No Minds Are Being Changed

[NanceGreggs]

Just a note to those who continue to post anti-Hillary OPs 24/7: You are not changing anyone’s mind.

There are no HRC supporters who are reading your posts and thinking, “Wow! Now that I’ve seen that photo of Hill and Trump together for the seventy-fifth time, I’m switching my support to Bernie,” or, “After reading the millionth post about it, I finally realized that Hillary made a lot of money making speeches – I never knew that before. This changes everything.”

The saddest part is that even if these posts changed the mind of every single HRC supporter on DU, and every former HRC supporter here who has yet to vote in a primary switched their allegiance to Bernie, it STILL wouldn’t get him the nomination.

In other words, whatever point you’re trying to make by the non-stop Hillary-bashing is incredibly – well, pointless.

It’s obvious that the anti-Hillary screeds won’t change the outcome of this primary – she will be the nominee.

Therefore, it seems equally as obvious that posts about how she’ll never win the GE are aimed more at her upcoming role as the Dem candidate in that race than they are at her role in the primary race. And the intent in doing so speaks for itself.

[Binkie The Clown]

1. Replace the name "Hillary" with "Bernie" everywhere in your post and it's still just as true. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

7. No, it wouldn't be.

Because Hillary has won the nomination and Bernie hasn't.

That's a major game changer right there. We're no longer in the realm of "anyone can still win this/ it can go either way" thinking.

[AgingAmerican]

13. Her supporters are generally obnoxious

Survey shows Clinton supporters are more aggressive online than Sanders supporters

[NanceGreggs]

16. Thanks for totally missing the point.

This isn't a contest about who is more obnoxious than who.

The nominee is now known - it's Hillary. So what is the point in continuing to bash her, when doing so has zero impact on changing that fact?

[Logical]

42. Thanks for failing to make a point. Self delete, save yourself some grief. nt

[xmas74]

124. That's a bit obnoxious on your part, isn't it?

Why should she be expected to self delete? Why can't you decide that you don't like what she's saying and choose not to respond?

[SCantiGOP]

103. Thanks for the post, nancegreggs:

Reasonable and persuasive.

[AgingAmerican]

155. There is no effort whatsoever from Hillary supporters

To woo Sanders supporters into voting for her. Not one iota.

"Neener! Neener! Neener!" isn't a very solid GOTV strategy.

[pnwmom]

18. That is an online study with a laughable 3.07 margin of error (which tells you right there

the "survey" is a joke).

Bernie people dominate all the online polls, in case you haven't noticed. So they are hardly objective observers as to which supporters are more aggressive.

[Hortensis]

76. Thanks for blasting that phony poll intelligently.

I confess I didn't feel like investing a minute to do it myself. Of course the reported result made it clear what it would be. No group has been half as obnoxiously dishonest, hostile and aggressive as Sanders' overly zealous faction.

We'll never know how much damage they did to his candidacy, and the word "progressivism."

[xmas74]

125. And the results were interesting in their own right.

The people stating that HRC supporters were aggressive were men who didn't like being called out on sexist comments.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

59. Specifically obnoxious, too.

I suspect that is their plan, as in making nice places like this unbearable. They way some Hillarians descend like wolves is pretty pathetic and regrettable.

[AgingAmerican]

64. This website unbanned all Hillary's disruptors in coordination with Brocks million dollar

...troll campaign. I believe you are correct.

I don't understand their logic though, all they are doing is driving support AWAY from her. Right wing ruins everything it touches.

[Duckhunter935]

78. Yep, I bet there is a big star member now

the timing is sure interesting

[sheshe2]

97. Are you saying only Hill supporters were allowed back?

Are you saying not one BS supporter had five hides? Seriously?

[AgingAmerican]

99. I'm saying most of the returned banned members were Hillary supporters

And since then many of them have double digit 'hides'.

[redstateblues]

111. It's not surprising: BSS dominate the DU juries

Strength in numbers

[oasis]

118. With 85% of DU supporting Bernie, the jury pool may be tilted

oh so slightly in his favor.

[AgingAmerican]

119. If you look at their transparency page

You can read the F-Bombs that get them hidden

[Squinch]

127. Saying the word fuck does not get one hidden. See?

[AgingAmerican]

150. Being abusive and dropping F-Bombs does

There is no conspiracy, sorry.

[Squinch]

185. Fuck, fuck, fuck....

Nope. Dropping the f bomb does not.

[AgingAmerican]

186. That isn't an F-Bomb

Saying "Fuck you" to someone is dropping an F-Bomb

There is no conspiracy, sorry.

[Squinch]

187. You keep saying there is no conspiracy. I have no idea what you are talking about, but I am

happy for you that you are comfortable there are no conspiracies. I don't really know why you are telling me, though.

And the word fuck is the f bomb.

[Bobbie Jo]

172. Wait

Seriously?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=173290&sub=trans

Do you really want to have this discussion?

[Squinch]

188. Lol! These guys kill me!

[brewens]

142. Their harping seems to not have much effect. I tune it out. We need Bernie to continue

and follow Hillary right in the convention door and that's the way it's going to be. Everyone will see the full support for Bernie and his proposals. Plenty of encouragement for liberals willing to take up the cause!

[NanceGreggs]

168. Too bad there weren't enough ...

... "liberals willing to take up the cause" when it counted - like showing up at the polls to vote for Bernie.

[Lil Missy]

153. I noticed that about Bernie supporters

[Eric J in MN]

21. Anti-HRC posts don't persuade but anti-Bernie posts do? NT

NT

[NanceGreggs]

24. Neither do.

But I could see where either side thought such posts might - and felt it was worth a try.

But attempting to persuade anyone that HRC shouldn't be the nominee at this point is without purpose. The voters have spoken. Hillary IS the voters' choice - she IS the nominee. And all the anti-HRC posts here won't change that fact.

[litlbilly]

116. Im guessing the FBI might help a few people change their minds going forward.

[Squinch]

128. I'm guessing you've not heard the news...

[litlbilly]

169. when Bernie wipes her out in Oregon and California, he will be in the lead with delagates and she

will not be the nominee. End of story, get over it.

[merrily]

27. She has not won the nomination. If she had, that would only make all the anti-Bernie posts even

more insane than they already are.

[redstateblues]

112. Sorry Bernie is done. He will endorse Hillary at the convention

[merrily]

164. Sorry, both parts of my Reply 27 were accurate.

Hillary started with what? a 65 point lead? Not to mention allmost 100% name recognition, millions of dollars, PACs corporate donors, the DNC, almost every Democrat and pundit on her side--thanks in part to pressure--media doing their best to pretend Sanders was nothing but the eccentric former Mayor of Burlington who had no chance in hell to beat her, and a lot of shenanigans during primaries and caucuses and lots of lying and half truths about Bernie. Despite all that, it's May 9 and she hasn't won it yet. That's nothing short of jawdropping.

She didn't have all of that when she started out 30 points ahead of Obama, but she had a good chunk of it, and she lost to Obama, too.

That's not really a hell of a lot gloat about and, IMO, it doesn't bode well. Meanwhile, a lot of damage has been done to the reputation of the Democratic Party, including with people who are the future of the party. So win that

As far as the endorsement of Senator sanders, that's his business. The votes of people who have been supporting him are their business. Personally, I voted based on an endorsement once in my life, in a special state election where I did not know either candidate and had little time to decide. I called the Office of the Speaker of the House, Sal DeMasi, who also happened to be the rep for my district. I had had a nice chat with him and his wife while we were all on line to vote for Kerry and got a recommendation. Very nice man. FWIW, he been doing time in federal prison for a while now. I'm not sure what that says.

[Triana]

123. We never were in the realm of "anyone can still win this/ it can go either way" thinking

It was handed to Hillary from the outset. Media ignored Sanders. Dem Establishment did what it historically does w/ progressive candidates: it manipulated every function to ensure he could never be nominated. Even debates. Everything.

It was assumed from the get-go that Bernie would never win. It was ensured from the get-go that he'd never win. The powers that be ie: Owners don't want that. The media which is owned and controlled by those same Owners don't want it. And the same Owners that pull the puppet strings for the Democratic establishment don't want that. And they were hellbound that it was NOT going to happen from the start of Election 2016. It was Hillary then. It's Hillary now.

So no we never WERE in the realm of "anyone can still win this/ it can go either way" thinking.

Their Queen is crowned.

[berni_mccoy]

174. Sorry Nance, it is just as true. Hillary fans are the real "BernieBros".

They've been obnoxious and aggressive this entire primary and then they make up bullshit stories about Bernie supporters acting the way they do. It's classic Rovian behavior.

[Duckhunter935]

77. indeed so

how can some be so blind to think insulting whole groups of people will bring them to your side, lol

[krawhitham]

190. +1

[JimDandy]

2. Made this same point to you and all the Bernie bashers. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

6. The point now being ...

... that the primary race is all but over.

It was understandable (not logical, but understandable) that both sides would "bash" the others' candidate in hopes of changing minds, and therefore the outcome of the primary. But it's over now. HRC will be the nominee.

The only "hope" (as non-existent as that hope is) of Bernie getting the nomination is the SDs switching their allegiance to him at the last minute. Do you think there are any SDs reading DU? And if they were, do you think the anti-HRC screeds would change their minds?

So other than attempting to weaken HRC in the GE, what possible purpose would there be in continuing to post anti-HRC talking points?

[JimDandy]

11. The 4 main reasons are the same reasons you keep engaging with us:

1. There are non-hard core readers who stumble across posts on DU and who are still persuadable; 2. The well-known psychological tactic of demoralizing an opponent; 3. To test out talking points and conduct opposition research and 4. the online equivalent of physically standing your ground.

Until she is the nominee, threads pointing out that HC is a weak candidate in the GE and certainly in the Dem PPP (we are both aware of the well worn arguments from each side, so let's pass on them here in order to address your question) will undoubtedly continue to be posted for one of the above reasons.

[pnwmom]

20. Yes, there might be some people who are still persuadable. But the election has already been decided

So the Hillary-attacks can no longer help Bernie get elected. All they succeed in doing is raising questions about Hillary in her battle against Trump.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

60. No, that is a lie. The convention hasn't even started yet.

Lots of things can happen. Like the FBI criminal investigation. Like her scummy dealings with the Clinton foundation, arms deals, her horrible judgment in Libya, Honduras, Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere.

Don't tell us the race is over. There is a lot of time for the truth about Hillary to come out. And it will.

[Thinkingabout]

156. IF, a big if, Bernie got to the GE, the truth and non truths would be out, Hillary did not choose to

deliver the truth about Bernie, there isn't any reason for Hillary to vet Sanders at this time, she can make it through the primaries without vetting Sanders.

[Fawke Em]

89. Or her getting indicted.

She probably won't coz she's "too big to fail," but even just based on what she's admitted to doing would strip any average person of their security clearance and land them in a court of law.

[villager]

3. "You are not changing anyone’s mind." Indeed.

It's not that there aren't over-the-top Hillary screeds.

It's just that there seems to be a willed blindness to how much of a two-way street the whole "screed" thing actually is.

[betsuni]

4. I keeping wondering, what's the point of all that wasted energy and time?

I don't think I can do another four to eight years of hysterical "Thanks, Hillary!!111!!" nonsense.

[Katashi_itto]

5. Project much?

[NanceGreggs]

8. Project what?

Project that Hillary is the nominee and Bernie isn't?

I'd say that's pretty obvious by now.

[CrawlingChaos]

10. Are you familiar with the psychological term 'projection'?

From Wikipedia:

"Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting."

Sometimes words have multiple meanings. Like apologist, for example.

[NanceGreggs]

12. It has nothing to do with being "rude" ...

... at this point.

It has to do with a nominee having been chosen by the voters, which leads to there being no purpose in denigrating that nominee in the hope that it will change the outcome of the primary, or accomplish anything at all.

There was a time when posting anti-HRC or anti-BS crap had some kind of logic to it, i.e. "I might change someone's mind if I point out X, Y, or Z about one of the potential nominees."

But that time has passed. It's over. We know who the nominee is, and all the Hillary-bashing posts on DU - or anywhere - are not going to change that.

So exactly what is the point in continuing to post them?

[Sancho]

29. You have to be kidding! Hillary's the most public candidate in history...

She was only chosen because people aren't aware of her true character

Think about what you are saying.

FACT:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx

Clinton Named Most Admired More Than Any Other Woman or Man

Clinton has been the most admired woman each of the last 14 years, and 20 times overall, occupying the top spot far longer than any other woman or man in Gallup's history of asking the most admired question. Since 1993, the year she was first named most admired woman, Clinton has stayed in the news as first lady, U.S. senator, secretary of state and a two-time presidential candidate.

Former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt was named most admired woman 13 times during her lifetime, putting her second to Clinton in terms of first-place finishes. Dwight Eisenhower has 12 No. 1 finishes, the most for any man. Obama, the most admired man each of the last eight years, is now tied with Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan for top overall finishes among men.

[Sancho]

33. Not according to 20 years of Gallup polls....

If you ask a sample that includes RW voters and Tea Party folks, you get a subset that dislike Hillary, Obama, etc.

Gallup is the general population of Americans.

[synergie]

22. Yes, it seems to be the defense mechansim of choice for the very upset Bernie supporters.

[Betty Karlson]

9. The best that can be said for your post is that it hints at a desire for civility.

The worst that can be said for it is that you try to shield your candidate from legitimate criticism.

When are you going to take the concerns of Bernie's supporters serious?

Either you don't need their imput and votes, in which case you might as well ignore the criticism and bask in the glow of HER Inevitability, or you do need their imput, in which case their concerns should be met with better answers than "Oh you young folks are just sexist and racist and hell-bound sluts and by the way math because Bernie will lose so give in already".

Either they have a point, which is why you want them to stop making it, or they are pointless, in which case you shouldn't care. You can't have it both ways.

[George II]

55. You don't think that Hillary Clinton has been subjected to legitimate (and illegitimate).....

....criticism for 25+ years?

[Betty Karlson]

63. No. She has been subjected to mostly illegitimate criticism.

That's why the legitimate criticism is met with such knee-jerk dismissal by her supporters. Just read some DU:

"How dare you question Clnton's commitment to gay rights! You must be a RW conspiracy troll!"

[BigBearJohn]

14. Sorry -- it ain't over til the fat lady sings. And gawd I hope she doesn't sing. (talking about

opera)

[NanceGreggs]

17. No matter how loud ...

... that Fat Lady sings, it won't change the vote/delegate count.

[brush]

54. She's just about finished clearing her throat.

[redstateblues]

113. Denial is a river

[Surya Gayatri]

15. They are talking to themselves, convincing each other that "victory" is just

another "switched" super away. Totally delusional. Operating in their own world of magic wish fulfillment.

[okasha]

94. Exactly.

It's an exercise in self-comfort and an attempt to keep the Sanders supporters loyal and actively donating. If his assets are as "modest" as he claims, he's going to have some trouble paying back the cost of his jaunt to the Vatican. He's going to need some "donations" to him personally for that because the Party sure as hell isn't going to bail him out that huge lapse in judgement.

[Cha]

19. Yes, I get your drift, Nance. And, really too bad for them that Hillary is going to win

against trump, too. In spite of the year long Hillary Hate Fest that goes on right here in GDP.

Thank you!

[murielm99]

25. Correct.

It is pointless. All this energy should be directed at Trump. He is the enemy. He is not the enemy simply because he is a Republican. He is the enemy of anyone with a human heart. He will destroy our country, possibly the entire world.

[Beowulf]

56. No, it's not pointless.

Though in different ways, I consider Hillary just as dangerous for our country as Trump. No candidate embodies what I consider the most important problems our country faces. She legitimizes oligarchy, income inequality, corruption/pay to play, triangulation, neoliberalism, influence of big money in politics, Wall Street abuses. Trump embodies many of these, too, but he's an outsider, not considered part of the political elite. Hillary brings the legitimacy of the Democratic Party, its leadership, its most powerful elected officials. Someone asked in another thread what is it Sanders' supporters want. This supporter wants these issues addressed. Bernie is just the beginning. The DNC needs top to bottom reforming. The Democrats I admired, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Henry Wallace, RFK, Jesse Jackson, Paul Wellstone bear little resemblance to the party leaders of today. Just because someone identifies themselves as a Democrat, doesn't guarantee my support, especially if that someone supports policies that I think are destructive.

[murielm99]

88. Nearly every word in your post

is meaningless propaganda. Stop wasting your breath and work with the nominee. Bernie has no chance to be the nominee. Get over it.

[Fawke Em]

90. Just because YOU can't see it doesn't mean it's "meaningless propaganda."

I can see that she is a neocon. A war hawk mired in legalized grift who shills for the 1 percent.

I don't read right-wing websites. I rarely watch corporate media. I need only to see her actions to know that the person to whom you're responding is correct.

And, good luck winning in November without the Bernie supporters.

[murielm99]

145. More word salad,

meaningless accusations.

What is your definition of neocon? What is "legalized grift?" Do you even know what that means?

Who cares what websites you read? You are slinging names around in a meaningless manner.

We will win without you in November. Many "Bernie supporters" were never Democrats, never intended to vote for any Democrat, no matter who was nominated. Saying that we can't get along without you is using the same kind of language that abusers use on their victims.

Hillary supporters on DU have been abused long enough. We don't need you. I don't care where you stick your vote in November, or if you even bother to vote at all.

[Beowulf]

93. How does the koolaid taste?

[murielm99]

146. I will be drinking champagne

in November when Hillary wins. I don't care what you drink, or when.

[Sancho]

26. I assume some serial posters are paid operatives.

There is no logic since Hillary has won.

[MoonRiver]

48. I wonder why anybody would waste money hiring trolls on DU.

But I guess hope springs eternal!

[Sancho]

114. I don't know, but maybe the RW would pay people to attack Hillary.

I don't know how it would possible to know. It's strange that accounts on DU are created years ago, and sit silent until the next election, and then some unknown person posts hundreds of "bash and trash" OPs with research and formatting.

It seems planned to me.

[MoonRiver]

181. It is definitely very suspicious, and many get banned shortly after "awaking."

[okasha]

95. And they're easily identifiable.

[DemonGoddess]

28. K&R!

[hobbit709]

30. So why did you change yours after 2008?

Especially with some of the things you said about Clinton then?

[litlbilly]

62. she went away right after you asked the question. I posted what you are talking about below

[NanceGreggs]

69. LOL!

Actually, I "went away" long before the question was asked - I went to bed.

[litlbilly]

71. My fault, didnt look at the timeline. But still, it isnt funny and im still trying to figure out

why so many people, including Hillary supporters, are so willing to vote against their best interest. Just baffling to me.

[NanceGreggs]

75. Probably because ...

... so many people see a vote for Hillary as a vote in their best interest.

Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong.

[litlbilly]

81. Im not a kid, im 62, they are just not looking deep enough. I dont dislike Hillary, but I have

been watching and listening to Bernie for over 10 years and to me, he is our only chance at the FDR
we desperately need. This is our last chance I believe.

[litlbilly]

82. Just to get this out of the way. If Elizabeth Warren was running and not Bernie, i would

be out knocking on doors everyday for her.

[George II]

120. I really find it hysterical that people here, who don't or barely know those they respond to...

....can judge what's in others' best interests.

[Vattel]

31. What is the point of all of the anti-Bernie screeds?

[sheshe2]

101. What is the point of all the anti-Hillary screeds?

[Vattel]

107. The author of the OP says that there is no point to them.

[ibegurpard]

34. yet here you are...

[w4rma]

35. I threw a recommendation to your post to highlight the one sided aggressiveness of the Clintonites.

Survey shows Clinton supporters are more aggressive online than Sanders supporters
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/online-incivility-study-bernie-bro/

[Lucinda]

36. KNR

[NastyRiffraff]

37. Another K&R

I agree, Nance. No matter how bitter, no matter how sad, no matter how disappointed Sanders supporters are, the fact remains that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. It also doesn't matter, as you said, how many minds would be changed, even in the highly unlikely event that every Hillary supporter on DU would get an "epiphany" and switch to Bernie. DU is far from representative of the nation as a whole, and that nation has voted and has chosen Hillary Clinton.

Sanders supporters may not like that fact, but it's still very much a fact. If they want to hit back and attack Hillary Clinton, they are (for the moment) free to do so on DU. Just bear in mind, folks, that there will come a day that you will not be able to do that on this site. There's always that JackRabbit or whatever site, though.

[litlbilly]

38. I refer you to this Nance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5314138

[Sweet Freedom]

57. Looks like someone changed her mind. /nt

[litlbilly]

61. It sure does.

[NanceGreggs]

68. Not at all.

I thought Obama was the best candidate in 2008 - and nothing posted here changed my mind.

I think HRC is the best candidate in 2016 - and nothing posted here has changed my mind.

[Sweet Freedom]

86. You did change your mind

At one point you felt the exact same way as many people currently feel about Hillary and they still (or now do) firmly believe your last line. And while you may not have changed your mind because of anything written on this site, you can't say someone else won't. Many DUers have changed their opinions about politicians or policies because of words written here. Your own words prove that minds can be changed for whatever reason. And you honestly do not know if it would be pointless. People affect change in numerous ways, whether it is in their personal life or on a grander scale. Beliefs and actions will continue past this primary season. Discussion is not pointless.

It is instead about rules being pledged to and then reneged on when convenient. It is about promises being made and then broken when all else fails. It is about decrying the disenfranchisment of voters in states you suddenly need while, in the same breath, advocating the idea that superdelegates should overturn the will of all voters if things turn out not to your liking.

In short, it’s about integrity – which, somewhere along the way, Hillary Clinton lost, misplaced, forgot, or simply discarded as an expendable obstacle in her failed race to what is proving to be the bitter side of nowhere.

[panader0]

184. I fing it amazing how so many here at DU are capable of a complete about-face

when it comes to HRC. There's one that's a host at the HRC group, another at the Democrats group, people
like Nance who genuinely disliked HRC the last time she ran. The DUers have changed, HRC hasn't.
It's a weird disconnect to me.

[hellofromreddit]

39. Yesterday's wave of "Look what this asshole protester did!" posts was also futile.

As are the copious, smug #FeelTheMath comments, straw man arguments, intentional muddying of definitions, unsupported charges of racism or sexism, and generally sore winning.

Perhaps all of the childish OPs and comments should stop. I do not believe "It's OK when we do it because we're winning," is an acceptable reason; it is simply more child's logic.

I respect and agree with the message in your OP, but you are undermining it as fast as you can with your own responses in this thread and others undermine it with their comments elsewhere.

P.S. I rec most threads calling for unity, but this one is too hollow.

[Armstead]

40. It's called a message board...... for discussion

Debate and discussion.

What a concept.

[NanceGreggs]

73. "Debate and discussion" left the building ...

... a long time ago.

What debate and discussion is being prompted by posting a photo of Hill and Trump together for the fiftieth time?

[litlbilly]

117. IF that pic wasnt out there it wouldnt be posted. It is what it is.

[NanceGreggs]

121. Yes, it is what it is.

A pic of two people at a wedding. And it's been posted over, and over, and over, and over - as though (a) it means anything of import, and (b) as though everyone on DU hasn't seen it over, and over, and over, and over.

[litlbilly]

122. So, what is your point of it being posted over and over? If its not bad, you should be happy right?

[NanceGreggs]

135. Because it's pointless.

It's just like the endless postings about how much HRC earned from speaking fees. Why is it necessary to post it a few hundred times - is there anyone here who still doesn't know about it?

And yet, every time someone posts yet another OP about it, they act as though it's late breaking news.

I think everyone who posts here knows about the speaking fees - and it hasn't changed anyone's mind about who they support. So what is the purpose in posting the same thing for the 500th time?

[litlbilly]

137. Pointless, that's subjective. It's only pointless to you, it has a point to us.

[NanceGreggs]

138. Glad to hear it!

Care to share what that "point" is?

[JEB]

140. I am not ok with the speaking fees,

the chummy relationship with Trump, Kissinger, Kagan etc. I can not understand how any Democrat can be fine with that.

[NanceGreggs]

141. Were you "not okay" with those speaking fees ...

... the first time you read/heard about them? Or did it take a hundred or so OPs about it before it started bothering you?

[JEB]

143. The question I was trying to ask,

How can it be ok with you and other Hillary supporters? I really can't understand the logic or whatever that excuses such behavior in a Democratic Presidential candidate. It is just mind boggling. Perhaps that is why people keep posting.

[NanceGreggs]

147. I have NO problem with it at all.

And you DO know that Hillary was never paid for any speech while she was a "presidential candidate", do you not?

[JEB]

149. I suppose you respect Kissinger as well.

I abhor the miserable low life scum of the earth war criminal. I can not find it in my heart to support anybody for any office who respect Kissinger and I fail to understand how anybody else can.

[NanceGreggs]

154. I judge a potential POTUS ...

... on his/her own credentials. Who they choose to be friends with is of little interest to me.

[JEB]

162. Even when that friendship requires not just poor judgement,

but despicable judgement as is the case with Kissinger?

[NanceGreggs]

163. Friendship is not always a matter of ...

... poor judgment or good judgment. It often relies on other things.

I have several friends who would be viewed by most people as "despicable" due to their life choices - and yet their counsel on many things has been invaluable to me.

I support HRC based on her own merits - not on the merits of who she chooses to befriend.

[JEB]

165. I too have some questionable friends,

though none are war criminals responsible for untold death and suffering.

[NanceGreggs]

166. Well, you can support ...

... and/or vote for whomever you choose, based on whatever criteria you think important.

I'm with Hillary - and who she befriends, and why, is her business.

[JEB]

167. I'm in Oregon so for now, I'm with Bernie.

Oregon is a pretty reliably blue state so probably doesn't make any difference who I vote for for POTUS.

[Logical]

41. FFS another rant from you. And these silly posts are changing no ones minds either. You....

really like attention IMO.

[Martin Eden]

43. Minds are closed.

Got it.

[SidDithers]

44. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. It is the repsonsibility of voters to scrutinize candidates.

The primary may be all but over but the presidential race isn't and issues still matter.

[kstewart33]

49. Tierra, it seems that both candidates have been scrutinized thoroughly.

So much so that there's really nothing new to debate about.

Yes, Hillary could get slapped by the FBI but all signs indicatesthat the odds are very slim.

Next step is California, but given the math, a Bernie victory won't matter.

Hillary supporters here are counting down the days to the end of the primaries so the real race begins. At this point, it's the only race that matters.

[Bobbie Jo]

46. K&R

Well said, Nance.

[kstewart33]

47. K & R. nt

[MoonRiver]

50. Great post!

It actually is becoming quite boring around here. Would be ever so much more fun to just go after the Rump!

[HassleCat]

51. True, and the converse is true.

Now that Hillary Clinton has it all locked up, the criticism of Sanders is pointless.

[NanceGreggs]

70. I agree.

Unfortunately, one feeds the other.

[George II]

52. Hillary Clinton will still win the Democratic nomination and be elected President.

That's my response to all the "multimedia/video", "good reads", etc. destructive OPs that are posted in various forums so they CAN make it to the home page.

None of that is going to change many minds. In fact, of the few minds that do get changed I'd bet that more switch from Sanders to Clinton than the intended switch.

Sometimes people just don't understand the destruction of their own actions.

[felix_numinous]

53. No but there is a demoralization going on

aimed toward the all the people who have become active enthusiastic supporters of civil rights, the environment, reforming corruption in government--and people are angry. There is a way to convert this anger into being pro-active and not reactive like just sitting around playing wack a mole on DU with trolls that is for sure, so enjoy the echo chamber.

Minds are not being changed, HRC supporters have made up their minds and are bent on breaking the spirit of all these young people who are getting involved in changing the world. Be proud.

[Amaril]

74. +1,000,000!!!

This needs to be an OP.

[Fawke Em]

92. And her supporters must also be hell-bent on losing in November.

Do they honestly think they can win without those enthusiastic Bernie supporters?

[Turin_C3PO]

58. I hate GD: P in general

I wish next primary season that Skinner would just confine primary talk to the the candidates groups.I know that's "stifling speech" but still, I feel like all GD: P does is tear us apart.

[obamanut2012]

65. cosign your op

[rhett o rick]

66. What an ironic OP.

[polly7]

67. Even if 'no minds are being changed', people here still don't have to swallow shit and

say thank you.

[Amaril]

72. Likewise (n/t)

[highprincipleswork]

79. Your minds are as unchangeable as concrete, not usually a good thing for a mind. Hillary's positions

however, they change all the time, and why you think that doesn't suck is a mystery to all those who aren't under her mysterious spell or voting for her because she's a woman.

She really is a terrible candidate.

Doesn't represent the economic best for the working class and middle class.
Supports trade deals, though she claims she doesn't.
Loves waging war.
Doesn't tell the truth or changes positions constantly, take your pick which one of these you think is true.
Too close to fossil fuel industry to effectively address climate change, which threatens to kill us all and soon.

Well, I can go on and on, including her shaky support for some of the very groups who love her so much.

Oh yes, whether it is valid or not, going to smear her or not, she is under FBI investigation, for goodness sake! Seriously, you like that in a candidate?

The fact you won't change your minds is really not a strength, but a weakness. Wake up and smell the coffee. It's the smell of your own wallet roasting.

[immoderate]

80. You've got to start somewhere. Hillary will be the latest in a string of supply-side presidents.

I think it's always pertinent to present an alternative. Ya never know when the plurality might wake up.

--imm

[litlbilly]

83. I just have one question for you Nance, if no minds are being changed, what happened to you?

[William769]

84. HRC supporters are just like super delegates, we are not changing our vote!

[George II]

85. Indeed....good thought.

[angstlessk]

87. My mind has changed...because of hillary supporters right here

I was on a 24 hour 'time out from Friday to Monday'...changed my mind, it did! One less voter..

[Blue_In_AK]

91. It works both ways, Nance.

[NanceGreggs]

102. I agree.

There was a lopsided "logic" to all of this at one point, when people thought, "If I point out this negative about ____, it might cause someone to support ____ instead."

But it's a done deal now. We know who the nominee is, and changing anyone's mind about either candidate won't affect the outcome that's already known.

[brer cat]

96. K&R

[Gothmog]

98. Great thread

[Andy823]

100. Yes it is pointless

But the haters have to hate, and most of these haters are not Democrats and never have been. It's the same old crowd that started in here on DU on Obama and the whole party, and now have turned their hate to Hillary. It's pretty obvious that they are not changing anyones minds, they just like to spew their right wing hate.

[MrWendel]

104. Desperation...

is never pretty.

[sheshe2]

105. Thanks Nance.

Well done.

[tymorial]

106. You wont change anyones mind with this post

In my opinion both sides need to take a breath and stop sniping at each other. I am tired of reading the petty bickering and flame bait posts. I have been herebfor 2 years and I have less than 700 posts. The reason is always the same. I grow tired of the adolescent name calling and moral superiority.

[NanceGreggs]

110. I'm not trying to change minds.

I am merely pointing out the obvious. No amount of Hillary-bashing is going to change the fact that she's the nominee. So I can only assume that continuing to post anti-HRC stuff is aimed at the Dem candidate in the GE.

[ismnotwasm]

108. K&R

[aikoaiko]

109. There is more to political life than just this one primary.

I find the discussion in GDP edifying

[Beacool]

115. Hear, hear!!!

It may be frustration, but the endless insulting posts will not convince anyone to change their support for Hillary. In fact, they're counterproductive.

On this site Hillary is being treated worse than Trump. I just read a comment on another thread where someone compared her to Imelda Marcos. Every accusation has been thrown at her, many are RW talking points that would make a Freeper proud.

Sanders was in my state, at Rutgers University, pushing his current strategy that the party should take into consideration that he polls better against Trump than Hillary. I'm glad the evening news' anchor made a point of mentioning that Hillary was far ahead in the pledged delegate count. So the honorable way to win the race in the opinion of this paragon of virtue is to attempt to deny the nomination to the actual winner???

How noble, how altruistic, how democratic. It makes the semi-deification of this man by his supporters even more incongruous.

[Jim Lane]

126. A constructive suggestion for you

On your premises and your reasoning, it would be the case, per one of your later posts in this thread, that the attacks on Bernie on this board also accomplish nothing. (I would add that, leaving aside the question whether such posts do any good, it's clear that on your premises they do harm. Some Sanders supporters are on the fence about voting for Clinton in November if she's the nominee; every post that throws mud at Sanders and/or his supporters adds to their unhappiness, so every such post makes it slightly less likely that they'll end up voting for Clinton.)

Such anti-Sanders posts, however, continue.

You'll have more credibility with other Clinton supporters than with the Sanders supporters. You might consider posting your thoughts on anti-Sanders threads, notably those in the Hillary Clinton Group where more than 800 of us can't respond. For example, when you see an OP like this one, accusing Bernie of having "adolescent fantasies of greatness", and a response like this one, opining that he and Trump are both "{c}lear cases of arrested character development," that would be a good place for you to reply with the observation that such posts accomplish nothing and with the suggestion that Clinton supporters stop posting such attacks.

[NanceGreggs]

131. My real point is this ...

The purpose of the anti-HRC and anti-BS posts throughout the primary were (presumably) a means of both sides saying, "THIS is why you shouldn't support so-and-so."

Now that we know that our Party's nominee will be Hillary, the anti-HRC posts are obviously a means of saying, "THIS is why you shouldn't support the Democratic candidate in the GE."

That's the difference. They are no longer competing for the same position within the Party. Hillary has won the position, and it is now about HRC v Trump.

Think of it the other way around. If Bernie was the apparent Dem nominee at this point, the only purpose in continuing the Bernie-bashing would be to depress support for him in the GE - because supporting him in the primary contests would cease to be relevant once the nomination was his.

That's why people were asking Skinner to "call it". When you post Hillary-bashing posts now, you're not dampening support for Hillary because you think Bernie will benefit by it; you're doing it because you don't want to see her win in November - and the only ones who benefit by that are Trump and the GOP.

I'll be honest - I have come to loathe Bernie over the past year. But you're damned real I would vote for him over any Republican in November. And I'd be truly pissed-off if every time I logged into DU, it continued to look like FreeRepublic - with one OP after another about how our (D) candidate shouldn't be supported in the GE.

Call me crazy (and you probably will), but I think a site that purports to support Democrats and see more of them elected should walk the walk, whether I personally agree with the voters' choice of our nominee or not. Or, in the alternative, DU should stop holding itself out as a Democratic-supporting site and openly declare itself as what it has become: a place where bashing the (D) nominee for POTUS is perfectly acceptable.

[Jim Lane]

170. I understand your point, but there's an important point you're evading.

You inveigh against what you call "anti-HRC posts" and "Hillary-bashing posts" (whether those phrases are synonymous is a question worth considering but I won't get into it now).

How do you feel about anti-Bernie posts or Bernie-bashing posts?

You say that the anti-HRC posts accomplish nothing and merely hurt Hillary in the general election. You apparently concede that, on your assumptions, the anti-Bernie posts also accomplish nothing, because you consider it certain that Hillary will be the nominee. My point is that, if you assume it to be absolutely certain that Hillary will be the nominee, then the only effect of anti-Bernie posts is the one you complain about in anti-Hillary posts: It's to hurt Hillary's chances in November.

If the anti-Bernie posts do no good and are probably doing harm, why do they not merit your condemnation?

I personally am a longtime confirmed follower of the much-derided lesser-of-two-evils approach. As the election approaches, I'll identify the pool of candidates who have a realistic chance of winning, and vote for the one I think would make the best President. Therefore, I expect to hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton. But some Sanders supporters are still undecided on that question. When a Clinton supporter calls us "the rabid, ravenous swarm", what effect do YOU think that has on the Clinton campaign's chances of getting those people's votes in November?

[MadDAsHell]

129. You're voting for genitalia. Shocking. nt

[Goblinmonger]

130. Jury Results

I was not #4.

On Sun May 8, 2016, 08:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You're voting for genitalia. Shocking. nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1925963

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

We should not be tolerating this type if mysoginistic rubbish

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun May 8, 2016, 08:22 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Completely inappropriate.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

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

[NanceGreggs]

132. Of course ...

... in the same way that all Bernie supporters are voting for a penis.

See how that works?

[Rex]

133. I doubt many let their opinion of something change by talking to anonymous people on the WWW.

I think it mostly goes the other way and groups seek each other out like in real life.

[NanceGreggs]

136. Well, exactly. n/t

[Rex]

151. At least we don't ever have to see Ted Cruz's smarmy face again!

And clown Trump is never going to beat HRC, she has double his numbers of voters and will gain more and more. Reality is their billionaire footnote will get crushed by a women the GOP could not railroad or intimidate.

[Rockyj]

134. Good...

It's about time Hillary supporters wake the fuck up & realize vice versa!
So please note there are too many of us who will NEVER vote for her if she wins primary!

[MrMickeysMom]

139. Wow...

That wrecks my whole weekend.

[jillan]

144. And vice-versa! Nothing a Hillary supporter has ever posted about Bernie made me change my mind.

In fact it has the opposite effect.

I wish there were more posts from Hillary supporters about why I should vote for her - instead of posts about Bernie.

[NanceGreggs]

148. Yes, and vice-versa.

I wish there had been more posts about why I should vote for Bernie, instead of posts about how terrible Hillary is.

[hrmjustin]

152. There is nothing they can post here that will change my mind.

It has become pointless to argue with some people here.

I am wrestling with using ignore again or just trashing GDP.

The Bernie or bust people have made up their mind and it is poinless to engage them.

[Silver_Witch]

157. Sort of like these non-stop posts about "Please stop talking Bernie Supporters"

Tiresome and useless...but please go on.

[NanceGreggs]

158. I haven't seen any ...

... "Please stop talking, Bernie supporters" posts.

[Thinkingabout]

161. Thanks, I needed this one, felt good.

[Silver_Witch]

180. You must have too many people on ignore then.

[morningfog]

159. I've never understood why anyone thinks the point of GDP

posts is to change minds.

If there are any posting with that motivation, they are in a very small minority.

[NanceGreggs]

160. Well, then what IS the purpose? n/t

[morningfog]

171. To sit around and talk politiics.

[AgadorSparticus]

173. That's not talking. Talking assumes discourse. These posts are written to just bash. Very shrill.

[morningfog]

175. Fine, add "to vent" to it.

DU is like a digital pub where we argue politics and news clearing house, little more.

[AgadorSparticus]

176. Venting is fine until you have too much of it & then it becomes toxic..Like some people we all know

[Trust Buster]

177. The calling card from the fringes on both sides of the political spectrum is narcissism.

Their egos trump everything else including policy. They will continue to work hard through November to destroy Hillary's chances to avenge Sanders' loss and there own hurt egos. They are typically ruled by emotion rather than logic.

[asuhornets]

178. You got that right...GOHILLARY!!!!

[thucythucy]

179. The same could and should be said about anti-Bernie posts,

There's no point in railing on and on about Senator Sanders shortcomings, especially if, as the OP believes, Secretary Clinton has the nomination all tied up. All this does is alienate Bernie supporters even further, especially posts that distort or obfuscate or intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent his positions or actions.

The tone on BOTH sides needs to change, at least among those who seem determined, not to illuminate their own candidate's record, but rather distort and drag down the other's.

[Orsino]

182. Without measurements and statistics, such assertions are worthless.

The OPer well be right, but we'll never know.

Besides, the purpose of anti-candidate posts generally seems to be to cause distress to supporters, not to woo them.

[savalez]

183. K&R

[onehandle]

189. They are here to 'bother' us. Nothing more.

It's personal, not political.