinton's, depending on how you "score" some issues, and some things where Clinton was not in office so she did not have a recorded vote while Sanders did.
 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
123. we, and that includes you, have been having this conversation a good 3 weeks. if that alone, has to
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:04 AM
May 2015

manipulated, tell me where the conversation is?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
133. Again, you are trying to have a different conversation. I'm talking about posts yesterday
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:11 AM
May 2015

and many replies to posts on DU.

You are trying to talk about a different conversation, because it is not nearly as ugly a conversation.

Your desire to talk about something else does not remove those posts.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
137. yes. people noticed the demographics in the crowd yesterday. we have talked about it for 3 weeks.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:15 AM
May 2015

people are aware who the message is for. middle, upper middle, white and men. then people looked at the demographics of his first big crowd. and tey talked about it.

you do not like people are talking about it.

i personally have not talked about it, because i still od not think it puts any exclamation marks. i think it put another question mark. i have plenty of time to watch what happens. that is what this period is for. as stuff happens. i will talk about it, if i feel it warrants a chat. again. what we do on a chat board.

where is your issue?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
166. Wow, you talked about an event yesterday for 3 weeks? Can I borrow your time machine?
Thu May 28, 2015, 12:00 PM
May 2015

Again, you are trying to have a different conversation. Tell ya what, the next time you try to talk about a man being sexist, I'm going to talk about petunias. And I will keep insisting that the subject is petunias. And point out that we've been talking about petunias for a very long time. Far longer than whatever new post you make, since we're talking about petunias now.

people are aware who the message is for. middle, upper middle, white and men. then people looked at the demographics of his first big crowd.

Oddly, they did not discuss the gender makeup of his first big crowd. Almost like your claim here is not actually backed up by anything other than your assertion.

Strange how it's supposed to be talking about how Sanders appeals only to white men and the 'men' part disappeared from the discussion. Until resurrected by people trying to do damage control.

where is your issue?

Team Clinton's constant spewing of bile towards anyone who dares to challenge the anointed one, instead of Team Clinton actually giving reasons to vote for her. They provide reasons to vote against others, not reasons to vote for Clinton. I've yet to see an "issue" post by a pro-Clinton person on DU that did not include the Republicans.

It's going to lose the general election. We need "marginally-attached left-leaning voters" to show up. They stayed home in 2010 and 2014 because our party's message was "not as bad as the Republicans!". They turned out in 2008 because Obama gave them something to vote for. Those voters do not vote against. They vote for. Until we all get our heads out of "vote against the Republicans", we will lose.

But we'll be able to make all sorts of posts about "Stupid Nader voters".

Polling shows Clinton leading? Early polling is wrong >90% of the time. Reagan polled abysmally early in the 1980 campaign. Bill Clinton polled abysmally early in the 1992 campaign. W polled abysmally early in the 2000 campaign. Obama polled abysmally early in the 2008 campaign. A strong lead should worry Clinton's supporters, because that lead is almost always wrong.

Clinton needs to be a better candidate, or she'll be the McCain of 2016 - all the resume, none of the victory. Actually discussing issues with Sanders or O'Malley will make her a better candidate because it will lead to reasons to vote for Clinton instead of against the Republicans.

And actually discussing issues with Sanders or O'Malley supporters will make Clinton's supporters better advocates. Instead any discussion of her actual voting record, or not introducing bills on subjects she supposedly cares about is treated as a Rove-orchestrated attack. If Clinton is so pro-choice, where's her amendment to strip the Hyde amendment language out of budget bills? Sure, it would lose, but there's no reason she could not propose it every single year between 2001 and 2008. A Democrat has proposed a "Medicare for all"-style bill every single session since 1936. It always dies in committee. It still is proposed.

That is, until they have an attack to make. Then they drop a turd in GD like yesterday. And flee back to the group that bans you for saying "if she wins the primary".

And you want to pretend there is a legitimate debate? Yeah, head on over to the Men's Group and have a chat with them. I'm sure they want a debate too.
 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
169. whatever jeff. a glance, 'hillary spewing vile'. not reading all that has nothing to do with my post
Thu May 28, 2015, 12:04 PM
May 2015
 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
138. oh. btw, htis is what i was talking about 3 weeks ago. people, and minorities noticed sanders
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:16 AM
May 2015

conversation was to the middle, upper middle, white and male crowd. that we might wnat to address it.

all you guys called me a traitor.

so

i told you so?

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
78. Who said that?
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:42 AM
May 2015

I haven't seen it. I have seen others reduce others posts to that, when they in fact have talked about whether Sanders speaks to the concerns of people of color.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
44. It says that people actively oppose civic engagement
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:10 AM
May 2015

and seek to diminish rather than expand knowledge of the candidate they claim to promote.

DeadLetterOffice

(1,352 posts)
54. To me it simply points out...
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:15 AM
May 2015

... that damn near anything posted here will be met by great vengeance and furious anger by somebody. It seems to be what we do...

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
60. Clearly you don't have Sanders in your heart
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:20 AM
May 2015

That line, at least, gave me pause. Though somebody could probably dig up something similar for Obama here 8 years ago...

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
63. Bernie fans carrying water for the right wing
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:24 AM
May 2015

is a pathetic thing to see.

I guess if they really believed in Bernie and his plans for america, they would be talking about those instead of parroting the latest republican talking points against Hillary Clinton.

But of course the right wing and Bernie fans hate Hillary equally because they know that she will defeat both of them in the general.

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
76. Really?
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:41 AM
May 2015

Who was in charge when the economy went to hell?

A: Bush and the fucking republicans! The best job I ever had in my life was when Bill Clinton was President.

Figures a Bernie fan would be on DU blaming democrats for putting the country into a recession!

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
92. Reading comprehension skill lacking?
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:48 AM
May 2015


blaming democrats for putting the country into a recession
Figures that a Hillary fan would distort what a Bernie fan said.

CTyankee

(63,768 posts)
135. I am a fan of Bernie's and I don't hate Hillary. I voted for her in our CT primary back in 08.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:13 AM
May 2015

Both my husband and I like Bernie and listen to what he has to say. I think Hillary will be our candidate in '16 and both of us will vote for her.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
65. Hyperbole at its best.
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:26 AM
May 2015

Truthfully, I don't spend much time here each day, and don't read each thread. I do pay attention to threads about Sanders, since I think he's probably the only chance I've got left in my lifetime to work for something good for the nation.

I don't pay too much attention to threads about HRC, since I have no interest in her.

The only real furious anger I've seen on the part of Sanders' supporters is the recent thread playing the race card. That thread earned the fury of Sanders' supporters honestly, and should have earned the fury of any person who cares about civil rights.

It's not "great vengeance" to respond. It's a rebuttal, it's a debunking, and it's calling out those who would play that race card for their hypocrisy.

 

TM99

(8,352 posts)
80. Not all black people!
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:44 AM
May 2015

There are some of us persons of color that found the post, from a white woman no less, obnoxious bullshit trying to equate Sanders with racism.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
96. That's certainly not what I said, but please...
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:50 AM
May 2015

continue right on with deliberately false insinuation. It just further illustrates my point.

Clinton supporters saying Sanders didn't address race enough, when he's got a very long history of doing just that, and their own candidate has this:



RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
67. Mission Accomplished
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:34 AM
May 2015

Anything that can be done to avoid talking about Bernie's platform is considered a victory by some. The more time we spend arguing about Bernie's legitimacy and whether his supporters are representative of the American public, the less time we spend talking about his actual platform, which could go a long way toward making this country a more civilized, equitable, and sustainable place.

What Bernie believes

Income and wealth inequality: In the United States today we have the most unequal wealth and income distribution of any major country on earth -- worse than at any time since the 1920s. This is an economy that must be changed in fundamental ways.

Jobs and income: In my view, we need a massive federal jobs program which puts millions of our people back to work. We must end our disastrous trade policies. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. And we have to fight for pay equity for women.

Campaign finance reform: As a result of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, American democracy is being undermined by the ability of the Koch brothers and other billionaire families. These wealthy contributors can literally buy politicians and elections by spending hundreds of millions of dollars in support of the candidates of their choice. We need to overturn Citizens United and move toward public funding of elections so that all candidates can run for office without being beholden to the wealthy and powerful.

Climate change: Climate change is real, caused by human activity and already devastating our nation and planet. The United States must lead the world in combating climate change and transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainability.

College affordability: Every person in this country who has the desire and ability should be able to get all the education they need regardless of the income of their family. This is not a radical idea. In Germany, Scandinavia and many other countries, higher education is either free or very inexpensive. We must do the same.

Health care: Shamefully, the United States remains the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people. The United States must move toward a Medicare-for-all single-payer system. Health care is a right, not a privilege.

Poverty: The United States has more people living in poverty than at almost any time in the modern history of our country. I believe that in a democratic, civilized society none of our people should be hungry or living in desperation. We need to expand Social Security, not cut it. We need to increase funding for nutrition programs, not cut them.

Tax reform: We need real tax reform which makes the rich and profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes. We need a tax system which is fair and progressive. Children should not go hungry in this country while profitable corporations and the wealthy avoid their tax responsibilities by stashing their money in the Cayman Islands.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
217. ^^^^^^^^ This is the correct answer ^^^^^^^^
Thu May 28, 2015, 06:34 PM
May 2015


Divert and smear is clearly the MO of the corporate candidate who is also hiding from the media to avoid talking about the very same issues.

This race is shaping up very clearly as a contest between honesty and represention on the issues, versus manipulation/smear and avoidance of the issues.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
257. Talented marketers are paid good money to develop and disseminate these memes.
Sat May 30, 2015, 01:06 AM
May 2015

The business of the Third Way is business.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
68. "Bernie doesn't do so well in rational, nuanced world, which is to say, the real world"
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:34 AM
May 2015

Well then I am not in "the real world". Nice attack BTW and nice conformation that only someone with big money backers can win. That says all I need to make my decision. You go ahead and push for someone who is cozy with the same people and corporations that took our country to the pits of a "real world" severe recession/depression. That is why there is the "anger". Some of us still want to see those thieves punished. Others will take their money to win an election.

ConservativeDemocrat

(2,720 posts)
74. Meh. I don't even criticize Bernie, and his screamers do their best to drive everyone away
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:40 AM
May 2015

With friends like those, who needs enemies?

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

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
77. You guys keep throwing out these unsubstantiated memes
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:42 AM
May 2015

Then you get upset when they are shot down.

"He can't win because I say so" seems to be the biggest 'beef' Hillary supporters have with him.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
81. Well, "he can't win" is the biggest beef I have with Bernie.
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:44 AM
May 2015

It's the only real concern I have with him. Not that he's perfect on all issues, but if he could win, I would happily support him over Hillary.

But he can't. That's just reality. It's too bad, but it's true. And the other thing that is too bad is that Bernie support too often turns into Hillary bashing, which ultimately hurts the Dems chances of winning the White House, because she is going to be the candidate.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
94. By every possible measure of electability. Polls, fundraising, campaign infrastructure,
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:48 AM
May 2015

ability to appeal outside of the Democratic base, etc.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
106. The first primary is 9 months out
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:54 AM
May 2015

At this point all of your hypothesis are in the realm of wishful thinking, and only exist in your head.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
109. Well, I guess we disagree. But winning the White House is important to me, and I don't think
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:55 AM
May 2015

Bernie has any chance of doing that, so I support Hillary. It's really that simple.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
118. Cuz you say so.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:01 AM
May 2015

I find it amusing that those who are 'against' him, have no ammo, because he is right on pretty much every issue. So they do things like this. Very, very weak opposition.

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
117. You are right
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:01 AM
May 2015

I would agree with Bernie's positions just about 100% except for the protecting assault gun manufacturers from lawsuits crap.

But yeah, he can't win. No way in hell. He would be lucky to win his home state FFS!

If Burnie fans don't believe that then...

They can just tune into Hate radio or freakrepublic/redstate etc on the internets if you can stomach the hate for a minute and see which democratic candidate is under attack 24/7/365

It sure as hell ain't Bernie! LOL

So just as you say Bernie fans will spend the rest of this year and into next tearing down the only democrat that can win in 2016.

That really, really stinks.

CharlotteVale

(2,717 posts)
83. It's not "mild criticism." It's swiftboating. And the "great
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:45 AM
May 2015

vengeance and furious anger" is being perpretrated by the swiftboaters in their blatant dishonesty.

I don't normally bother to defend the few politicians I like because I don't really give a shit if any of them are criticized. That's what they sign up for. But this egregious attack on Bernie Sanders is just fucking insane.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
130. addressing demographics, hence where he'll get votes, is swiftboating? i thought that was politics?
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:08 AM
May 2015

raindaddy

(1,370 posts)
85. People are just buckling their seat belts for the predictable onslaught, financed by
Thu May 28, 2015, 10:46 AM
May 2015

Wall Street and the global corporations.. The same folks that control 90% of the media and are bankrolling Hillary Clinton.

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
237. Now I'm really pissed!
Thu May 28, 2015, 08:26 PM
May 2015

Where the hell is my fat check for supporting Hillary? !

Those wall street bastards never pay up!

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
124. At least it was nice to see a jury voted 7-0 to hide the post that called you a troll.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:05 AM
May 2015

Some times, the jury system works.

Response to DanTex (Original post)

Bobbie Jo

(14,341 posts)
126. Some of these folks are absolutely vicious.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:06 AM
May 2015

I'm sure Bernie would cringe in response to the bile that is spewed in his name.

Usual suspects, IMO....




TheSarcastinator

(854 posts)
132. what does it say that any alternative to Hillary is met with hyperbolic pearl clutching & lies?
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:10 AM
May 2015

My favorite has to be the "he can't win" meme: I had a colleague tell me the same thing a few years ago about Obama. This well-educated, well intentioned man calmly informed me that although he "was a Democrat" he know Obama wouldn't win because white people would SAY they voted him but would actually pull the lever for the McCain/Palin, which he was tempted to do himself. Six months later Obama was President and Well Educated White Dude was dead. Argument solved.

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
238. Which he is by voting against the Brady Bill
Thu May 28, 2015, 08:30 PM
May 2015

And protecting assault rifle manufacturers against lawsuits by Sandy Hook parents. And thats all a matter of record.
Really looking out for the little guy eh Bernie.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
143. I refuse to post HRC ops in GD because i do not want to go a 1000 rounds.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:28 AM
May 2015

Sanders is a good man but is not bevond criticism.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
144. Open your eyes, DanTex
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:30 AM
May 2015

DanTex opines,

"The argument for Bernie doesn't do so well in rational, nuanced world, which is to say, the real world."


Real world? Are you not aware that Bernie has about 20 times the government experience of HRC. He is tried and true, having won elections for Mayor, for U.S. House of Reps (numerous times) and for U.S. Senate.

He knows how government works, and he works well with others. He gets things done and makes friends, not enemies. Unlike Hillary, his ethics and honesty are right out there for all to see. Unlike Hillary, he can't be bought. Unlike Hillary, he doesn't pull strings behind the scenes to get what he wants. Unlike Hillary, he is not secretive.

Bernie Sanders has the qualities we need in a president.
 

Android3.14

(5,402 posts)
145. It says that karma happens, even if you support Hillary
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:31 AM
May 2015

That, and someone is channeling their inner Jules.

davidthegnome

(2,983 posts)
157. Funny, I haven't seen that.
Thu May 28, 2015, 11:48 AM
May 2015

The mild criticism thing, I mean. I've seen a self righteous, over the top rant that suggests that he doesn't seem to care enough about African American issues. Somehow, the fact that his voting record, actions, history and all that shows otherwise doesn't seem to convince the author or the author's followers.

Mild criticism might be to say, "Well, I think Bernie should have openly addressed black issues in his kick off announcement". You can see what was actually said, if you like - and the picture that went along with it.

As for great vengeance and furious anger... well, dishonesty, accusing a decent man of racism (even through implication, particularly given the nature of the post and the photo) is bound to make some people a little mad. Especially when some people are supporting that man for President.

You can certainly say things without actually saying them. For instance, "I don't think Clinton's ties to big corporations, her super PAC, or her history of so frequently being wrong on important issues is good for people. Especially poor people who will suffer the most because of it." Then say, I post a picture of some corporate giant sitting on a starving kid's back. Do you think that might be in poor taste? Perhaps, it might indicate that I was saying Clinton didn't care about poor people?

I have not done that - and will not do that. Clinton's corporate ties do make me uncomfortable - I think that's mild enough criticism, and don't see the need to illustrate with pictures or comments from rich people on why Clinton is not good for the poor.

This real world you're talking about? It's changing, it's changing A LOT. Watch the news, check out the weather, the affairs of the middle east, our own internal affairs. The poor are getting poorer, the rich are getting richer - and this is happening at such an alarming rate that there may be no turning back. It may be already that the corporate powers that be own our economy, our political system - and that everything else is just for show.

Bernie doesn't do so well in a rational, nuanced world? The real world? Damn, where have you been? This world is anything but rational and nuanced! This world is crazy and getting crazier every year. Check out Monsanto some time, or Walmart practices, or what's going on with GMOs, the attempt to stop protecting our food. The attempts to destroy welfare, social security, civil rights - the attempt to pay for the mistakes of the very wealthy with the work, the sweat and blood and tax dollars of the very poor.

Bernie may not do so well in your real world. In my world though, he's a damned champion - and I will be proud to reject and argue against any criticism of him that I believe is grossly unfair and dishonest.

I believe he CAN win. I believe he CAN beat the GOP in the general election. It's time for us to stop looking at who is "electable" and to look at what we actually want for our lives and our futures. Me, I want Bernie - and folks like him, at the top, working for the majority of us... the 99%.

 

tonedevil

(3,022 posts)
172. It has been said...
Thu May 28, 2015, 12:10 PM
May 2015

that Republicans fall in line while Democrats fall in love. Why do you think you can make falling in line happen?

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
176. Uhm
Thu May 28, 2015, 12:38 PM
May 2015

Well other than Sanders supporters possibly liking the film "Pulp Fiction'?

1) Sanders is better on every issue than Hillary

2) He has not recieved massive funding and speaking fees from Wallstreet and the banks.

3) He is speaking more plainly and clearly about the disparity of wealth than any candidate in any party currently running for president.

4) The 'electability' argument is a myth. It is a cul de sac argument based on name recognition and the size of a candidates warchest. Given fair exposure to all of the candidates ideas and speeches I think the polling data will change. Around a similar period the NYT had Bill Clinton running at about 3% in the polls in 1991. Granted it was a different time but wait and see.

5) Bernie Sanders has spent a lot more time legislating than Hillary has. He has served multiple terms in the house and the senate to her one. There just is no contest on experience or policy.

JustAnotherGen

(31,681 posts)
178. You had me right up until this
Thu May 28, 2015, 12:55 PM
May 2015
unlike Bernie, she can actually beat the GOP in the general election. The argument for Bernie doesn't do so well in rational, nuanced world, which is to say, the real world.


It's way too early to make statements like this.

They have Bush the Third and Pataki just announced this morning. What if it's Santorum Cruz?

We could run Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and beat a Crazy Town Candidate (Santorum, Cruz, Huck, Paul, Carson, etc. etc.)


And I think the Jesus Juice crowd is very vocal this cycle - and I'm not willing to count out a Crazy Town Candidate/Ticket as a result of their ardent support for their holy wars, vaginal probes, hatred of gays and lesbians, etc. etc.
 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
179. i totally agree it is too early to write sanders off. i replied to those, early on. i ignore that
Thu May 28, 2015, 01:02 PM
May 2015

statement now. but, i an open to what sanders can do.

JustAnotherGen

(31,681 posts)
182. I also don't like the implication
Thu May 28, 2015, 01:09 PM
May 2015

That the average Sanders supporter isn't living in the reality base world -not those exact words but I'm sure you understand.

I think if you are working poor - and can't make ends meet - that's your reality - and Sanders may be very appealing to you.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
184. Congratulations on your use of the GOP tactic of projection
Thu May 28, 2015, 01:13 PM
May 2015

Most of the anger and vengeance I've witnessed here has been initiated by the Hillary Clinton sycophants.

And your post also wins the award for snide, passive aggressive slap of the day: -

Once we get into weighing positives and negatives, we also have to realize that Hillary is mostly positive as well, and also that, unlike Bernie, she can actually beat the GOP in the general election. The argument for Bernie doesn't do so well in rational, nuanced world, which is to say, the real world.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
249. SUBTEXT: Sanders supporters are irrational, and they live in a fantasy world..
Fri May 29, 2015, 10:04 PM
May 2015

all couched in some whiny bullshit bemoaning the lack of civility directed at Clinton supporters. Unfuckingreal.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
185. Mild criticism of both candidates is met with great vengeance
Thu May 28, 2015, 01:14 PM
May 2015

Mild criticism of both candidates is met with great vengeance and furious anger by a handful of supporters of both the opposition candidates.

Focusing attention on, or realizing the one while denying the other side advertises a rather dramatic bias-- and in this context, that particular lack of objectivity is what I find the interesting phenomenon.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
233. Either Samuel Jackson, or monks working for King James II (of King James Bible fame)
Thu May 28, 2015, 07:56 PM
May 2015

I'm glad someone else noticed that the hyperbole was lifted.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
200. You few that love making thread after thread playing 'politics' are amusing I will admit.
Thu May 28, 2015, 04:10 PM
May 2015

I've never seen so many people waste so much time over so little. Glad I skipped the 2008 primaries on DU.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
202. Well, I skipped the whole thread, except for the OP...and I don't think calling him a racist is a
Thu May 28, 2015, 04:28 PM
May 2015

mild criticism. And "great vengeance and furious anger" ??? What hyperbole and baiting. Shame on you.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
203. I agree with you, but since nobody called him racist, that's a bit of a strange non-sequitor.
Thu May 28, 2015, 04:31 PM
May 2015

"Great vengeance and furious anger" is a line from Pulp Fiction.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
207. Where have you been? It's all over DU...he didn't speak about black people so he's lost his creds
Thu May 28, 2015, 04:37 PM
May 2015

as a Liberal, I guess. I'd had enough, so admittedly did not read the SOS this delightful tidbit of political wisdom stirred up. Congrats on the response count.

And thanks for the Reading Lesson...it's still hyperbole, unless you "Quote" it or explain...to those who know or care nothing about Pulp Fiction. It's Drama and Baiting. JMO

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
205. What's there to criticize about Bernie Sanders?
Thu May 28, 2015, 04:33 PM
May 2015

Hillary has problems. Bernie does not.

It all depends on your point of view. This is a primary.

It is natural to defend and prefer the candidate you like best.

Let the discussion go on.

Hillary's supporters have been extremely sensitive to the legitimate questions and criticisms about their candidate.

We who support Bernie are happy to defend him.

That's how you decide a primary. You discuss the faults and advantages of each candidate.

If it's too hot, get out of the kitchen.

We are cooking up a winning candidate here. Bound to get hot occasionally.

Politics is about discussion.

Avalux

(35,015 posts)
206. Please define "mild criticism".
Thu May 28, 2015, 04:36 PM
May 2015

You are also throw the word 'fact' around in your post, and draw conclusions without providing one shred of evidence to back them up. You're going to have to present your pro-Hillary argument with some substance if you want to be taken seriously.

 

LordGlenconner

(1,348 posts)
213. His most devoted supporters here
Thu May 28, 2015, 05:04 PM
May 2015

Are exactly like the Obama supporters they like to criticize as worshipers of the POTUS.

There's not a lick of difference between the two. Not one bit.



Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
221. Uhm, Republicans ARE evil.
Thu May 28, 2015, 07:22 PM
May 2015

If anyone doubts that, just pay attention a little bit. Trust me. They ARE evil.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
228. Says to me that maybe his fans are as terrified that he'll lose as they keep saying Hillary
Thu May 28, 2015, 07:40 PM
May 2015

supporters are that he'll win.

It's impossible to talk about anything in this place now. The "Stop calling Sanders a racist!!1one" posts are just about the most ignorant, cringe inducing stupidity I've seen on this web site in a long time. And as a proud Obama supporter, that is TRULY saying something.

 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
230. Maybe it means you watch too many Tarantino movies ...
Thu May 28, 2015, 07:42 PM
May 2015

OR, maybe it means you are misinterpreting mild criticisms as 'furious anger', perhaps as part of a larger scheme of purposeful misdirection against Sanders supporters ....

I know it means this - The Dan Tex that I used to agree with is gone, and some mean, disagreeable person jumped into that reclining computer chair ...

Sad ....

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
232. You can criticize Bernie all you want...that's fine...but you're not entitled to special deference.
Thu May 28, 2015, 07:52 PM
May 2015

And the fact that you back HRC, the conservative establishment candidate(as she was inn '08) does put your remarks in a far less disinterested light.

BTW-it does not go without saying that HRC is a stronger candidate than Bernie-especially since nominating her means all the Nineties scandals will be dug up by the right-wing, and since they all worked then they will all work again.

Do you really want to have talk radio exhuming Vince Foster(and probably not just metaphorically)?

I'll work for her if she does get nominated, but you've got to accept that she's really not that freaking special-especially sinceshe still won't even admit she was inexcusably wrong to vote for pointless slaughter in Iraq.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
234. When did I ask for special deference?
Thu May 28, 2015, 07:57 PM
May 2015

I back Hillary because I want a Democrat in the White House. She is an establishment candidate, yes, but she's obviously not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah, I admit she's not that "special" in the sense that her politics aren't as progressive as Bernie's. She's a center-left politician, pretty much the same politics as Obama. What I like about her is that she can win the GE. If there were no GE, I'd be for Bernie. But there is one.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
236. Oh, please...Try mildly criticizing Greenwald, Snowden or Hersh on this forum
Thu May 28, 2015, 08:19 PM
May 2015

Then you'll see some furious angers...

G_j

(40,366 posts)
265. Don't see that at all
Thu Feb 25, 2016, 04:18 PM
Feb 2016

but then, I don't spend hours spinning my wheels in GD rimaries. I don't see it in the many Bernie supporters I know personally.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What does it say that mil...