At this point, are we even sure her name is "Hillary" any more?

[revbones]

I mean the lies are just pathological at this point.

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. Horrible post

[revbones]

3. Really? Are we sure her name is "Hillary", I mean the lies just spout forth.

Watching her since Jan take Bernie's stances, or twist votes around on larger bills, or just spout forth random insane lies, it's become rather obvious.

[Sunlei]

83. instead of generalizing why can't you get specific?

Perhaps you've spent to much time staring at your cellphone news and need a few days break. Internet addiction can be depressing and cause anxiety.

[Lizzie Poppet]

82. worldssmallestviolin.jpg

[msongs]

2. nice try nt

[giftedgirl77]

4. Well you've just been a busy bee.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

102. I just witnessed something I cant believe. The post calling Clinton a pathological liar is

allowed by a jury, a post responding about that and how that is not a good thing to say was hidden.

That is insane.

[giftedgirl77]

103. The place has been overran by libertarians & independents.

It needs a good dose of antibiotics to get rid of the Bern.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

106. Occasionally I listen to Tom Hartman, and today he was

cajoling many of his callers who were saying they simply cant vote for Hillary.

No matter what.

In fact some even said they would vote Trump if not Bernie, which actually reinforces a belief I have about many of them.

[HooptieWagon]

5. Pretty sure it's Henry now.

Last edited Fri Mar 11, 2016, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)

She's an avid disciple of the original neo-con.

[Kalidurga]

6. Well we know she wasn't named after Sir Edmund Hillary.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

11. We do? Hillary's told that story many times... that her mother named her after the famous mountain climber.

[1monster]

33. Sir Edmund Hillary reached the summit of Mount Everest (and fame)

on May 29, 1953. Hillary Rodham Clinton was born October 26, 1947.

[pdsimdars]

68. OMG!!! Hard to believe but by now I can believe it. The lyin' lady.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

73. Could there be another explanation?...Perhaps Hillary's mother was a psychic.

[PonyUp]

86. Please don't give Hillary something else to lie about!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

89. My bad.

[840high]

60. We do. Another lie.

[peacebird]

76. That was my first thought when I saw the OP!

[NCTraveler]

7. Kick

[uppityperson]

8. Making GDP such a nice place these days?

Last edited Fri Mar 11, 2016, 02:45 AM - Edit history (2)

And I say that as a Bernie supporter.

It was sarcasm, in case I was too subtle.

Unrec

[demmiblue]

9. What a fecking stupid post.

Go away, Brock et al.

[handmade34]

10. well, actually a fairly astute post...

"the lies are just pathological at this point"

[revbones]

12. More stupid than all the red-baiting?

[stevenleser]

13. Does he call himself a Democratic Socialist or not? Did he acknowledge support for the Sandinistas

and Castro or not?

At what point should we take his self description, that he keeps reinforcing, seriously?

[revbones]

15. I would suggest using the google to look up the difference

between things like communism and socialism, and specifically democratic socialism.

[stevenleser]

17. Historically, the term "Red" applies to Socialism as well, so your post is wrong.

Last edited Thu Mar 10, 2016, 11:33 PM - Edit history (1)

I know the difference. It doesn't matter. Red applies to both.

[revbones]

42. You're generalizing. Not to democratic socialism.

[stevenleser]

44. Democratic Socialism is a form of Socialism. You knew that, right? nt

[revbones]

45. Yes but your whole red argument doesn't apply across the board - it does to specific flavors

Like that in "red" China and so forth. Not to democratic socialism.

[stevenleser]

46. And your proof for that is? nt

[revbones]

51. I don't really need to prove that.

I don't feel the need to argue against someone using an argument from ignorance (logical fallacy - look it up before any Hillary supporters alert on an insult).

You can't just say something is true because it hasn't been disproven. Here you're saying that socialism is red because I can't prove it isn't.

The term "Red" is associated with some forms and communism - as I've said, but I would hope that we're all intelligent enough to know that there is a difference between concepts such as "national socialism" "democratic socialism" and "communism" - or that we were all intelligent enough to at least google for types of socialism.

If you need assistance, here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism

[stevenleser]

54. On DU, yes, you need to prove your contentions. And in this case, you can't because you're wrong.

It's as simple as that.

[revbones]

55. Did you even read my comment?

It's impossible to prove that, and it's a logical fallacy. I explained that and if you'd take the time to read you're realize how wrong you are here.

[stevenleser]

56. Yes, and you are the one using multiple logical fallacies. And unlike you I can list them.

You have gone ad-hominem in several comments accusing me of ignorance or not knowing the meaning of terms without any evidence to support that. Argumentum ad-hominem is logical fallacy #1 that you have used.

Also, the different flavors of Socialism and Socialism vs Communism, those things you accused me of not knowing, are irrelevant here as the term "Red" can universally be applied to all of them. That is a Red Herring you have raised (no pun intended), that is logical fallacy #2.

If you are going to assert that someone is using logical fallacies, you ought to know what those are. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

[revbones]

57. OH, I'm sorry. If you say it can be "universally applied" then I guess that proves it.

As far as accusing you of ignorance, no I went back to double-check but in this particular thread I used the phrase "argument from ignorance" which is a logical fallacy here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Perhaps you should also review your logical fallacies if you think I should...

[stevenleser]

58. I was hoping you would ask me for proof of that. See the following

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare#First_Red_Scare_.281919.E2.80.931920.29

Regardless of ideological gradation, the Red Scare did not distinguish between communism, anarchism, socialism, or social democracy.[9]

See, unlike you I can back up my contentions.

This disproves your attempt to suggest I am arguing from ignorance and backs up my assertion that you are using two logical fallacies.

Game, set, match.

[revbones]

59. So you were just waiting for me to ask rather than providing it earlier

And possibly avoiding all those posts? That's a long way to go to prove a point and justify lumping in various forms of socialism together rather than acknowledge differences.

Kudos. I accept that the "Red Scares" were not discriminating in forms of socialism. I would still hope that you and others would be intelligent enough to accept the differences between the forms, rather than proudly lump democratic socialism in with communism with complete disregard for true definitions.

[Katashi_itto]

69. Hows Whoopi?

[pdsimdars]

70. Are you really this uninformed? As he suggested, do some gooling and get up to speed

before exposing your ignorance with all this "attitude"

[FarPoint]

77. Thank you Steve.

[demmiblue]

14. Go away. You are not a Bernie supporter.

It amazes me that some can't see through the obvious.

[revbones]

16. Because I'm tired of the lies? Or the red-baiting?

[demmiblue]

18. No, because you are obvious. n/t

[revbones]

20. Obvious that I'm not a Bernie supporter by saying something about Hillary? Whatever.

[JTFrog]

64. No, an obvious repeat troll. n/t

[PonyUp]

88. Didn't you know? There are no Bernie supporters anywhere. Ever. Bernie doesn't even exist. n/t

[stevenleser]

19. Interesting. So is this person a Hillary poster in disguise or from one of the stalker websites...

in your opinion?

[revbones]

21. Ooooh can I be from one of the stalker sites? Which ones can I choose from?

Sounds exciting and just like other Hillary conspiracies. It'd be nice if one "conspiracy" was real instead of just her corruption.

[stevenleser]

25. Heck I don't know. I am not the one that made the accusation. nt

[Hortensis]

61. Is that why people call this subforum Bernie Underground?

I agree that only Bernie partisans belong here right now. It is only fit for those who love to wallow joyfully in lies, literally any lie, about Hillary.

What is even more shocking, though, is the group embrace of absolutely anything if Bernie is somehow imagined to be associated with it. I don't see a line anywhere. They were all crossed long ago.

[revbones]

23. Or kittens that Hillary has eaten if you want to go there.

Edited before some Hillary supporter wakes up from fainting. Yes, I know Hillary doesn't eat kittens (probably), it was just a retort to the silly wives comment.

[left-of-center2012]

26. She's trying to morph into "Bernie 2"

Her opening statement in last night's debate had her supporting Bernie's policies.

[revbones]

27. Those mashup videos of her video but Bernie's audio

are hilarious. She's stolen so many positions, she's down to blatant speech plagiarism.

[Godhumor]

28. You rec'd your own post. That says

You were just so tickled with the brilliance of your OP, you thought, "This is so scathing, yet humorous, that I want to not just let people know that I wrote it but that I KNOW it is worthy of the greatest page."

Guess I can't fault you for your confidence.

[revbones]

30. It got you to comment didn't it?

[SCantiGOP]

29. Really good Original Post

Yeah, great.

[calguy]

31. What a worthless piece of crap this thread is.

You certainly represent the worst of the worst of the Bernie supporters.
I like Bernie, too bad do many of his immature supporters lack the class je has.

[Bubzer]

36. ...

[pdsimdars]

79. so, calguy, do you always hang out in worthless pieces of crap?

What does that say about you?

[calguy]

32. At this point, can BSers get any lower in the gutter?

[Bubzer]

35. Congratualtions... you've placed yourself on par with the poster through name calling.

Please keep the conversation above board and consider modifying your post. Let's stick to facts rather than character assassinations shall we?

[brooklynite]

53. The Primary still has 4 months to go.

[Bubzer]

34. That's a personal attack. It's okay to call her on issues... this isn't that.

If you want to call out her poor judgment or something similar, cite an action... otherwise this thread needs to be edited or deleted.

[revbones]

37. If she does not speak the truth on issues, what's the point?

She says one thing when speaking pulicly, but then her actions are the complete opposite. There's no point to try to even discuss her policy positions, because you have no idea if she actually even holds that position.

On the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, she specifically told unions she would fight it. Her emails showed that she secretly lobbied for it.

On her Wall St speeches, she say's she'll fight for us and regulate Wall St, but we can't know what she told them and got paid millions for, so how can we presume to know what she'll do?

On Social Security, she says she'll fight for saving it, but then says she'll raise the retirement age.

She was against the bankruptcy bill until she got lobbyist money, then she voted for it.

The list goes on and on.

[Bubzer]

39. The point is this: She's not the one looking at these comments and being impacted by them.

Other voters are. This reply is far more substantive and demonstrative that your OP. When you post a comment, you're speaking to all the other would-be voters... and if you're serious about wanting Bernie to win, we should all be putting our best foot forward, and helping others see what we see... that is the point.

And really, personal attacks should be out of the picture regardless.

[revbones]

41. So, my opinion (like many others) that she is not trustworthy is a personal attack

No, I think given the sheer volume of lies in 2016 uttered by Clinton, that it's reasonable to even doubt she gives the correct name.

[Bubzer]

47. It comes back to how you phrase is revbones. As it sits right now, yes, it's a personal attack

But saying: In my opinion (like many others) she is not trustworthy... is more than acceptable. I come out on a regular basis and say she's simply not trustworthy...because, well, she isn't. I've demonstrated why dozens of different ways.

But saying "At this point, are we even sure her name is "Hillary" any more?" is where it's personal. There's no addressing of fact here. This is all ad-hominem... and I already know through our short conversation that you can do significantly better.

Also, consider this; the Hillary supporters will absolutely take your comment as being just another Bernie bro on a sexist tirade... regardless of if its fact or fiction, purely because it's an attack divorced from any concrete issue.

[revbones]

48. Meh, it was a sarcastic joke.

And I disagree that it was personal or ad-hominem because it was based on her trustworthiness and as such when you lie that much then pretty much anything you say should be questioned, but then you are entitled to your own opinion.

Any pro-Bernie comment is sexist to Hillary supporters, so I'm not sure what the point would be in discussing that here.

[Bubzer]

49. If it was just hillary supporters and Bernie supporters... I'd probably have walked away from DU...

but there are uncommitted voters here too...hard as that may be to believe... and there are also those who may change their minds. Being caustic wont do it though. Here, take a read through this... it might help explain what I mean: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280142453

[revbones]

93. ANd they should know that they should doubt anything she says.

[Bubzer]

94. Except, it ussually doesn't work that way.

If you walk into a room and there's two people in the room arguing... one says they were attacked by the other person... then that other person says its not true and that the first person attacked them... who's right and who's the liar? Without additional evidence, there's no way to know. So, you would have to gather more evidence.

The undecided people are in the room... and they see Hillary and Bernie supporters fighting... who're they to believe? People are more suspicious of those who verbally attack others. Reasoned stances tend to be embraced more.

It's no where near as gratifying as simply letting loose, but maintaining a cool head and sticking with reason over attacks has a much higher likelihood of bringing the undecided to our side.

[revbones]

95. Yes, so many opinions are really changed here at DU.

I'm kinda done with this subthread. Continue if you want. You have your opinions, I have mine. Preaching from such a high perch also doesn't sway anyone.

[Bubzer]

97. Then dont preach. State fact. haven't I been saying that the whole time?

Look do what you want, but if you make personal attacks, I'll be counted among those who will alert on your post. Sorry.

[revbones]

98. You've been preaching from a very high perch.

You may even feel that perch is justified. I don't.

[Bubzer]

100. Do as you wish. I've said my piece.

[senz]

92. It was obviously a sarcastic joke. Harmless, imo.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why people are picking on you like that.

[Jarqui]

108. In 2008, I was seriously considering Hillary but her demonstrated lack of

integrity made it easy to back Obama. Lies, dirty tricks, deception, flip-flops,etc I just can't go along with that stuff. I never could.

When I started following this campaign, I felt it was between Hillary and Biden.Because Hillary had conducted herself as Secretary of State in a way that didn't detract from the Obama administration, I felt she earned another look - sincerely. I liked Bernie but I didn't think Bernie had a prayer, he was so far back. I was concerned about both Bernie's and Joe's age. But integrity was the deal breaker for me in 2008 and now again, in 2016. It sealed it.

But this is not "personal". I've never met her and I'm sure most other posters haven't either. She's a candidate. For some of us, lack of integrity is a serious character flaw in a person running for President of the United States. And it keeps getting brought up again and again because she or her campaign does it again and again.

The last poll I saw was at 67% for the number of people who found her untrustworthy. About 20% of Sanders supporters say the primary reason they support him is because they feel he is trustworthy. The polling companies are not making a personal attack when they ask about this. They are tracking other components like : leadership, understands or is sympathetic to my positions, are they good at handling foreign policy?, are they good at handling the economy?, will they keep us safe?, will they get us into war?, etc

Like about 20% of Bernie's supporters, I'm probably a bit of an idealist. But I cannot put my heart into a candidate who has a big problem telling the truth. Nothing personal, I've been this way for about 50 years.

[Bubzer]

109. Well reasoned and rational imo

[grasswire]

38. Jury Results for Question Everything

This post harkens back to the scurrilous attacks on John McCain's children. It's supremely shameful to comment negatively on the marital status and number of children Bernie Sanders has, implying that they are illegitimate or somehow not appropriate. It is a classist, sexist slur and should not be tolerated on DU. Remember all the slurs about Chelsea Clinton's parentage? Please hide this.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Mar 10, 2016, 10:35 PM, and voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It is one thing to say something about a person's policy but this is just disgusting.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Absolutely nasty, vicious. Democrats don't do this. Please hide this ugly attack. So below the belt, it's down around the toes.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: to much lead in his water?
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[yardwork]

66. But the OP is just fine?

The hypocrisy around here is just stunning.

My alert on the OP noted that dehumanizing one's political rivals is how genocide begins.

[noamnety]

72. I would have burst out laughing if I'd read that in an alert.

In fact, laughing now. That one's a keeper.

[yardwork]

75. Of course you're laughing. It's easy to laugh at "the other."

I repeat - Dehumanizing political rivals is the first step toward fascism and genicide. Look it up.

[noamnety]

81. Still RFLMAO

From your own keyboard:

"Edited to add that I love: "insane talking yam on the Republican side."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511412544

I will be holding you responsible for the world's next genocide.


At least we agree on this: "The hypocrisy around here is just stunning."

[yardwork]

90. You are troubled by an insult directed at Trump?

That tells me all I need to know.

[noamnety]

91. I'm troubled that you think it will lead to genocide. nt

[Jackie Wilson Said]

105. Sadly you are right, and those who do not know their history, well you know the rest.

[Lizzie Poppet]

85. For future alerts...

...consider not indulging in ludicrous hyperbole. I mean, really...genocide? I'd bet money more than one juror just rolled their eyes at that, immediately clicked "leave it," and that was that.

[jcgoldie]

40. Stupid fucking thread

congratulations.

[brooklynite]

43. We ARE however sure that you're being obnoxious...

[CorkySt.Clair]

50. Maybe you could ask for her birth certificate?

I'm sure you'd probably want the long form.

That'll answer your next question: "Is Hillary really a woman?1!"

[JonLeibowitz]

52. Unrec. Please self-delete.

[riversedge]

63. You make all Sander's supporters look stupid , extreem and silly

when you post silly posts such as your OP.. Take it down please.

[yardwork]

65. I hope Bernie Sanders is proud of what his campaign has become.

Now I have to go vomit.

[Lizzie Poppet]

87. One whose supporters insist on honesty? I'm sure he is.

If you don't like your candidate being called on her constant flip-flopping, misrepresentation, and outright lying, demand that she clean up her act.

[pdsimdars]

67. Beautiful,

why does she keep right on lying and lying? Shouldn't those near and dear to her have some sort of intervention? Or are they the ones advising her on this disasterous, desperate course

[Major Hogwash]

71. Bernie is going to win in New York.

[grossproffit]

96. Is it an open primary?

[Recursion]

74. Are you asking for her birth certificate?

[leftofcool]

104. LMAO

[99Forever]

78. Hard to understand why anyone would believe a word she says.

Pathological is an understatement.

[gollygee]

84. Ridiculous post

This is just silly.

[Beacool]

99. Yawn...........

[berningman]

101. HRC is a pathological liar

[GusBob]

107. Kick