2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTopsy turvy
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by BooScout (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).
Why is it the more honest candidate has the most dishonest followers the more dishonest candidate has the most honest followers? (Though of course there are many exceptions.)
The Bernie followers won't hesitate to cite Hillary's remarks against gay marriage, her support for the Iraq war, the millions she raked in from Wall Street, and then make exaggerated claims about her supporting right-wing coups, causing the crisis in Syria, being responsible for ISIS in Libya, accusing her of endangering national security (and we know how much they admire the NSA. LOL.) with her email, and so on. The Hillary followers tend to take it in reasonably good stride. They defend Hillary, but rarely go berserk.
But, if the Hillary followers point out that Bernie said no to gay marriage, supported the development of the Stealth bomber, was one of the few Democrats to protect the anti-immigrant Minutemen, made excuses for Fidel Castro, or is soft on gun control, they go berserk.
Now, at first, I attributed this to youthful hero worship -- they could not live with the contradictions that exist in politics, so their candidate had to be perfect in every way. But, as time goes on, I find that some of them are not so young. As Trump said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." I think Sanders has a lot of followers like that.
I voted for Sanders and will vote for the winner of the primaries, but boy do I dislike a lot the Sanders supporters. If Sanders loses, many of them will not support Hillary, and I hope they get ejected from DU. We really don't need them. They have turned DU into an increasingly unpleasant place.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)of full ignoring you.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Well let me take this opportunity say that you obviously don't like hearing from anyone who disagrees with you. I wouldn't think that is something you would to publicize.
NRaleighLiberal
(61,857 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Since your post is untrue.....your premise is invalid.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)But, then again, that was my point.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Cherry picking, you and the hill bunch have picked small portions that are really tru but taken in context they were in fact smart moves on Bernie's part, the things you say are lies being told about hill are probably really not lies but actual facts..
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Fuck this shit.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...of your thinking process.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 11, 2016, 12:41 AM - Edit history (1)
And many posts that promote simplistic thinking. I wrote about some examples here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511460282.
I'm also not a Clinton supporter, but the number of illogical, fallacious posts is disheartening.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)So, let's talk about David Brock instead.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)As have been the majority of your posts. I find it quite difficult to believe that you are a Sander's supporter.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Though it's true, I am trying to contribute to a more balanced DU. I think the attacks on Hillary are grossly unfair and the worship of Bernie is ridiculous. In another forum I participate in, I'm more direct in my support for Bernie. I really dislike the outrageous attacks on Hillary. She's not a bad liberal, and I really do get why so many blacks and gays back her. But, I am a Sanders supporter -- donated to his campaign months ago and voted for him. He hardly needs my defense in this forum.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)an increasingly dishonest defender of the status quo, while the other group sees their guy as the last slim hope to save this country and the world from a path to destruction?
I think, considering this difference, you might cut some slack to those "unpleasant" supporters.
BooScout
(10,410 posts)It is the consensus of the hosts that this is Disruptive Meta.