Dear Steve... You Are In A Position To Know... So Please Cut The Crap, And...

[WillyT]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by TexasTowelie (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

Tell Us EXACTLY...

Why The System Works The Way It Does..

And Inform Us... As To How Voting For Lying Establishment Politicians, Media Figures, Et. Al.

Makes This Country Any Better ???

All opinions are welcome here.

[moobu2]

1. Ask that when your sitting in front of your TV

watching a Republican getting sworn in in January 2017.

[cantbeserious]

3. Ever More Loathsome Fear Mongering And Obfuscation

eom

[moobu2]

11. Bernie Sanders can not win

so watching you people tear down the Democratic candidate in favor of a loser is scary. Remember all this when you're watching several more Scalia's, Thomas's and Alito's or worse being appointed to the Supreme Court like what happened the last time a perfect Liberal saint got the nomination.

[cantbeserious]

13. Ever More Loathsome Fear Mongering And Obfuscation

eom

[moobu2]

14. The truth is scary isn't it.

[cantbeserious]

15. Ever More Loathsome Fear Mongering And Obfuscation

eom

[sabrina 1]

24. It sure is and we just got a whole dose of it this week didn't we? Very scary. But thankfully we

have a candidate running who will work hard to take the money out of our system of politics which hopefully will dry up funding for the kind of nasty, negative attacks on politicians, Dems especially we witnessed and coming from someone who states they themselves are a 'democratic strategist'.

When that money becomes illegal, people like Brock eg, will finally have to go earn a real living, rather than running Super Pacs, you don't support this btw do you, planning to 'plant' vile false information about a good man in the media. That kind of dirty politics will have no funding once we get some real People's Reps into power and finally end the money that pays for this corrosive kind of politics that our system is swimming in turning it into a cesspool for bottom feeders, rather than the Democratic system it was intended to be.

[cantbeserious]

28. When We Stand Together - No Citizen Need Settle For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[sabrina 1]

32. What I witnessed here this week, motivated me even more to get the ONLY candidate who is

running a clean campaign and who will, when he is elected, begin the process of cleaning up the cesspool Corporate Money has turned our system into.

Everyone should see what we saw so they know, if they did not before, what that money buys.

[cantbeserious]

34. Right On

eom

[jfern]

20. The general election polls show otherwise

[mindwalker_i]

73. I've stayed out of this pretty much

However, statements like "Bernie can't win," so vote for this person who supports the very things hurting the non-rich (and seriously, that stuff about "not supporting what she learned" is a mealy-mouthed bucket of bullshit) doesn't change my mind in the way they seem to intend. Hillary seems very much like a politician who will change her views to match the market segment she's trying to capture. That's fine, but I don't trust her opinions to stay that way in the face of other people with money. She's smart, she's tough. But she doesn't stand the the ideals that we need more of in this country.

It's been done ad nauseum, but the idea that Hillary is best for beating republicans is also not true. I don't see her as likely to convince people to vote for her over republicans. Bernie seems to stand for things that people will support if they understand those things.

[Lunabell]

40. They said Obama couldn't win

Oh, ye of little faith.

[sheshe2]

104. Sanders is no Obama.

He never will be.

?w=694&h=694

[Lunabell]

128. of course he isn't

[davidpdx]

48. How many Hillary Clinton supporters said that of Obama in 2008?

Answer: almost all of them. You are saying that if Sanders is the nominee it will be waste of time campaigning for him because he doesn't have a chance. Spoken like a true Hillary Clinton supporter.

[moobu2]

62. Bernie Sanders is not Obama by a long shot.

He isn't even a Democrat.

[NanceGreggs]

79. Oh, don't I know it!

Those HRC supporters are SOOOO "nasty" when they bring up the bleedin' obvious FACT that BS is not a Democrat.

We wouldn't want FACTS being discussed here, would we?

[NanceGreggs]

84. So the FACT that Bernie ...

... isn't a Democrat isn't a FACT?

Is that one of the FACTS I wouldn't know if it hit me upside the head?

[davidpdx]

86. Even Debbie Wasserman Schultz welcomed Sanders into the race as a Democrat

I guess you think she, as the DNC Chair, was lying. You and the other Clinton supporters that continue to repeat this are pathetic. Again it goes to show the level of nastiness, smugness, and entitlement that you believe you and your candidate deserve. You can't come up with other reasons to oppose Sanders so you devolve into the "I know you are, but what am I" preschool crap.

In fact my first response was not even to you, it was to someone else. You chose to come in and start throwing shit. That is on you, not me.

[NanceGreggs]

90. So pointing out the fact ...

... that BS is NOT a Democrat (which he isn't) "goes to show the level of nastiness, smugness, and entitlement that you believe you and your candidate deserve."

Really? FACTS are now a show of nastiness, etc.?

"You can't come up with other reasons to oppose Sanders ..." Oh, I can come up with all kinds of reasons why I don't want Bernie anywhere near the White House. But refusing to BE a Democrat while wanting the support and votes of Democrats is a biggie.

That BS Kool-Aid is some powerful shit.

[Lordquinton]

88. That fact is a bonus for Sanders

It will help him draw in folks who don't want to vote for a party candidate.

[Cha]

124. Because they're pointing out that Bernie is no President Obama? Thank Goodness he's not.

I've loved the 7 years we've had with him as President.

I don't care what the bernies have to say about President Obama.. their opinion means less than zero to me.

[Sheepshank]

135. You really know what is nasty?

83. You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you upside the head

Or does "nasty" only count when it comes from some select few....and I do mean a very select few.

[mindwalker_i]

77. Given the TPP, and that Obama drove it through

Your statement falls a little flat.

[Duckfan]

94. and how many of HC's supporters on DU have ties to Wall Street too?

I'll guess 0.

[cui bono]

78. Hillary is the one who cannot win. She will not get any crossover votes that we know Bernie is

already getting.

Republicans hate her. She has baggage. People don't trust her. Bernie appeals to a broad spectrum of people and he is energizing them and he will GOTV. If Hillary is the nominee many people will just be disgusted that it's the same old politics and usual and feel disenfranchised because all we'll have is two bought and paid for establishment candidates, or just one of those and one insane and unfit candidate, so they will just stay home because they will not see any point in coming out to vote.

If the people don't think their voice matters they will not use it. Bernie is speaking for the people and will get them to come out and voice their opinion at the ballot box.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. I don't understand why 1972 is supposed to be relevant but 2004 never is.

Remember 2004? That was the time we listened to the conventional wisdom asshats who told us that nominating the "smart choice" would mean that we wouldn't have to answer pesky questions about why our nominee didn't vote for the Iraq War, plus he was a bona fide war hero which would render him immune to Republican attacks.

[Dustlawyer]

89. Just keep telling yourself that!

When Americans hear Bernie, they become supporters. That's what has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen, especially Tuesday night!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

91. We heard "Barack Hussein Obama cannot win." in '08 from Hillary supporters....

And yes, they made a point of saying his full name.

[kristopher]

99. Notice how now a few of the worst are using "BS" exclusively for Bernie?

that BS is NOT a Democrat

and

That BS Kool-Aid is some powerful shit

It fits perfectly a perverse schoolyard bully approach they seem to have adopted as a standard to strive for.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

107. Anything to avoid the issues.

[NanceGreggs]

125. Seeing a BSer ...

... talking about other people using "a perverse schoolyard bully approach" is the height of irony.

I use the initials BS when referring to Bernie Sanders. I also use the initials HRC, JFK, MLK, RFK, LBJ, FDR, the POTUS, the SCOTUS, and the SOTU address - as do others.

Why is it that all other initials are acceptable, but different rules apply when one speaks of The Great BS?

[beam me up scottie]

131. Meh, consider the source. This is what passes for political discourse in some circles.

They would rather giggle over initials than discuss the issues.

[JDPriestly]

142. You assume that Bernie cannot win.

But no one can assert that as a fact.

Personally, I don't think that Hillary can win. People don't trust her. She has lost in the past.

I don't think Joe Biden can win either. It is very rare that a modern Democratic vice president gets elected president. If a president dies while in office, the VP who is a Democrat may be re-elected: Truman, LBJ are two examples. But LBJ did not even attempt to have that third/second term of his own. Gore won the popular vote but could not fight against the theft of his election, and the nation did nothing to defend the honest result of that election.

I don't think Biden is a popular enough personality and VP to et elected even though people like him. People like Biden, but they don't get enthusiastic about him.

I have campaigned for quite a number of candidates for the presidency. I have never seen the enthusiasm I am seeing for Bernie. And it is still early in the campaign season.

I have never met voters who know as much about a candidate as voters know about Bernie.

The internet has changed everything. In the Nixon/Kennedy contest in 1960, TV debates changed everything. This time around, the internet has changed everything.

In addition, there is the TPP which is very unpopular and linked to both Hillary and Biden.

The Obama administration, although it has done many things people like, has failed to raise the cap on Social Security, has made mistakes in foreign policy especially in Syria and Libya, has failed to make sure that the economic gains after the 2008 election were shared fairly by all, has failed to change the tax structure so as to fairly tax very wealthy companies and individuals, failed adequately to fight for unions -- Wisconsin, for example -- has not obtained a livable wage for all working Americans, has not helped students enough with dealing with their debts which are out of proportion in most cases to their earnings, etc.

Bernie offers plans to deal with these problems.

No other candidate offers plans that seem realistic and workable.

I really think that based on these factors, Bernie has a very good chance to win the presidency.

Best of all, Bernie is not going to use negative advertisement. And that will shore him up against any of his opponents who try to use that against him. Any candidate who stoops to gossip or negative ads against Bernie will be looked upon as a creep. So that is not going to work.

I disagree with you.

I think Bernie has an excellent chance, the best chance of any of the candidates -- and I back up my opinion with logic and facts.

[Scootaloo]

6. Another proclamation of support for Republicans from clinton supporters

[BainsBane]

39. There is one candidate openly trying to court Republican votes

and it isn't Clinton.

[Scootaloo]

42. And if successful, they won't be voting for a republican in 2016.

Which is more than can be said about some Clinton supporters.

[sheshe2]

114. So

And if successful, they won't be voting for a republican in 2016. Which is more than can be said about some Clinton supporters.

So, are you saying Clinton supporters, Democratic voters will vote Republican?

Please clarify your statement.

If it means what I think it means it is pretty damn ugly, Scoot.

[Lordquinton]

92. Clinton isn't trying to sway Republican voters?

Doesn't sound like a good strategy, Sanders works for independents and Republicans who are more about the final aspect of their platform, not the fox news end, he stands a much better chance, wider platform, clearly for all Americans.

[WillyT]

12. Booga, Booga...

"We're all gonna die !!!"

Human up...

[neverforget]

29. check this out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=650335

[840high]

59. You must be talking about

rep-lite Hillary.

[cantbeserious]

2. Yes Steve - Please Tell Us Why Voting For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils Is Good For The 99%

eom

[chillfactor]

7. guess you figure...

swearing in a rethug for President is your best for the country then...

[cantbeserious]

9. Ever More Loathsome Fear Mongering And Obfuscation

eom

[bvf]

4. I'm sure Steve will be happy to weigh in

right after he checks his calendar.

[marym625]

5. I would be happy to a response to my response to his post

But looks like he just wanted to pontificate

How does any of this change the fact, a fact you wrote about with great conviction and proof, she lies and lied? How gracious is that? How does that fact fall into your endorsement?

Additionally, on so very many subjects, she has done a 180 on her support or opposition. Now, I agree that growth is good and important, but how does such change, on issues that have not, figure into your endorsement?

Finally, while she has stated she was wrong about her vote on the Iraq war, she still, very emphatically, with a conviction very seldom seen, voted for and pushed for, an illegal, first strike war on innocent people. Please remember that so very many of us knew bush was lying. You admit in your post here, that the Iraq war is a large part of the reason we are hated, still, around the world. Yet you neglect to mention that then Senator Clinton was a huge part of that decision. How does that fit into your endorsement?

[WillyT]

41. What If... George Will... Or David Corn... Were Members Of DU ???

Would we have the same members/handsoff stance ???

We might... for one...

[marym625]

67. interesting thought

Scary thought.

Even with the fright factor, no comparison to Pulitzer prize-winning author, graduate of Oxford and Mr. Laser.

Still, nope.

[jfern]

8. Voting for lying establishment politicians is bad

when he writes an article attacking said politician. But 8 years later after said politician has lied a bunch more and and he is supporting said politician, it doesn't matter.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

10. If he explains it, will you confess that Bernie eats babies?

Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics

1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with calling your opponent a name that is relevant and objectively defined; the most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often “college professors” and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common but undefenied put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as “disgruntled” or “bitter.” These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent. “Womanizer” and “price gouger” and “exploiter” are other name-calling names that cannot be objectively defined. There is nothing wrong with calling someone, for example, a liar when he is, in fact, a liar. Don’t tell me it’s ad hominem. That’s #50. You can’t just say it though. You must prove it.

2. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent. Political people on TV often use the phrase “But the real question is___” or “What the American people are really interested in is___” as a preface to changing the subject.

3. a. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong because, but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias. Essentially, these all say that the opponent is prohibited from commenting on the topic in question because of what’s in their resume or not in their resume or because of some possible bias.

http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics

More at the link.

[cantbeserious]

16. We Are All Waiting For Steve

eom

[hrmjustin]

17. So calling out members by name is now allowed in GDP?

Give it a rest and go respond in his thread.

Another poster did this today and had his thread locked.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/1251662995

[DisgustipatedinCA]

18. You might get this one locked, but the truth is outing.

[hrmjustin]

22. I have no issue with people challenging him but doing this is not appropriate.

[Armstead]

58. One of those occasions where I actually agree with you

I'm all for lively arguments about issues and candidates, but I'm not crazy about personal call-outs on this level.

[hrmjustin]

60. .

[kath]

25. Truth is prevailing, DiCA, no matter how much some here whine and whine and whine about it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

33. It's happening right now, in more than one thread. nt

[artislife]

21. Thanks, I would have missed Manny's Opus.

[hrmjustin]

23. He has another going on in here;

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=10074

[artislife]

26. Again, thank you!

[hrmjustin]

27. My pleasure!

[kath]

35. So nice of you to point those out, justin. Thanks a bunch!

:smooch:

[hrmjustin]

38. My pleasure!

[joshcryer]

45. Wow, Manny going way overboard there.

What the fuck is going on.

[hrmjustin]

51. Oh I don't see anything abnormal about him today.

[joshcryer]

53. I dunno it's really flaunty.

Then I don't go to that group so I don't know about the posts there.

[joshcryer]

43. Apparently.

This is getting rather out of hand at this point.

Also, I am embarrassed that this is what constitutes Sanders "supporters."

[hrmjustin]

54. Well they got a new toy and they are going to run with it like it is a righteous cause.

[Scootaloo]

65. Well, at least we're not starting new websites to spew antisemitic conspiracy theories n/t

[sheshe2]

71. You mean the article...

That was posted on DU that you had no problem with? That one, in the Israel Palestine Group?

Hmmm~

[Scootaloo]

50. Journalists get called out all the time on DU.

If a poster wants to bank on their employment status as a journalist to claim authority, they get to catch that flack, too. Ask WillPitt.

[hrmjustin]

55. Call outs like this shpuld be locked.

[Scootaloo]

61. Why? They're not against the ToS.

[hrmjustin]

63. Violates the sop.

Disruptive meta.

[Scootaloo]

64. It's neither disruptive nor meta.

[hrmjustin]

69. Do you think we should be able to call out members by their name in ops in this room?

[Scootaloo]

70. There's no rule against it

And to be frank, after watching so much "some people say," "many believe," etc? Actually naming names seems like it might be a productive move.

[hrmjustin]

74. Yes I can see how some might like that.

[TM99]

102. Sorry, Steven Lesser

is not just some regular joe posting here.

He is a professional pundit. He has been writing blogs and appearing on Fox News for quite some time now.

You might recall that Alan Grayson posts here. That has not stopped numerous 'call out' threads that have contained some pretty vile shit from being posted. You might also recall that William Pitt used to post here. That also never stopped members from calling him out on stuff he wrote and numerous attack threads that eventually drove him away.

Steven Lesser is a public figure. He has no one but himself to blame for this situation. For you to imply that this is somehow different than the other examples well, that makes you a hypocrite as well.

I expected far better from you.

[hrmjustin]

115. Sad to say I could say the same about you.

[TM99]

118. This has sadly become predictable of

Clinton supporters.

Y'all just won't address the facts but deflect instead.

[hrmjustin]

121. Look we always got along and I know you may have a list that you can call me out on but you are

no angel.

Good night.

[TM99]

148. I am not asking you to stop

your support for Clinton.

I would ask you to have the decency enough to recognize the hypocrisy that Lesser has perpetrated. I would also ask you to have the decency to not let blind faith in your fellow Clinton supporters keep you from recognizing that calling out a pundit is vastly different than calling out a regular DU member.

My friend, I have never claimed to be an angel.

[sheshe2]

134. Do you mean the time when Pitt

Called the DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES a POS? Oh that was lovely.

Lol~ It was reced to high heaven here.

[Bobbie Jo]

19. Good grief

trash thread

[Renew Deal]

30. I guess the witch hunts are on

You couldn't accomplish it with the alert system so might as well try something new.

[WillyT]

49. It Was A Simple Question... How Do You Justify What You Said Then... With What You Say Now...

And Maintain Any Semblance Of Integrity ?

Or is it just a gigantic money and influence game ?

It's really a question that could use addressing, no ???

I know it's relatively a NEW question with that InterWeb thing and all...

But everybody is watching now... that's why Bernie is doing so well, and why the others are totally stumped.

[sheshe2]

75. Bernie is doing so well now?

Ok.

[WillyT]

80. Keep Watching.... Especially The Upcoming Debate... And Notice...

How HRC Has Been Adopting Bernie Sander's Positions.

Everybody Knows...

[sheshe2]

82. Ok

Good to know Bernie can sing Everybody Knows. K~

That gave me so much to think about. It added a lot to the political discussion on DU. Not.

[cui bono]

31. Jury Results:

I was Juror #6. Sorry, Willy, but I disagree with the delivery if not the message.


AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:01 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Dear Steve... You Are In A Position To Know... So Please Cut The Crap, And...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251663958

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Beating a dead horse, please stop with the meta and personal attacks of another DU'er. I am sick of this, it makes DU suck. I don't complain that WillyT spams GDP every night, I don't complain that he kicks his own posts when no one else does. But yet here we are again more meta, and more spam. Hide this post.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:10 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attack. If Willy is so "concerned" about Steven's opinion, then PM him, or ask in response to one of his posts. This is beyond childish and borders on bullying.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter complains about attacks on another DUer, then proceeds to attack another DUer!
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: When I saw it I thought oh well, what's another Leser thread and besides with Willy you can never tell if he's being snarky or just, well, a little thick. I chalked this one up to the latter but it looks like it's turning into another pile-on, and if Leser shows up to answer the obvious questions he'll get skinned alive, again, so since I got the call I'm going to do what the Pontius Pilate hand-washing hosts can't be relied on doing which is vote to hide disruptive meta.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Um... I agree with the sentiment of the OP but this is a bit OTT imo. Why not respond in Steve's thread? Or make an OP that makes some valid arguments against voting for Clinton. This just amounts to a callout without much substance. Love you Willy, but I have to vote to hide.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The other DUer is a public figure, a journalist who, like all other journalists who are linked to or are or have been members here, are what we are told is 'fair game' for questions like this.

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

[WillyT]

36. Thanks... You Don't Get To Be Protected Here, While Being A Jounalist Over There...

Sorry.

[WillyT]

68. BTW... I Don't Change A Thing... I Want The Fly On The Wall... I Want The Truth...

He could say many things... like...

In 2008 I was a young reporter cutting my teeth, being edgy, and attacked HRC.

In the years between 2008 and 2015 I came to the conclusion that I had not given her a fair shot.

What it looks like ???

In 2008 I was for Barack Obama... in 2015 I am for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And... I just ride the horse that gets me closer to my goal.

What's the goal?

I have no real problem with Steve... my entire family was in the press.

But... if he really want's to be a member in good standing here...

He could tell us all how the fake bullshit has been foisted on us for the last 30/40 years or more.

He IS the fly on the wall.

[pa28]

37. Time to lay off the steve thing.

Just my opinion.

[sabrina 1]

44. Well, he is a public figure who has been lecturing us on supporting Dems for quite some time now.

But you're right, with all credibility gone, it's best to move on and spend the time on one of the most honest, most credible candidates we've ever had a chance to vote for, elected.

[pa28]

46. Yes, he is and the first thread about this was fair enough.

At this point I think It's just piling on. We're better off sticking to the issues.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

47. This would already be over if he had only admitted inconsistencies.

He will not do that under any circumstance, as far as I can see. This limits him severely, and it prevents the bleeding from stopping.

[pa28]

56. Well, I think we need to recognize he's a paid pundit and we need to balance that.

He was caught out and there is no way he can reconcile his previous statement. It just seems like bullying now.

Let's give the guy a break.

[BainsBane]

52. "Lying politicians"

Bernie Sanders


True6 (20%)(6)
Mostly True11 (37%)(11)
Half True5 (17%)(5)
Mostly False3 (10%)(3)
False5 (17%)(5)
Pants on Fire0
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/



Hillary Clinton

True38 (30%)(38)
Mostly True26 (21%)(26)
Half True25 (20%)(25)
Mostly False21 (17%)(21)
False14 (11%)(14)
Pants on Fire2 (2%)(2)
Hillary Clinton's website
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

In order to determine if someone is "lying" one needs to care about and know what is true. A lie is not a position you disagree with or a story that circulates on the internet in order to disparage a candidate's character. It is a willful attempt to deceive, or at least a statement that is in error.
There is no evidence to show that Clinton is more of a "lying" politician than Sanders.
Now some people will dismiss this information since truth for them is not judged according to evidence but rather the extent to which they agree with something. That, I believe, represents a serious problem, not just for this given issue but for politics and society more broadly.

Additionally, I find it difficult to take judgments about honesty seriously when those making them treat others as Steve (and many, many other Clinton supporters, myself included) has been treated here. In fact, such behavior, in my view, invalidates any moral authority.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

57. There's plenty of evidence that Steve Leser called Hillary Clinton a liar in no uncertain terms.

The OP is asking Steve to square his previous statements about Clinton being a liar with his new-found love for her. That's what's under discussion.

[BainsBane]

150. That people think the germane issue is a fellow member

--and people have posted a number of threads talking about him--rather than the records of the candidates seeking the presidency shows that all decorum has long been abandoned. Steve already addressed that point. His views have changed given new evidence presented to him.

I myself am far more interested in the candidate's records. Therefore I addressed the assertion that Steve was supporting a "lying politician." Since I myself have observed a number of false statements from another popular candidate, I thought it prudent to look at the fact checking record. That is something I would hope all voters do in an effort to inform themselves. One thing is certain: Steve Lesser will not be on the ballot in the Democratic primary. As titillating as many of you seem to find this new GD-P Meta, it is both unpleasant and entirely irrelevant to the election.

[BainsBane]

147. Steven Lesser isn't running for President

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are. What the actual records of the candidates are declared a "distraction" in lieu of a campaign of harassment against a fellow member, something is seriously wrong.

Whether you take my posts seriously doesn't concern me in the slightest. I find it interesting, however, that you avoid like the plague any discussion of issues or the candidate's record, as in your own thread about the allegations of Clinton receiving money from private prison corporations. Instead, you prefer ad hominem personal comments, which in this particularly case you have completely wrong. I never pretended to support Bernie. I never said I supported Bernie.

The thing about my posts is I provide evidence and sources, complete with links. You need not take anything seriously I say, but the sources are there for you to look at yourself. That, however, requires actually caring about the substance of the candidates' records and policies.

[cui bono]

149. Who said Leser is running for president?

Why do you say that?

Where did I say anything about Clinton and prisons? Please provide a quote.

And how you think you are the credible on on DU when you posed as a Bernie supporter after you had already declared your support for Hillary is beyond me. Things like that don't just go away. They soil your reputation.

And no, you don't post factually correct information. You posted a complete smear mongering piece about Sanders just the other day. So you can take your little lecture and you know damn well what you can do with it.

Again, you falsely presented yourself to the DU community as a Bernie supporter AFTER you had already declared your support for Hillary. Then you had the nerve to post an OP about how the mean Bernie supporters drove you to support Hillary. And now you claim you are a fountain of facts after posting a complete swiftboat attempt on Sanders. Please. You have no credibility. Zero.

Not to mention you are one of the Clinton Cavers. Anyone who participates in that vile hate filled site that targets DU, its members and Sanders has no place to talk. Period.

[Scootaloo]

76. Maybe go have a look at the posts that show up on your transparency tab, bainsBane

You might learn a lot about why people treat you the way they do. It's not because of who you support, it's because of how you act.

[BainsBane]

146. You're kidding right?

I don't have any hides on my transparency page, unlike yourself. (How hard is it to check something like that before making a gratuitous comment anyway)?

Predictably, your post is entirely non-responsive to my post, which lays out EVIDENCE concerning the allegations of lying made by the OP. I'm sorry that subject doesn't interest you.

[artislife]

81. To all those complaining

About too many OPs. I trash duplicates of threads I roll my eyes at.

And if I find I read too many of the same OPs from one poster Dan--er he goes on ignore.

There are thousand of threads on this site. Don't feed what you don't want.

[sheshe2]

85. Slam a Dem.

Good show.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

93. Calling her a liar was strident, true. But I don't think he's slammed her recently. nt

[hrmjustin]

95. This has just turned into a bully fest now.

Not a banner moment for DU.

[sheshe2]

96. No, it is not justin. nt

[Fumesucker]

97. I don't care for Leser or Will Pitt personally

But let me point out that Pitt cannot post on DU without being hounded about his POSUCS comment, a comment made in emotional distress when he was fearing for the life and well being of a loved one.

Leser on the other hand made his comparison of Karl Rove and Hillary Clinton and called her a liar in a paid article for publication, it was a money making opportunity for him.

[hrmjustin]

98. Yet here you are reveling in it all.

You can make excuses but I don't buy them.

[beam me up scottie]

101. At least DUers are talking about him here where he can dedend himself.

Unlike the people who viciously attack us at another website.

[hrmjustin]

103. How is your closed fb group you belong to doing?

[beam me up scottie]

106. Why we're just fine, justin, thanks for asking!

How's hillarysupporters.com doing?

[hrmjustin]

108. Fine, thanks for asking.

[beam me up scottie]

110. Good to hear, I hope everyone goes there at least once.

Good to know which websites are being used to launch attacks on DUers.

[hrmjustin]

111. Yes I think it is clear on this thread who the bullies and their defenders are.

Anything else before we end our pleasant conversation?

[beam me up scottie]

113. Nope, just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of people who complain about DUers "bullying" here.

[hrmjustin]

116. Enjoy your little group. Heard great things from the members and what you say there.

Some of your friends are at least upfront with me.

[beam me up scottie]

117. Really? What have you heard, justin?

Do tell.

Oh and please provide links, I despise gossip.

[hrmjustin]

120. You know what goes on there. You don't need me to tell you.

You are a member and all.


Btw i don't begrudge you being pissed being mentioned over in our group. I do get angry when people say we tried to hide it. We did not.

[beam me up scottie]

123. Well since you know what we talk about why not share with the others?

And I'm not "pissed", just surprised at how obsessed some people are with DUers.

It's quite disturbing and cave like.

[hrmjustin]

126. Thats how I felt when I heard what was said in your group.

So i guess we both know how each other feels.

The thing is though I don't obsess over your group. I have known what goes on for over a year.

Doesn't bother me. Your friends are upfront about their feelings about me.

[beam me up scottie]

129. Again, what goes on in our group?

I am dying to hear all about it.

Do you have those links?

[hrmjustin]

130. Links no. It is a closed fb group.

[beam me up scottie]

132. So you're making it up then?

[hrmjustin]

133. Making what up?

[beam me up scottie]

137. You said you know what goes on there.

How could you know if it's a closed group?

Wouldn't you want to have proof before making such claims?

[hrmjustin]

138. Du is getting slow now so i will make this quick. .

I don't have access to your group or screenshots. I was told by your friends via pm when it first started up what it was about and what went on there.

No i am not going to tell you who told me and no i can't produce the pms because they are over a year old and the software doesn't keep them after a year. Besides I delete everything in my pm box every week.


You can think I am making this up all you want nor do I care.

[beam me up scottie]

141. So if you've got nothing maybe you should stop claiming you know what goes on there.

[hrmjustin]

143. I wasn't going to but it is late and you caught me tired.

But I give you my word I was pmed.

[beam me up scottie]

144. Whatever you say.

[hrmjustin]

145. Yes I said it and meant it.

Good night.

[Fumesucker]

139. Making claims they can't back up is their MO as exemplified by their Fox News hero

[beam me up scottie]

140. Yep, his latest lie about Bernie "flip flopping" this weekend is a good example.

Anyone who rec'd that thread has no right to complain when media "lies" about Hillary are posted here.

[Fumesucker]

105. Yeah, I'm reveling in watching someone I dislike deservedly get their ass handed to them

I have no problem admitting I'm enjoying watching Steven squirm and flail trying to backpedal away from his words, it's not like I haven't eaten some of my own words on DU before.

In fact I have an OP up about that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023007056

Ever had an OP unexpectedly "blow up in your face"?
Yeah, I've had it happen back on DU2 and got my ass handed to me and no I'm not linking to it even if I could find it.

I've had my thinking changed several times by that sort of thing, make an assumption and make an ass of myself.

Most of the time these days I manage to get my brain engaged before I hit <enter> but every now and then...

[hrmjustin]

109. Enjoy your moment. you must be very proud.

[Fumesucker]

112. I deserved it when I got my ass handed to me and I learned something from the experience

Steven just doubles down on the lies, all he's doing is creating more income opportunity for himself as he admitted/bragged in the thread.

[840high]

100. ....x10+

[jfern]

119. You recced his pants on fire lie about Sanders supposedl flip flopping

So I don't think you are one to talk about slamming a Dem.

[akbacchus_BC]

122. Am confused, which Steve you are responding to?

The Steve who is a Democrat! Or are you talking to someone else?

[betsuni]

127. This post is pathetic.

[TexasTowelie]

151. Locking thread.

Statement of Purpose

A forum for general discussion of the Democratic presidential primaries. Disruptive meta-discussion is forbidden.