Fellow Hillary supporters - PLEASE don't adopt the behaviors you criticized

[Steven Maurer]

It is one thing to criticize someone who is outright attacking the Democratic party, or otherwise putting forth the narrative that Democrats and/or Democratic leaders are somehow "corrupt" or "only working for corporations" and other pap.

It is quite another to bash someone simply because of a tribal identity.

Now here's the thing. I'm not telling you this because I think we should "move forward", ignoring the history of people who, for various reasons good and bad, ended up contributing to Trump being in office. I am certainly not telling you that bygones should be bygones, and we shouldn't care who stabbed who in the back.

Rather, I'm telling you this because you're supposed to be the grownups in this conversation. And you are better than that yourself.

So, unless there is some FRESH NEW ATTACK that needs to be rebutted, please don't go out of your way to attack any Democratic ally. Specifically, this means people who supported Senator Sanders in the primary (which they had absolutely every right to do) but then went on to vote for Hillary, and Senator Sanders himself, who endorsed the Democratic nominee and campaigned for her.

There are still differences, of course. Mostly about political strategy and a huge amount of misunderstanding about how hard it is to get something done when the nation is filled to the brim with racists and sexists. But making it personal, making ethical attacks, is the original sin of the Sanders campaign (since mostly walked back). So don't do that yourself.

[nocoincidences]

1. No. Stop.

[Hortensis]

60. Agree. "Steven," you're not fooling anyone.

As for Jane Sanders' egregious accusations about President Obama and the Democratic Party, this cynical ploy to blame her legal problems from her job in Vermont on President Obama and the Democratic Party is nothing new.

But you should be outraged, Steven, assuming you are a genuine supporter. How dare she lie to you and ruthlessly betray the trust of all those who believe in her and her husband?

[Steven Maurer]

68. You scare quote my name?

Hoo boy.

Does it ever occur to you that attacking Senator Sanders over what his wife did is the same thing as holding Hillary Clinton responsible for every decision that Bill Clinton made as President ?

When Hillary was held responsible for something that Bill did as President (regardless of whether it was really not just something he had to do given the political situation he was in), did you think that criticism was fair? Or did you think that imagining that Hillary was not her own person independent from Bill was sexist?

And yet here, you're attacking Bernie over Jane.

People can be married and disagree.

[Hortensis]

74. How (accidentally?) accurate it is to equate Jane's lies about the Democratic Party

with Republican lies about a former first lady. After all, she is using the Repugs standard method of blaming all their sins and crimes on the Democratic Party.

And btw, Hillary was NEVER "held responsible" for her husband's actions, she was swiftboated by enemies who simply dusted off their twists and lies about him and dumped them on her. Quite a difference, and it's very much not okay to post those right-wing smears here on DU. A 2-fer whacking Hillary and Bill, and how clever of you.

[NurseJackie]

71. ###

[guillaumeb]

2. It started well, but went off track. eom

[Weekend Warrior]

4. You think it started well?

I think it finished just about how it started.

[guillaumeb]

12. I was referring to the title.

After that, it followed the formula that we have all seen many times.

[Steven Maurer]

6. This is not a message intended for Sanders supporters

It is a message intended specifically for Democrats who still are angry at being betrayed.

You are perfectly welcome to trash the message if you so desire.

[guillaumeb]

13. The second line of your reponse summarizes your mindset.

Not that the summary was needed. And while I believe that you believe what you posted, it does not break any new ground.

[charlyvi]

3. WTF?

Go away.

[Alice11111]

29. !!! Agree. Condescending much!

[Squinch]

58. Yes. Passive aggressive and stokes the fight it purports to be above. While innocently

blinking big eyes.

[nocoincidences]

5. Stop knee-jerk responding to the trolls

if you want them to leave.

[obamanut2012]

18. lulz

[lamp_shade]

7. Now here's the thing....

nevermind

[OnDoutside]

8. The biggest issue is the genuine concern that

the purity brigade will overpower the Democratic Party, as the Tea Party have done to the Republicans. 2018 is so important, the last thing that's needed is an ideological war within the Democratic party.

[Jakes Progress]

10. Yep. Supported by RW money

and russian social media campaigns.

Attack the Democratic Party and make putin laugh.

[OnDoutside]

11. Knowing what we now know about Russian interference,

yes that too is a real fear.

[guillaumeb]

14. And of course you have proof of these allegations? eom

[Jakes Progress]

23. Read a little.

Listen a little.

It will come to you.

[guillaumeb]

25. An evasive non-answer. Accepted and understood as such. eom

[Jakes Progress]

35. No. A suggestion.

Do I need to recreate the transcripts of a dozen Rachel Meadow shows? How about the pages of the New York times? Just how many sources do you require? There is little point in my posting a single story or three about the work of russian social media disinformation programs. If you only get your news from posts on DU, then even there you will find references to how this has occurred.

So your feigned ignorance of facts not in dispute (not even by congressional republicans) will not taunt me into spending my time referring you to information you already know but want to ignore for some festering reason.

If you refuse to read and understand, I cannot help. You may accept this, but I question your understanding.

[guillaumeb]

36. Define allegation. And then, define proof.

Allegation is one thing, but the reason that we have a Court system is to decide on the truth of allegations.

[Jakes Progress]

43. So let me see if I have this straight.

You are of the opinion that russians did not spread stories detrimental to Hillary Clinton at all? Or just that they never spread them among liberals?

You use the same defense that many in this administration use. Your position is that all of the "allegations" on Rachel Maddow are to be ignored because Trump hasn't gone to court yet? Is that the upshot of your deep belief? That neither you nor any "pure" liberal could possibly be a dupe or victim of false social media propaganda spread by russia or the rw.

Then we are condemned to lose the next election also.

From a story in the New Yorker:

In the weeks after WikiLeaks released the D.N.C. e-mails, John Mattes, a Bernie Sanders organizer who ran a Facebook page for supporters in San Diego, noticed a surge of new adherents with false profiles. One “Oliver Mitov” had almost no friends or photographs but belonged to sixteen pro-Sanders groups. On September 25th, Mitov posted to several pro-Sanders pages: “new leak: Here Is Who Ordered Hillary To Leave The 4 Men In Benghazi!—USAPoliticsNow.” It was a baseless story alleging that Clinton had received millions of dollars from Saudi royals. Mattes said, “The fake news depressed and discouraged some percentage of Bernie voters. When I realized it, I said, ‘We are being played.’ ”

[guillaumeb]

46. I am of the opinion that there is much apparent evidence of Russian interference.

But I am also aware of the difference between allegation and proof.

[Jakes Progress]

47. Just what the trump lawyers will argue.

What do you think makes you likely to believe that the russians had nothing to do with the primaries and the elections?

[guillaumeb]

49. I indicated nothing of the sort.

But ultimately, the Court will decide if the matter gets that far.

[Jakes Progress]

50. Indication

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[guillaumeb]

64. I do not think that you are reading what I am writing.

But that is fine with me.

[Jakes Progress]

69. You hope that I am not reading what you are writing.

I believe you have lost the thread of the conversation. You knee-jerked into a thread about russian influence in the election to proclaim that nothing has been "proven" (my guess it that you took the suggestion that the russians were trying to influence Democrats as a swipe at Bernie, but you never said why you don't believe any of these things).

You say the question of russian influence is mere allegation. If that is not an indication that you believe that the russians messed with our elections, just why did you even bother to pipe up in the first place. The post you leapt upon was just my statement involving the news stories about the evidence of russian interference. Why was it so irksome to you that I referred to stories in the Times, the WP, Rachel Maddow, and Joy Reid, that you felt compelled to deny that they were accurate and needed a jury decision before we should consider them? You won't say.

But that is fine.

[guillaumeb]

70. There is, so far, actual proof of nothing.

Proof is a higher bar. Yes there are many allegations, but Robert Mueller is looking to prove what others allege. And that is my point.

[Jakes Progress]

75. My republican neighbor just said the same thing.

His point was that the fake news media needs to get off of trump's back and let him fix the country.

What is your point?

[guillaumeb]

77. I made my point already.

And if Mueller announces the results of his investigation, and the results implicate Trump, your neighbor will probably denounce Mueller as a secret Democrat.

[Jakes Progress]

79. Where are you going and what on earth

are you babbling about.

What point? Are you trying to say that we shouldn't think about russian involvement because it might get Mueller in trouble? My neighbor already thinks Mueller is a Democrat? Are you saying you do too? You're leaps away from trying to explain a point that began with your unfortunate post are getting more and more bizarre.

Tell you what. Try ducking again. If you can't explain yourself, you either don't know what you are saying or you know your screwed up and are just pissed that you got called out.

Just as an exercise, try putting one coherent idea into the mix instead of just more "nyah nyah nyah". See if you can do it.

[guillaumeb]

80. You might want to have someone else read my posts and see if they see the same things that you

apparently think you see. Perhaps if you worked more on listening/reading and less on attempts at sarcasm we could have an actual dialogue.

[Jakes Progress]

81. You might have someone read you posts before you post.

Perhaps if you worked more at accepting criticism of silly postings and less on denying what you wrote, we could have an actual dialogue.

[guillaumeb]

82. I am happy to be your inspiration in sentence formatting.

Now we must work on the rest.

[Jakes Progress]

83. I thought if I used your syntax you might understand. Alas.

I erred. Understanding (or accepting responsibility for your own words) seems to elude your ability.

[guillaumeb]

84. Sarcasm and insight are not equivalent. eom

[LanternWaste]

65. I'd request a replay of one of the largest conversations of 2017 as well were my bias telling me to.

I'd request a complete replay of one of the largest, most obvious conversations of 2017 as well were my bias telling me to.

I'd also inaccurately infer proof when none was mentioned as such, and pretend the entire discussion revolves around it... much easier to trivialize others that way.

[guillaumeb]

66. Allegation and proof are not equal.

Proof does not come from the court of public opinion.

[Eliot Rosewater]

28. I hear a coat rack is running for congress in Oregon with a D after its name vs

a Rhodes Scholar nuclear scientist with extremely liberal views with an R after its name.

Guess which one gets my vote.

[leftofcool]

9. Nope

And what the hell is "tribal identity?"

[Squinch]

78. Is that the wind I hear whistling? Did you hear it too?

[Madam45for2923]

15. We see Bernie very differently. That's a fact. Not gonna change. Can we still UNITE?

[Justice]

16. Don't go out of your way to post something so offensive. Don't do that to yourself.

That's the thing.

[obamanut2012]

17. lulz

[Madam45for2923]

19. I think and I hope that you had good intentions here.

Steven Maurer (142 posts)

Fellow Hillary supporters - PLEASE don't adopt the behaviors you criticized

It is one thing to criticize someone who is outright attacking the Democratic party, or otherwise putting forth the narrative that Democrats and/or Democratic leaders are somehow "corrupt" or "only working for corporations" and other pap.

It is quite another to bash someone simply because of a tribal identity.

Now here's the thing. I'm not telling you this because I think we should "move forward", ignoring the history of people who, for various reasons good and bad, ended up contributing to Trump being in office. I am certainly not telling you that bygones should be bygones, and we shouldn't care who stabbed who in the back.

Rather, I'm telling you this because you're supposed to be the grownups in this conversation. And you are better than that yourself.

So, unless there is some FRESH NEW ATTACK that needs to be rebutted, please don't go out of your way to attack any Democratic ally. Specifically, this means people who supported Senator Sanders in the primary (which they had absolutely every right to do) but then went on to vote for Hillary, and Senator Sanders himself, who endorsed the Democratic nominee and campaigned for her.

There are still differences, of course. Mostly about political strategy and a huge amount of misunderstanding about how hard it is to get something done when the nation is filled to the brim with racists and sexists. But making it personal, making ethical attacks, is the original sin of the Sanders campaign (since mostly walked back). So don't do that yourself.
2

[aikoaiko]

20. WTF "making it personal, making ethical attacks, is the original sin of the Sanders campaign"

It's almost like you didn't apply your own advice about Democratic allies to yourself.

[lunasun]

21. "tribal identity" ???

[NobodyHere]

22. Don't feed the trolls

[Demsrule86]

24. I have no idea what you are talking about...this post is senseless.

[Oneironaut]

26. I think the Bernie threads need to die. He is a non-player now.

(Yes, in posting about Bernie. Obvious hypocrisy, but whatever). Bernie is not important now. I'd argue that even Hillary isn't important now, unless if we're analyzing why she lost and how not to repeat those mistakes.

We need a new superstar in the party, rather than ruminating over the previous Democratic primary of all things. Time to let it all go, and think of the future. We need viable candidates that unite the party.

[womanofthehills]

72. Many senators don't put themselves out there to say much - but Bernie does

so I think that makes him important

[pangaia]

27. Ooookaaayy I'll bite..

"...Rather, I'm telling you this because you're supposed to be the grownups in this conversation. "

Which implies that Sander's primary supporters are NOT grownups.

You might want to cut bait and just delete the whole shebang..

[Steven Maurer]

30. No, just people who bash Democrats are not grownups

Please don't tell me that it is a requirement to shit all over the party to support Sanders. I know plenty of Sanders supporters who didn't do that.

p.s. This message was not intended for people like you anyway.

[pangaia]

32. people like me?

I honestly am not sure what you mean?

Maybe I am missing something.. It has happened before..

[Steven Maurer]

33. Are you a Hillary supporter, so angry at Democrats being bashed

You're now bashing Democratic allies, just because they refuse to have that (D) next to their name?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

[BainsBane]

31. I supported Hillary in 2016

She is no longer running for office. I will not be defining myself according to the 2016 primary for time immemorial. Your post is flawed in that you assume that people who supported Clinton are as focused on her as those who define themselves according to Bernie Sanders. While people like and admire her, you don't see them calling themselves "Clintoncrats" or "Hillarycrats."

So, unless there is some FRESH NEW ATTACK that needs to be rebutted, please don't go out of your way to attack any Democratic ally.

1) There are fresh attacks every day. 2) I'm done with the bullshit attitude that I owe deference to someone just because they are rich and powerful. I don't give even half a fuck who someone supported in a long-ago settled primary. I care what they do and say NOW. That means I fully intend to exercise my right to free speech, and that includes responding to those who insult me, seek to undermine my equal rights, and reduce me and others who weren't born into the white middle to upper-middle class, or even millionaires, held as superior to the rest of humanity, precisely because of the tribal identity that is all some care about.

I don't know what prompted your attack, but I suggest you focus on your own speech rather than trying to censure the speech and minds of others. I will not be following your orders.

[NurseJackie]

44. In response to this, I'd like to say...

... thank you very much!

[LexVegas]

34. Ok dad.

[ehrnst]

37. LOL!!! (nt)

[Eliot Rosewater]

38. Almost as if Hillary isnt liked by some here. NOt sure how that is even

possible since she is a defacto leader or one of them of the party this site CELEBRATES

[lapucelle]

39. "You..."? How interesting

that you didn't say "we".

[NurseJackie]

45. That is an interesting observation.

[brer cat]

40. Are you the new hall monitor? nt

[FSogol]

41. We need a "Scold" Group so people can say "Tsk, Tsk" to each other.

[annarbor]

42. I miss the early years of DU...

I feel this comes up every weekend. Sigh 😔

[Jakes Progress]

48. Maybe we have some posters

with addresses in Odessa. (I don't mean West Texas.)

It is not unlikely that DU would be a target for the bot farms. And sowing discord among Democrats would be exactly what they would like to have happen. If Zuckerberg could miss it, any other site could.

[pnwmom]

51. Thanks for the mansplainin'.

We Hillary supporters will try to do better.

[Skittles]

52. I will give you points for not saying DEMOCRAT PARTY

[ecstatic]

55. I don't mean to question your intentions,

but you appear to be mocking both sides with this OP. Is this just innocent fun or something more sinister?

[Steven Maurer]

56. First off, I am at least modestly in earnest...

...but more importantly, please explain to me how telling people to stop [expletive deleted] fighting, can in any way be "sinister"?

[VOX]

57. You remind me of my grandmother.

"Don't stay up late."
"Don't let the cat outside."
"You ought to feel (grateful, proud, ashamed, etc.)"
"That's a totally absurd idea."

[betsuni]

59. "Are you going to wear THAT? Don't you want to look nice?"

"Get your hair out of your face."
"Don't you think you're wearing too much makeup? You look like a painted doll."
Etc.

[cwydro]

61. There is one DUer who loves to lecture the rest of us.

Now I guess we have another.

[louis c]

62. Anyone on this site that didn't vote for Hilary in the GE and doesn't admit it was a mistake

I will never forgive.

Sorry. binary choice.

I refer anyone who doesn't understand to the 1932 German election between Otto Wels and Adolf Hitler.

You didn't have to like Otto, but you sure in hell should have voted for him.

[betsuni]

63. +1

[Spy Car]

67. Insert George Santayana quote here

]

[nini]

73. this is hilarious

Playing nice is a thing of the past. Look where it has gotten us.

I'm going after anyone who is a threat to this country.

[stonecutter357]

76. Seems Legit lol.