Well one things is for certain. By the steady stream of anti-Hillary hate rhetoric, it appears that

[politicaljunkie41910]

the Democratic party will have as hard a time (if not more) than the GOP in unifying the party once the Primary is over. There seems to be too much water under the bridge which won't be soon forgotten. You can't call the party leadership corrupt one day, and the next day join hands and sing Kumbaya. My suggestion would be that the Bernie supporters should be the ones that start their own party. After all, Bernie was never an actual member of the Democratic Party prior to his decision to run for president in 2015. Yes he caucused with them, but caucusing isn't the same as being a member.

They can call themselves the "Purists" or the even the "Progressive Party" if they want to, since they are always trying to decide who among us is, and who isn't a Progressive. One thing for certain, if Bernie and his Bros are not happy in the Democratic Party they should be the ones that leave. My husband who is retired, has volunteered many long hours at phone banks and for GOTV activities for the past three presidential election cycles. (As a federal worker, I was not allowed to work on a political campaign.)

They shouldn't remain and think they can bully, browbeat, and name call everyone into submitting to their way of thinking. The Democratic party should not have to endure another election cycle where Democrats are shouting FU at Democrats walking into a campaign rally with their families, regardless of who the candidate is.

[notadmblnd]

1. I agree, if Sanders doesn't win the nomination and bring the Democratic party back to what it once

was, a new party should be formed.

[TheProgressive]

12. K&R

[bvf]

19. +2. n/t

[randome]

24. But you won't do that. Sanders has had 25 years to plan for this and he failed.

There is no support for a viable third party. If there was, I'd support it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[dchill]

29. Clinton has had 25 years to avoid courting scandal and she failed.

One way or another, she will lose.

[randome]

30. So you're saying they're equally inept? Then you may as well support who the voters choose.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[dchill]

34. Not saying that at all.

The inept one is the 'inevitable" one with the exceptionally weak campaign.

[randome]

35. The only ones using words like 'inevitable' and 'coronation' are the Clinton haters, no one else.

Are you quoting yourself to support your point? And what a 'weak campaign' -three million votes ahead and about to clinch it. Look, I don't even particularly like Clinton but she is clearly our next President so why not stop supplying ammunition to the enemy? If you can't help the rest of us, then maybe you should just move on.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[notadmblnd]

62. I think HRC has a proven record of repeated bad judgment

I believe Sanders does not.

[randome]

125. Fair enough. It's pretty obvious that more people don't believe that.

But this focus on belittling one candidate over another does no one any good. We should be trumpeting the positives for both candidates and letting voters decide.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[notadmblnd]

38. Anything to be contrary, huh?

Conservadems would be getting exactly what they claim to want. No progressives in "their party", with those pesky unrealistic expectations that our would be leaders claim our Government can no longer achieve as in the past.

[randome]

40. Sorry, I am a Progressive. Tax me to the hilt if it will help others. Fuck the 'bathroom bills'.

I am afraid of no immigrant and I will defend anyone's right to speak their mind. But the hateful rhetoric coming from Sanders supporters helps no one. In fact, it is the opposite of help.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/yep--6

I agree that the shift in the polls, though it may not prove durable, should not be dismissed out of hand. Quite possibly, we are seeing the readiness of a large swathe of white Americans to vote for literally anybody. Under these conditions, the future course taken by Bernie Sanders becomes more important than ever. His supporters, in my view, have seriously damaged Clinton, not by supporting Sanders, but by flooding social media with claims that she is corrupt. By doing so, they have amplified her negatives. Nonetheless,Clinton is still virtually certain to become the nominee. If Sanders really supports her, she should win. If he withholds real support, he greatly increases the chances of a very close election and of a political catastrophe of unfathomable dimensions.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Xyzse]

122. Interesting...

One of the many things people tend to think is that the system is corrupt and Clinton utilizes the system to the hilt, and even skirts the strictures in place. Violating the spirit of the law while still legal. In essence, since the system is corrupt, Clinton is too as she is the one advocating for the status quo and the usual way of doing things.

So Thinking:
System = Corrupt --> Clinton = Part of the System --> Clinton = Corrupt

The argument being, is that they need to improve how things work or find a better way, while those for Clinton tends to say that Sanders supporters don't know how things work.

Clinton would not be nearly as negative if she were running against someone else. Running against Bernie creates a contrast between one who sways from one side of an issue to another, while Sanders has been in the correct side of many issues in history for years to begin with.

The idea is improving the system and showing a better way. Unfortunately for Clinton, she just can not really compare in terms of her record, her actions and with the way she has run her campaign. There is a big difference between using a front like the Clinton Victory Fund which uses down party Democrats to skirt the rules of donor limits (the down party Democrats have not received funds for this yet, though I find it understandable as at that time the down-ticket Democrats still had to go through their own primaries, and the actual candidate has not been selected. I am hoping that such funds do go to them rather than being used mostly by her campaign.) in comparison to someone who has been trying to do this at a grass-root level and gets so a much larger share of individual donors.

No matter what Sanders does, he does not really have control over his supporters. Many of those supporters support him due to what he is perceived to be "someone outside the establishment, who has been right in most issues and who will actually fight for them rather than immediately give in or follow the popular sentiment." I understand that some people just think that they hate Clinton, but dismissing her negatives by just saying that does not get rid of those negatives at all, nor does it excuse the nastiness coming from Clinton supporters as well. It just makes people think that she is sweeping things under the rug. Either way, supporters are not what I look at. I look at the actions of the campaign and the candidate themselves.

It is not an enviable position, especially as the current tact will not work in the general election, particularly as there is a large anti-establishment sentiment going around. Quite scary actually.

[randome]

124. Many of those negatives are made up out of thin air.

Such as the notion that she single-handedly manipulated votes in, well, pretty much every state in which Sanders lost. The email 'controversy' is another nothing burger, conflating policy violations (if even that) with criminal statutes and even claiming that her getting advice from Blumenthal was somehow a big 'fuck you' to Obama -the guy who has practically endorsed her for President.

When these type of issues crop up, in order to discern whether or not there is any meat to them should require a casual application of devil's advocacy. If there is a simple explanation, then it's best to move on.

The email stuff? Similar differences in policy were undertaken by previous SOS's. No, they weren't the exact same circumstances but the fact that they were similar should be enough to coat the issue with a thin layer of uncertainty, which to me means 'move on'. And the voting irregularities? Happens every single election in just about every single district. Blumenthal? Obama clearly isn't pissed at her so...imo, case closed.

And I don't even particularly like Clinton. I'd always prefer someone younger, more in tune with the newer generations. But the vitriol leveled at her for obnoxious, self-serving reasons are not enough for me to disown her. She's clearly our next President so why not make the best of it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Xyzse]

130. See, that is not what I go after her for though.

I agree there are a lot of negatives about her that are made up.
I particularly do not pay attention to articles that supposedly mentions how she behaves and how she treats people since to me, that is besides the point, and in no bearing to her positions.

The voter manipulation thing, if you note, I have never gone after her campaign for that. What I do go for is the notion that it is best not to have people vote. I volunteered for an election judge, and I keep having to explain that if they did not register or change parties at a particular date, they can only vote using the Independent ballot. Where yes, it is their fault that they did not pay attention early enough, but I also agree that there are better ways to do things. I don't see much of this as Clinton's fault, but I do see how the current rules have made it hard for those who want to vote and have their voices heard stifled. What I do consider wrong is blowing that issue off. The problems with the voting system is valid, and it needs improvement. That is not a Clinton issue, that is a voting system issue.

The email issue, to me it is too hard to prove wrong-doing in that, and it is one of the matters I also did not go for in my criticisms. I agree with many that it is odd that she had her own private server, but I don't really see that as sinister. If you note, even the Sanders campaign has not gone after her for that. It is his supporters that do, and again to me, what supporters do and what the campaign does is different.

Which is why, mine tends to go towards what I can consider pandering, how donations are solicited, record and what is verifiable.

-Pandering(Example): Michigan Debate, Clinton's Press Secretary does not know her position http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511436979
-How she Solicits Donations(Example): The Clinton Victory Fund, though legal seems to skirt the rules in regards to donation limits. Supposedly it is to help down-ticket Dems, but those State parties have not received the funding.
-Record(Example): Do I actually have to? To me she crossed a line in regards to the gun issue and using the Sandy Hook matter to attack Sanders. An official tweet account actually did this, and that to me was egregious.

Most of the things I go for, I have to be able to verify.

My support tends to go towards who I think can do best for the country, and if not that, who would theoretically do the least amount of damage.

It is why back in 2008, Obama was my dead last choice for the Democratic primary. Clinton was my second to the last choice. Richardson, Biden and so forth were who I preferred.

I look at policy, record and then make a projection at what I think would happen. In so doing, I try to be fair to all the candidates, even the Republican ones, then I make suppositions on why someone might actually support someone like Trump. It is pretty crazy, and the guy is dangerous, but I can see how he can draw Independents to his banner.

[lagomorph777]

123. The author disagrees with Hillary and Paul Begalla?

Your candidate is encouraging Bernie to stay in the race. Paul Begalla is actively saying Bernie makes the party stronger. If Hillary becomes the nominee, it's important that she understand, with all due gravitas, that she has moved too far to the right to win over Trump. The only way to prove that to her is with votes.

[randome]

126. And I agree that Sanders supporters are hurting all of us by magnifying Clinton's negatives.

Every candidate has negatives. No one is perfect. But this 'obsession' with trash-talking Clinton makes the tragedy of a Trump presidency more likely.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[notadmblnd]

45. And you don't think there might be after this?

Sander's is really doing the Democratic party a favor. What HRC supporters are not understanding is the type of election this is. This election is an anti establishment election. People are fed up with the establishment. Hillary Clinton is the epitome of establishment.

That is why if Hillary is the nominee she will lose. Even though Donald Trump is a rich, narcissistic, arrogant, stupid 1% asshole- he is an anti establishment candidate and that is why Hillary will lose the GE to him.

[randome]

51. I disagree that Trump will win. Unless those like you desire it.

Yes, Trump has more support than I would have thought possible. He's a danger. I think we should band together to stop him. That doesn't mean you need to give up your principles. Talk up Sanders all you want but please, stop putting Clinton on a level with Trump. That helps no one.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[notadmblnd]

57. Wow. You think I have that kind of power? I'm flattered

However, I'm afraid you're mistaken.

[840high]

96. Good post. Agree.

[emsimon33]

60. K&R

Or, the Democratic Party could rename themselves the un-Democratic Party or the Ironic Party given the tactics and behavior of the DNC and many state parties.

[Blue_In_AK]

87. Absolutely.

I would join in a heartbeat. This is not the Democratic Party I signed up for almost 50 years ago.

[notadmblnd]

104. Wow, you just put a whole lot of words in my mouth.

Please be specific. What history did I invent in my comment.

Seems to me you did all the inventing.

Now go away and bother someone else.

[notadmblnd]

117. Well there's never been a self proclaimed socialist in the Oval Office

And there still wouldn't be even if Senator Sanders was elected.

Sanders and others have explained time and time again that he is a democratic socialist which is not the same thing as being a socialist. There are differences and all one needs to do- is avail themselves of the Google to inform themselves what those differences are. Also, the word "Socialism" is not the same boogey man word used to instill the fear of the Evil Russian Empire that it once was. Whether you continue to use itt- in that manner- makes no difference

However, who I think Senator Sanders comes closest to in terms of a democratic socialist is Theodore Roosevelt. What era do I believe where true a democratic socialist agenda was aggressively pursued and implemented- you demand to know? The era between the new deal and right up through the civil rights movement. Whether that agenda was pursued by a"Democratic" or "Republican" President matters not. It is the agenda that this country stood for, fought for and accomplished.

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton and William Jefferson Clinton along with their "new democrats" agenda has been tearing away at the accomplishments of the time frame I mentioned and it will only continue to be eroded by both establishment Democrats and Republicans as their claimed "parties" exists today.

So there is the answer to your question. Those are the sort of democratic principles I want to see this country get back to.

[Adrahil]

107. "What it once was...."

So when was that? This kinda bullshit "golden age" rhetoric is the same kind of bullshit behind "Make America Great Again." This idea that is some past, just beyond immediate memory, things were as they should be.

This argument is almost always complete bullshit.

[BillZBubb]

2. "anti-Hillary hate rhetoric" = facts about her policies and positions.

The FBI is investigating Hillary for criminal violations. That's not hate rhetoric, that's a fact. The Democratic party, and no major party, has EVER nominated a candidate in that situation. Call it hate if your fanaticism requires you to do so.

[dchill]

31. It's more like anti-Hillary supporter disgust.

But I agree with you and millions of others.

[Renew Deal]

49. You mean like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1445988

[TCJ70]

61. Since that wasn't about her policies or positions...

...I can be fairly certain that isn't what they were talking about. Glad I could clear that up for you.

[Renew Deal]

64. So you defend it?

[TCJ70]

67. How do you figure that?

That stuff is silly. As is anything dealing with Benghazi, whoever the RW think she murdered, and anything dealing with Bill's affairs.

There's more than enough to criticize her for on her policies, positions, and inconsistencies that should prevent anyone from supporting her. It's too bad more people don't care about those things.

[Renew Deal]

72. There are a lot of things that play into these decisions

One of them being that Bernie isn't perfect either. But there are many others.

[TCJ70]

78. You don't have to tell me that...

...I think I've kept my criticism away from the frivolous.

I'd just rather have someone in the White House who gets it right the first time a majority of the time and doesn't have much to retract 10-15 years later.

[Renew Deal]

79. I respect that

[pdsimdars]

106. I must have missed that. . . anti-Hillary hate rhetoric. . . wtf?

Talk about living in a fantasy world.

[edgineered]

3. It appears that there are only a few

of the seasoned members here wishing to continue disenfranchising we Bernie supporters. They are doing and saying what is expected for them to say and do. I'm sure they appreciate your contribution. Keep up the good work (and keep pounding nails in that coffin lid).

[Trust Buster]

5. What do you expect ? You use right wing sources to attack the Democratic nominee.

[nc4bo]

7. What tripe. No one forced her to have fucked up judgement. She needs to be woman enough to

Take responsibility for all her errors in judgement, some of which cost people their lives.

[edgineered]

8. In 6 years as a member I have made 2000 posts.

Lets not even count the time before that spent as a lurker here, and you make the astute observation above. Get real.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. I love this right wing source

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-hillary-clintons-email-server

So much that I no longer use it actually, but this RW source should be approved by you.

Then there is this other RW news source

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-to-be-interviewed-in-fbi-email-investigation/

And these guys are truly RW (well you could argue, but)

http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

and then there are these highly suspect RW clowns

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/index.html

Now if you want to argue that most US Media trends RW... that is another argument.

[Trust Buster]

15. You forgot to include Judicial Watch and The Gateway Pundit to name a few.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. I actually pointed to the folks reporting on this crap

by the way, the ones I pointed to have nada to do with the civil case That be JW.

[Trust Buster]

18. You are making this personal when I was talking about Sanders supporter's behavior in general.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Nah I cover courts, I cover government

the FOIA case is different from the criminal case. The former is a civil case and the latter is a criminal case.

You made the claim, easily disproven, I just did, that this is a RW conspiracy and that people are bringing RW sources. If you want to argue that MSNBC is a RW course, I sort of agree with you, It is is a corporate source and they have an agenda. But I just blew your contention to smithereens by pointing to an actual CRIMINAL ENQUIRY, being reported by mainstream media.

And I once again will repeat this, I do not support anybody. You made a contention that took all of two minutes to blow to pieces.

[glowing]

23. Judicial Watch has the civil lawsuit requesting FOIA

Of e-mails... The only reason that they are probably mentioned...

Now, CREW, used to be the outfit that would do this crucial work of digging into govt to reveal what was happening behind closed doors... Then, David Brock came along, bought substantially into the organization, and the work that they were doing asking for State Dept info was cut off. People resigned in protest of this clearly biased direction that the organization was told to operate in.

What does that or should that tell anyone? When a normally "noble" organization is cut off like this? It probably means Clinton wants to hide shit. And since Judicial Watch isn't owned by Clinton machine, they are the one's revealing the information that is coming to light... Like the connection with Blumenthal that Obama told her emphatically, NO. We see timelines of items approved by State and coincidental "donations" into the Clinton Foundation. We see who pushed Obama to initiate aggression and regime change in Libya, and the fall out with ISIS that has occurred.

And this civil case isn't even the FBI investigation. There are supposedly 3 different investigations goin on there. Absolutely NO candidate would ever be allowed to run for President with crap like this hanging over her head. There is absolutely a reason why Biden is being trotted out, and in FL, no less. The establishment doesn't like her chances, but they are afraid of Trump and Bernie for sure!

And you may be right, a People's Party may spring up out of this mess. Most people, if given the chance of a party with Bernie type platforms and engaged in every state, would start registering into a party like that. Many of those Independents and progressive Dems... They would probably have more % of the country than either of the other two parties. Republicans have essentially killed their party. democrats have become the corporatist party (at least at the head and in control).

[AgingAmerican]

108. Might as well toss in Obama's FBI while your'e at it

[SheenaR]

89. Amen

Everything that comes out against HRC is automatically RW propaganda to folks here. Thank you for the links.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. You welcome, and I did not even have to open the time line program

where many of these links are also preserved

[PufPuf23]

28. This poster is a gas light generator and purposeful disrupter,

There is a pun in the screen name (hint: not about anti-trust).

[edgineered]

37. Truth Busters reply (#5) to my comment

gives you cause to call me a gas light generator and purposeful disrupter? Please explain, I am not understanding why you portray me like this.

[PufPuf23]

48. My post referred to Trust Buster not you. eom

[Trust Buster]

42. Re-read the OP about anti-Hillary threads, go count those threads and then come back and tell

me which side has taken gas lighting to a whole new level. Don't provoke if you can't take the heat Sanders supporters.

[PufPuf23]

55. You deliberately seed confusion and ill will. eom

[Trust Buster]

59. Go look at the titles on "the latest threads" page and then tell me about ill will. How phony.

[Electric Monk]

93. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. I'm just reluctant to get hidden posts. nt

[CoffeeCat]

32. What a crock

When we bring up the FBI investigation, we are told that we are spewing right-wing hate and attacking. Discussing facts is not an attack. Never has a Democratic nominee tried to secure the nomination under the cloud of a year-long FBI investigation.

All most of you want to do is squelch the reality surrounding Hillary. You don't seem to care about the Democratic party. Anyone who wants to discuss the possibility of her being indicted and what that could do to our party--is mocked, accused of "praying for an indictment", "hoping for an indictment" or laughed at. "Fitzmas! Fitzmas! OMG LOL!!!"

It's ridiculous. The conversations have continued, despite the whining about "attacking Hillary".
It really gets old.

Comey just did a presser today, to drive home the point that this ain't no security review. It's an investigation. Do you think that bodes well? I supposed so. I suppose I'm just hoping for an indictment by talking about it, right?

[840high]

97. You know better.

[Trust Buster]

4. I agree but be careful with the "hate" word. The thin skin antagonistic Sanders fans hid a post of

mine today because I had the audacity to point out that a thread calling Chelsea Clinton's husband "Mr. Chelsea Clinton" was hateful. They believe free speech only exists when you're shouting profanities at Hillary supporters walking into a Hillary rally in East L.A. Political forums, not so much.

[CentralCoaster]

6. bittermuch?

Here we have a chance at making progressive history but some oxygen sucking family dynasty one-percenter wants to win at any cost including taking down the entire party.

Thankfully, we have truth and integrity on our side while the other candidate has Charles Koch on hers.

Even if we lose we win.

[Trust Buster]

10. Damn straight I'm bitter. Sanders supporters think they have the right to pick and choose when

freedom of speech will be respected. You have lost. Don't try to convince yourself that you won. It looks silly.

[bvf]

33. What's silly

is your blatant misunderstanding of "freedom of speech."

You're posting on a website whose management's political leanings are presumably more in tune with your own than with most of the members' here.

If you really want to exercise your freedom of speech here, I challenge you to say you intend to vote for Donald Trump.

Not that you would, of course, but if you don't see the point here, you could do well to reconsider your childish tirade.

[Trust Buster]

43. Seems you're a little mixed up. Anyone whose read my posts knows that I'm firmly in Hillary's

camp. It's the Sanders supporters that attack our nominee that help Trump in the process.

[bvf]

76. Nope. No mix-up at all.

You've been here, what? Two years? And you still don't know who the management's preferred candidate is?

Do a little looking around. I assume you know who runs this site and how to access a user's journal.

If you have some time after that, review that whole "freedom of speech" thing. You're in somone else's house right now, and you follow their rules.

[Trust Buster]

81. I will not forfeit my free speech rights to anyone ever. Sanders filled juries abuse the system.

[Fumesucker]

85. Eh, if your side had the upper hand you would do the same thing

I kicked one post in the HRC group with no text at all, just the emoji and got blocked for that, my first and last post there and that was just because I didn't notice where the post was.

[bvf]

86. Let me spell this out for you

since you seem unwilling to do much but whine:

The administrator of this website supports Hillary Clinton, just as you do. (Yes, that might confuse you. If so, that's your problem, and nobody else's.)

The administrator of this website makes the rules.

You have no freedom of speech here beyond what the management grants you.

This is not a system of government. It's a website for chissakes!

You are not a Founding Fucking Father. Stop acting as though you think you are. Please.

[randome]

25. No. You have no chance. Sanders had 25 years to plan for this and he failed.

Go ahead and start a new party. I'll support you. But you won't.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[notadmblnd]

21. You know, I think the HRC campaign set a lot of that crap up

just to garner sympathy for her. I'm always surprised when they dont have they're fake Bernie people foaming at the mouth while carrying pitchforks, spitting and pulling babies hair.

[BootinUp]

9. This forum was pretty much taken over

by Bernie supporters. The jury system tends to work in their favor. Polls indicate 10-15% of Bernie supporters who say they will not support Hillary in the General. IMHO that will actually be smaller when the time comes. I do not see a crisis on the horizon except here at DU, lol.

[Trust Buster]

11. They shoot their mouths off about freedom of speech and level playing field but censor at the drop

of a dime. The far Left is just as hypocritical as the far Right IMO.

[nc4bo]

14. Have you been to the Hillary Group yet, Precious?

Now there lies a boatload of hypocrisy.

[randome]

26. Um, the Groups are, by definition, for supporters only. That applies to the Sanders Group as well.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[nc4bo]

50. The nuttiest, most offensive and disingenuous posts are put in public display

and the worst of the stench wafts up and out the depths so no, the lid doesn't stay closed.

That this nasty stuff slithers out is not my problem.

Trust me, I don't go into that $#%!, the $#%! comes to me and anyone else.

[randome]

54. Yeah, well, I don't belong to any of the groups and I have no desire to.

But the bullshit comes from both sides. We should be talking up the positives of both candidates, not belittling either one. There's too much crap from both sides and eventually it forms into a circular firing squad.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[hobbit709]

17. Who was going on about purging DU?

It wasn't the Bernie supporters that posted multiple OPs on that subject.

[Mnpaul]

44. There is no freedom of speech here

The First Amendment doesn't apply here. The TOS covers this site and the owners have decided to put some of the moderation in our hands.

[Trust Buster]

53. Just another fancy definition for censorship. You depend on the fact that most Juries are

majority Sanders loaded. So you hide posts that don't violate TOS and convince yourselves that you won something when you've actually just lost an election in the final analysis.

[Mnpaul]

65. If you don't like the rules that you agreed to when you joined this site

you could always leave or take it up with the owners in ATA.

[Trust Buster]

70. My point is that Sanders supporters are abusing the system as Skinner himself noted earlier.

[Mnpaul]

82. And Clinton supporters don't?

sorry to break it to you but it is not limited to Sanders supporters and it looks like many of your hateful posts were well hidden. You are lucky to be able to post. By normal rules, you would be on a timeout.

[bvf]

92. You're just wasting your breath here, IMO.

You would think he'd have figured out a couple of things after two years here, but no.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. My god, no wonder you are confused about civil and criminal cases

no the first amendment does not apply here. It applies to the GOVERNMENT, not a private site.

[Trust Buster]

75. "The first amendment doesn't apply here". That just about sums up the Sanders hypocrisy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. That is actually basic constitutional law

like first semester coursework.

[CoffeeCat]

39. Are you kidding me?

Do you ever step outside the walls of DU? This place is a High Tea at Kensington compared to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and the comment sections of most articles.

Most other messageboards and comment sections do not have a jury system. People can say whatever they want, and that includes spelling out their voting intentions--VERY CLEARLY. It's much, much worse beyond DU.

I am a delegate who just participated in our District Convention. I couldn't find one person who said they would support Clinton. When we broke into candidate groups and discussed our views--there is so much anger, so much resentment about how this campaign has been run and the dirty tricks, voter suppression, lack of voting machines, voter-registrations gone missing, people not being able to vote, other anomalies. State after state after state our Democratic primary elections have been one shit show after another. Meanwhile, it's smooth sailing on the Republican side. Their exit polls match their elections results. Not on our side! We've got the Brocking Points about how exit polls are sooooo unreliable and that people lie to exit pollers? Funny. Only our side needs these pathetic excuses.

It's been crazy, listening to the Hillary campaign accuse Bernie of being "sexist" and "racist" while David Brock declares, "Black lives don't matter much to Bernie Sanders." Brock said that bullshit lie even before the Iowa Caucuses--before Bernie had a chance in any state with a diverse population. Then came the bullshit about, "It's really Bruce Rappaport in that picture. Bernie is a liar!". Guess what...it was Bernie in the picture! But we had to stand by and watch your side slice Bernie to ribbons and call him a liar--as part of a campaign ploy to shred his civil rights record. A ploy that was debunked as sick lies.

And the trip to Vatican City. Hillary people started more than 150 posts about Bernie's trip. Every talking point--hammered away--was a lie. "Bernie wasn't invited!" "Bernie won't be speaking at the conference!" "The Pope doesn't want Bernie there, he's leaving town in protest!" Bernie is only giving a short speech before a coffee break. What a joke! LOL!" The Pope will never meet Bernie!" and on and on and on and on.

All of it debunked. All of it lies.

We've sat through this abusive behavior for months now. It's been the most batshit crazy behavior I've EVER seen from a candidate, her lying surrogates and a bunch of supporters who are more than happy to perpetuate the lies.

[Ed Suspicious]

58. Thank you so much for this recount of reality.

[CoffeeCat]

63. We all know it's the truth

Because it is the truth.

It's exactly what has happened throughout the year.

[Ed Suspicious]

68. They deny it at every turn laughing it off as though we're tinfoil hatters.

[TCJ70]

73. When history doesn't matter...

...and you support a candidate without considering their history, it must become easier to deny reality.

[pdsimdars]

110. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Amen! ^^^^^^^^^^^

Hillary's campaign lies, lies, lies, distorts, swift boats, mis-informs and then turns around and whines,"Stop being meanies."

What a load of Bull Sh*t!!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. There is another place something similar has happened

and I shudder to think about it. I was talking to a really nice lady, who voted in that famous election in 1933... in that other country, you know it is really bad when not just one candidate reminds her of that.

[MuseRider]

128. This is exactly what I see

and hear. I am not working in the party but I am close to those who are and this is what I hear from those I talk to about this subject. Now that we have a candidate that actually stands for all that we see is good in the world why would anyone vote for one who we see as all that is wrong in the world? Damn near 100% of those I have talked to will not cast that vote. One or two maybe but the rest? No one fears leaving it blank and voting down ticket or writing in.

[pdsimdars]

109. Detached form reality . . . first the "anti_Hillary hate rhetoric" fantasy

and now this nonsense about the jury system.

I saw a post that said only this "Howard Dean has sold out, now what"

That was HIDDEN by a jury. And you call that working in Bernie's favor? That is clearly an out of touch statement. I had a similar statement hidden, and some others. In one I said Hillary was the corporate candidate. That was called sexist by one of the jurors.

So, you think the jury system is rigged and I do too. My suggestion it that they need to have a way to appeal a decision and only people with proven RATIONAL THINKING should look it over. And jurors who are found to be making irrational, reactionary decisions need to be REMOVED from the jury system.

Decisions like the ones above have no place in any so called justice.

[BootinUp]

111. Rigged? No. Its a tool used by the majority though. Anecdotal evidence

does not mean squat of course.

[Broward]

22. You should go join up with the Bush donors, your ideological brethren.

[Iliyah]

27. The Democratic Party will be ok

[pdsimdars]

113. As soon as Hillary quits

[inchhigh]

36. Sorry. i been here for 50 years

you dont like a democratic party that embraces progressive ideas and fights for ordinary citizens, you leave.

Dont wanna leave? Then get in line with the future of the democratic party and pull your weight.

But dont believe for a minute that you can steal this party out from under us and hand it over to the Banksters.

[Broward]

41. Well said. These Third Wayers hijack the Party and move it right.

They then turn around and tell traditional Dems to take a hike.

[OnionPatch]

129. Same here.

I've been a loyal Democrat for 40 years and spent plenty of time working for them at the local level. I'll be damned if I'm going anywhere.

It's really strange how all the values we've been working for all these years are suddenly "ponies and unicorns". Maybe those whose values have changed should start their own party, not the other way around.

[QC]

46. How about the conservatives go back to their home in the GOP instead?

I think that's a much better idea. They are the cuckoos in the nest.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. OH, THE DRAMA!

[synergie]

56. No worries, the streams you see are coming from very few sources.

With the BS camp running out of money and the RWers losing hope that they prop up BS, they shall die off soon.

Bernie supporters in real life are progressives who will be voting Blue, the ratfuckers will vote for Trump as they were always going to.

[Ed Suspicious]

66. I have voted blue forever. I am seriously for the first time wondering wtf to do. I am a creature

of the left. Your candidate is making me question what that means and why she thinks she deserves my vote. We don't deserve her neoliberal e onomic agenda of her neorealist/neocon IR agenda. We don't deserve her fall down on single payer or her silly putty positions on a whole host of issues.

You are trying to rewrite reality. You are speaking g falsely.

[Arugula Latte]

90. Same here.

I never thought I'd be one of "those people" but apparently I have my limits. If I'm supposed to smile and accept rightwing candidates and policies in the interest of "party unity," well, I'm out.

[synergie]

94. Then you vote for the candidate whose record is actually left, the real one, not the

heap of RW lies you've been told.

Ask your questions and weigh the realiites and for goodness sakes do your homework, you candidate is even less a creature of the left given what he's voted for and against, but those thing didn't seem to actually bother you, not his neo-nonsensical economic policies that are not well thought out, or his actual CON agenda, which the NRA applauds, and which even he knows he never had a prayer of producing.

She didn't fall down on Single payer, but Bernie who never did much to advance much about healthcare certainly did, and his positions are not "silly putty" based on what was advantageous for him politically? The War votes, the support of trillion dollar projects for planes no one wanted? The shipping of nuclear waste into poor latino communities? The NRA support, the voting against rape victims knowing the HIV status of their rapists?

You need to understand what history is first, before you can accuse someone of "rewriting" it when they introduce you to facts you either don't accept or simply ignore for convenience.

I'm an not speaking falsely, I'm speaking truthfully, you have a false understanding of reality and have blinded yourself to the guy you support who is the embodiment of all that you CLAIM to find objectionable and who has in his 2 decades done nothing but fall down on every issue of importance.


Open your eyes, if you could vote for Bernie who is far worse a candidate than Hillary, you can suck it up and vote for the one who is ACTUALLY blue and has actual accomplishments under her belt, Bernie has nothing, even when the had the power to do stuff, he failed.

[Art_from_Ark]

101. That's why I voted for Bernie

You are the one with a false understanding of reality.

People on the American left do NOT shill for right-wing wars on the floor of the Senate.
People on the American left do NOT look to people like Henry Kissinger and Robert Kagan for advice.
People on the American left do NOT want fracking.
People on the American left do NOT support trade deals that help to destroy jobs.
People on the American left do NOT laugh about the horrible deaths of other countries' leaders.

Hillary's 1993 health care plan did NOT include single-payer, while Bernie was in favor of single-payer.
Hillary's for fracking, which poisons groundwater around the world.
Bernie's got a D- rating from the NRA-- that's hardly a ringing endorsement from that organization.
And Bernie has always stood up for the oppressed, ever since his college days. The same cannot be said of Hillary.

The one who is trying to rewrite history is YOU.

[aikoaiko]

71. Thanks anyway, but I like the idea of taking over the Democratic party.

[arcane1]

80. Sadly, it's the corrupt party leadership that is causing this problem. And they won't fix it.

It leaves us honest people with few options.

[baldguy]

83. The party won't have any difficulty unifying behind Clinton.

The whining "purists" were never really a part of the Democratic coalition that created the New Deal, the Great Society, the advances in civil rights over the last 50 yrs, and the ACA. Their primary goal is to see the perfect be the enemy of the good, and to see the Democratic Party destroyed.

Thankfully these people are minor players on the national stage.

[Thinkingabout]

84. The Democratic Party has been around for many years, I expect it to be here for many more years.

We the people have spoken, over three million votes more for Hillary, let the people's voice be heard.

[timmymoff]

88. I see it the other way around

the democratic party needs a lot more people shouting FU at them. If your kids can't handle political discourse and foul language due to it, then be a responsible parent and don't take them to such events. There is nothing in the 1st amendment that says discourse must be civil, nor do I believe it should. You have to kick people in the nuts enough times until they finally beg you to kick them in the teeth. Can't remember whose quote that is but it is fitting

[kaleckim]

95. Amazing

How little Clinton's supporters put effort into understanding this and act like adults. You have been so used to the left not really demanding anything from politicians like Clinton, that when it basically says that enough is enough (because of the decades of stagnating wages, the deindustrialization, the crumbling infrastructure, the explosion in inequality, the total abandonment of the poor and communities of color, the coming ecological collapse) and starts to put pressure on her, you all whine. You think this is about ideological purity because, frankly, most of the policies that Clinton has supported haven't impacted you in the same way as the people backing Sanders (largely the victims of those policies or people focused on those victims). It's obvious, these things are abstractions to most of you. You are doing fine and you have zero interest in putting yourselves into the shoes of those not doing so well, or those very much concerned with those not doing so well. You pretended to care about Citizens United, but are now angry that people are focusing on her largest donors (largely banks and corporate interests), her getting more money from Wall Street than all the other candidates combined this election cycle (and letting Bush's Wall Street backers know that she shares their values), and her family getting three billion from corporate interest since they entered politics.

So you don't really understand the changes underway. You think we, like you, back Bernie and are involved in identity politics and are ideological purists. It's nonsense. We are largely responding to the actual impact of the policies your candidate has long supported and we've supported Sanders because he focuses on the right issues, has a good record overall, and his policies are not only progressive, they're popular too. You saying we're involved in identity politics is pure projection.

"My suggestion would be that the Bernie supporters should be the ones that start their own party. After all, Bernie was never an actual member of the Democratic Party prior to his decision to run for president in 2015. Yes he caucused with them, but caucusing isn't the same as being a member."

Young people are not committed to either party, and are well to the left of the previous couple generations. They are in large part, again, because of the utter failure of the policies that corrupt politicians like Clinton have supported, but they're also solidly behind Sanders. The Democrats would be doomed as a party in the long run if it lost all of the young people behind him. You already are in danger of losing the left, and good luck without the left. Sander should work to consolidate the left of center third parties across the country into a national party. The party could run candidates in some city council races, and a congressional race here or there. It could set modest goals and make inroads. If he did do something like that, he'd have a ton of people, young people, on board. Don't delude yourself about the implications of what you're calling for, and put some effort into actually understanding this from the perspective of people outside your existence. People are struggling, have been for decades, and the the Republicans, the Clintons and Obama have contributed to their struggles.

[840high]

98. .+1

[Jim Lane]

99. I'm sure Trump and Cruz and their ilk woud be delighted at your recommendation.

You write:

My suggestion would be that the Bernie supporters should be the ones that start their own party. . . .

They can call themselves the "Purists" or the even the "Progressive Party" if they want to, since they are always trying to decide who among us is, and who isn't a Progressive. One thing for certain, if Bernie and his Bros are not happy in the Democratic Party they should be the ones that leave.

If enough Sanders supporters and other progressives were to take your advice, the result would be a Republican electoral lock for decades to come.

If that's the outcome you want, feel free to keep slinging insults. Just bear in mind that Hillary Clinton doesn't want you to. I disagree with her on many issues but I've never said she was stupid.

[silvershadow]

100. He speaks to the FDR/Union Labor man in me. The one the DLC/Third Way/Clintons

stabbed in the back when they brought their ways to our party. The ones they abandoned. There reason Democrats can't get good turnouts is we don't even offer an alternative to the Corporatists.

[Lil Missy]

102. The party can do without the loudest Hillary-Haters of DU. In the REAL world,

most will vote for the nominee, Hillary Clinton. And frankly, why would we even want such foul right wing rag gossip mongers on our side anyway? They aren't Democrats either.

[Lizzie Poppet]

105. Oh, have no fear: I'll leave.

Let me be clear, though: the Democratic Party has been leaving me, for years and years. Long enough that I dropped my registration a long time ago, only flipping back to vote for a candidate whose views actually closely match my own (for the first time ever). I do call the party leaders corrupt, and believe me, "Kumbaya" ain't gonna be what comes out of my mouth to the party leaders after the way they've conducted this primary season. Oh, fuck no...

Your post seems to indicate you place a high value on what amounts to brand loyalty. That's your perfect right...but for me, the party as a thing-in-itself, as a brand, means nothing whatsoever to me. Policy is all I care about in politics. The current DNC's policy priorities in multiple areas of critical importance to me are unacceptable. I want a genuinely liberal party, that this ain't it. This is lip service to liberal social interests and all-in for increased corporate control of our society. I want no part of that.

[pinebox]

112. Here's the deal

The Dem party as a whole has moved right on many issues and in this day age when 89 Dems voted to gut SNAP, it's tough to see the differences between Republicans of 20 years ago and many Dems these days.

There is a fundamental shift in ideology happening right now and it's a clash of what is right and what is wrong. This is based on many things and one of those is millennials who are now the largest voting block in all of America, the first generation who will make LESS than their parents. A generation enslaved and beholden to student loan debt and a generation who feels the impact of of what Bill Clinton did to this country.

This is a defining difference. You have a large generation gap happening right now with people who are older and who are more than likely comfortable in their financial stability vs a whole generation of voters, many who will never have the chance to even own a house.

The general disconnect is massive. The internet has opened many peoples eyes and millenials have friends online who live in other countries whom they speak to on a daily basis. They see their friends getting things like free college, free health care, in countries where gay marriage was accepted long before it ever was here and they are asking themselves "why can't we have that here"....

They realize that the American dream isn't only a lie, it's Kool-Aid that has been shoved down everyone's throats to believe we are the best. We aren't. We rank towards the bottom of the scale on many social issues.

That is changing. This is what this is about. Change. Bernie's platform is that change and it's a movement where we all win. Imagine an America where someone working a minimum wage job could actually "make it". That was once possible, it still should be.

[Amaril]

114. What an ugly thread

If we -- life-long Democrats (I've been one for 35 years) -- don't hold the party leadership accountable, then who will?

Enough is enough. I don't WANT to be a Republican -- or even a Republican-lite -- if I did, then I would register as one. I am a Democrat for a reason, and dammit, I am tired of the Third Way dragging MY party into the snake pit previously reserved for Republicans.

You don't like this push to pull the party back to the left? Too bad.

[B Calm]

116. Explanation of what's really happening here!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1947877

[Amaril]

119. While I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who sees it...

.....it doesn't make me any less sad about what is happening.

[B Calm]

121. What makes me sick to my stomach is watching old time liberal DUers

supporting this takeover. I think the majority of them are so hell bent on electing the first woman president, they ignore what's happening.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

118. "Love it or Leave it"? Again?

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson (D)

[firebrand80]

120. DU won't unify. The party will be fine nt

[villager]

127. I remember those "Love It or Leave It" bumperstickers.

I remember what kinds of cars they were on.