Even if Bernie Sanders doesn't win the primary, he has given every indication that he will

The cheating. It sours some people.

in which, by losing the 2016 election to a republican who will ensure that the Supreme Court remains in RW hands for the next generation, who will ensure that Citizens United is not overturned and, indeed, is expanded, who will ensure that voting rights for minorities are limited further, thereby making it even more difficult to dislodge repubs from government at all levels, who will ensure that basic civil rights, such as the right to marry someone of the same gender, are subjugated to the right of "religious freedom" -- all that and so much more --will help turn the United States into a progressive utopia.

As I said -- it's a fantasy, so don't be disappointed if reason doesn't work with that poster or others of a similarly fantasy-mindset.

Letting republicans win would, you know, make a point, and it would help the next election to mover everyone to the far left, you know like they did in 2010, and again in 2014, I mean look how much good that has done us! Its all about teaching the party a lesson, even if takes us back to the dark ages!

I'm more concerned about losing even more in the house, senate, state houses, and governorships than I am losing the supreme court that we already don't control. If we don't make major gains in the state houses by 2020 then we'll be looking at a gerrymandered federal house until 2030!

Forget any claims of bias in the presidential election, DWS has been a total disaster on down ticket races since she has been appointed head of the DNC. I have seen no indications that Hillary will replace her in that role. Until Hillary states unequivocally that she will replace DWS, I have a hard time even considering giving her my support. The party needs a major change of direction at more than just the presidency. Dean supported more moderates than I liked, but he was at least competent at getting Democrats elected.

Only idiots or unethical people can ignore the DNC manipulating this election to favor Clinton. So yes, it is the fucking cheating.

- some of that going back to 2007-08

I was all for holding my nose and supporting her until this most recent DNC fiasco. Now, I don't see her as any more honest or ethical than the GOP. I think she'd sell her soul to the Devil on any policy to get elected. She strikes me as having the heart of a cold blooded reptile. There's a ruthless, calculating nature to her. You don't get straight talk from her - it's too often carefully phrased word games to sleazily circumvent the truth. There's a reason 60% of America does not trust her - that's not my fault - she's the one who lost them with her deceitful actions and words. At some point, I have to put my foot down and say "I have limits." There's some line of deception in a candidate that I just can't cross. And Hillary has crossed that line for me with this data breach fiasco because she's stooped to corrupt the DNC's duty to “impartiality and even-handedness” or at the very least be complicit with it. I can't work for or support someone like that. I do not tick that way and never have.

I strongly supported the Kennedys or MLK or Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama because I believed in my heart that they were sincere and meant a lot of what they said. They had real conviction behind their words. They inspired me to be a better person. Yet they weren't perfect. But if they told "lies", it was a fraction of what we've got from Hillary and often a mere misspeak or context issue.

I don't agree with any politician 100% and that goes for Bernie. But Bernie is an honest and decent man I'm proud to support. Part of what has upset me is this little dust up with the data has smeared Bernie's integrity some with the electorate. That bothers me a lot. It wasn't an accident. It was deliberate. I cannot support people who would do such a thing to an honest man. It's that darn line I guess that I just can't cross.

This is the office of the president of the United States of America. Not a local sheriff or city clerk. If we can't come up with quality candidates, then so be it. I'll find something else to put my heart into.

Bernie will always have my heart and respect. Hillary won't. Neither will Trump and the rest of those scoundrels. That's just the way it is with me. Always has been.

You think she "has the heart of a cold blooded reptile"? She's a person who has demonstrably done lots of good things for many people. Her words are carefully phrased so that makes them sleazy? This is a prominent public figure. As SoS she learned to choose words carefully -The world listens. And the press does too. Of course she weighs what she says, as does Obama, as did the other Democrats you trusted.

And you have absolutely nothing upon which to base your accusation that the data breach was deliberate. That is one conspiracy way too far.

How can you possibly equate her with Trump? Please please expand your information resources. I really don't think you've got the whole picture. No one changes their mind online I know, but dude, it just sounds like you're wasting some hatred and that can be expensive.

I did not say "the data breach was deliberate". That's your strawman - not mine.

What was deliberate is her campaign's influence on the “impartiality and even-handedness” of the DNC with respect to other campaigns. Being complicit is an action.

What was deliberate was her also being complicit in the smearing of an honest man.

Running to the media with this security issue (which was the fault of the DNC and it's vendor) was also deliberate on the DNC's part. They didn't run to the media when Sanders data was breached in October, did they?

The whole thing smells really bad and once again, Hillary's completely mixed up in something that smells really bad, like she has many times in her 20+ years in the national spotlight.

The DNC is supposed to be "impartial and even-handed" to the various campaigns. Instead, Hillary has turned the DNC into a corrupt sham - corrupt in that it should not be biased toward a campaign:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251926621
1. Scheduling primary debates to garner as few viewers as possible
2. Grassroots Clinton field offices co-located at DNC offices
4. DNC finance chair caught raising money for Clinton
5. The DNC lined up superdelegates for Clinton before first debate

There is absolutely no excuse for that crap. None. It's a disgrace. Countless media have reported on it. You can deny it until you're blue in the face but you're in the minority. It's too blatant.

You can try to shoot the messenger but I didn't do any of that stuff. It was all Hillary and the folks she owns at the DNC.

of waiting for the dust to settle between Bernie's campaign and the DNC, she immediately pounces and says Bernie's campaign committed "theft". She gave no thought to the explaination that they were trying to see if Bernie's info was exposed and mixed with hers. She made the most serious allegation of stealing before the facts were known.

Lastly, no mention of the incompetence of the vendor who was her 08 campaign co-chair. That they had such a blatant conflict of interest to begin with was wrong.

Hillary doesn't even know how to spell integrity!

When you wrote this-

Part of what has upset me is this little dust up with the data has smeared Bernie's integrity some with the electorate. That bothers me a lot. It wasn't an accident. It was deliberate.

-you were referencing something you'd mentioned a couple of paragraphs previously, rather than this more recent "little dust up with the data".

Weird that you'd consider that my comprehension issue, when your intent was so disjointed.

I don't understand how you'd think one woman could co-opt an entire national political party. That would take some sort of fictional super-villain. HRC has been active in the party for a long time and would have built relationships within it, especially since she's likable and effective. Should all the people who knew her have recused themselves? That might have emptied the place out.

The DNC went so far as to let an independent candidate run on their ticket. I consider that to be as even-handed as one might expect.

That's not what I said.

They way Bernie got smeared was not when the data was breached. It was when the DNC leaked it to the media. That leak was deliberate.

Going to the media impugned Sanders. In similar circumstances last October, they didn't do that to another campaign when Sanders campaign's data was compromised by another campaign (alleged "very confidently" by Sanders campaign manager)

The breach of the data itself appears to have been the fault of the DNC's software vendor when they installed a patch. I'm not aware of anything sinister or deliberate going on there. I'm sure the vendor regrets the nation finding out they messed up big time in compromising a client's data security.

Nope, didn't say that. Here's what I said in it's context:

"There's a ruthless, calculating nature to her. You don't get straight talk from her - it's too often carefully phrased word games to sleazily circumvent the truth. There's a reason 60% of America does not trust her - that's not my fault - she's the one who lost them with her deceitful actions and words. "

You've cherry picked phrases and delivered a different meaning.

Deceiving people is "contemptibly low" or "disreputable (dishonorable/discreditable)" which are words used to define "sleazy"

I do not believe Hillary is deeply sincere. But it gets pretty darn sleazy when the person has a propensity for not telling the truth in slippery ways.

Like most of us, I'm sure she'd like to do some good. But in general, she's more calculating. I think Bill has more sincerity and more of a heart. But she really pales in comparison to Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, etc. and even her own husband. And most certainly, Bernie Sanders.

She also doesn't think things through carefully. Some of that is evidenced by the number of flip-flops in her career. Some of it is evidenced by some of her lies - because a number of her lies are needless/pointless - verbal diarrhea kind of things.

She has stated an incredible volume of lies over her career - some breathtaking - like having a private server to exchange emails with husband Bill when it turns out Bill doesn't email - only sent two emails ever in his life when he was president (or the Bosnia sniper one). That's not the way to win the public's confidence when entering a new scandal (I think she got caught in a few other lies in that brief press conference).

In a couple of weeks, it will be the 20th anniversary of the 1996 NYT piece on Hillary called "Blizzard of Lies" outlining why she is regarded as a "a congenital liar"
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html
- he uses real examples and in doing so, gives some background to this problem Hillary has had with the truth for more than 20 years

"Estrangement From the Truth Is a Problem for Hillary"
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420963/hillary-clinton-lies-emails-subpoena
- not a bad more recent stab at explaining one of her techniques in deception (to help address "sleazy" and "word games" some):

The most discussed deception came in an exchange about her e-mails. Clinton declared emphatically that, “You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions that are – I’ve never had a subpoena. . . . Let’s take a deep breath here.”

Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), chair of the committee investigating the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack, promptly produced a copy of the subpoena.

Team Clinton says she was responding to a specific allegation that she deleted e-mails that were under subpoena. It’s a legalistically plausible defense given Keilar’s muddled question and Stakhanovite effort to avoid asking meaningful follow-ups.

Still, it was a classically Clintonian way of lying: Make a sweeping, definitive-sounding statement, and then when called on it, release a fog of technicalities.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/donald-trump-lies-2016-candidates-213391#ixzz3siKiV1oC

Not all lies are created equal. When Hillary Clinton lies, she generally does so with legalistic care. You get the sense that she knows what the exact truth is. But you also get the sense that she knows she’ll suffer if she provides the whole truth, so she shades the facts with interpretations and embellishments that flatter or favor her. She presents an incomplete timeline for her email account. She claims that her email practices were “permitted.” She overstates her cases and fibs with the numbers.

You cannot fully cover this subject of Hillary lying adequately in a post. It's very well documented over the last 20+ years. Google "Hillary" "lies" and read your heart out.

Wow. And yes, the Republican establishment has spent 20+ years trying to destroy her. They see the threat she poses to their ideology. The degree of that threat is illustrated by their efforts.

No wonder you hold the opinion of her that you do. There are just as many reams of rebuttal, and I see little benefit in providing them to you but try this one-

http://hillarybook.nationalmemo.com/

As for the rest, time seriously discussing the opinions of Safire or Goldberg or any other radical republican is better spent howling at the moon. Really surprising to see a Sanders supporter lean on them, democratic socialism and all. The "facts" in their articles are colored so heavily by their bias as to be useless.

The problem is, the messenger didn't utter the lies, Hillary did.

The messenger didn't make up sniper fire in Bosnia to pad her scant 2008 foreign policy experience the media was questioning when she claimed she was ready to take that 3AM call ... because she couldn't provide a credible example in her career of when she took a 3AM call ever before. And she followed it with a lie about being integral to the peace process in Ireland (Good Friday Agreement). The media didn't create that deception - Hillary did all by herself.

The media didn't create the lie nor the memo that exposed her lie in Travelgate. All William Safire really did in that article, like many in the media did, was report it as an example of her lying. He was backing up his assertion that she is a "congenital liar" with real indisputable examples of her lying and deceptions.

Same with this

"The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate she may have conspired with Web Hubbell's father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers $3 million."

William Safire didn't create those records or that lie that those records proved as such. Like many in the media, he just reported on it.

"Shame on you, Barack Obama" for maintaining she had previously supported NAFTA was a LIE. She tried to spin the same crap to Tim Russert. But the proof came out that she had supported NAFTA as First Lady both in documents and video. Again, that's no one else's fault but Hillary's.

Fast forward to recently: four family members of Benghazi victims separately came out to various left and right wing media to report that Hillary lied to them. That's not the media out to get Hillary. That's four different family members of three different families pissed off Hillary lied to them. Of course, the only thing to do is "deny, deny, deny".

On the emails:
“The server contains personal communications from my husband and me” LIE: her husband doesn't use email
"easier to carry one device for my work… instead of two." LIE: she did carry two and use two or more for work
“I’ve never had a subpoena” LIE: the House produced the subpoena
"everything I did was permitted" LIE: Washington Post gave three Pinocchios with their explanation

Now her personal IT guys emails are missing at the State Department in their backups, from her server and those backups and from his state department computer for only the time when Hillary was at the State Department. He's taking the 5th. Why not say "I just setup Hillary's personal server at her request." ? This is not honest and forthright behavior in the face of stuff that should be there and is missing in several places. But Clinton supporters blame the media for reporting that and think the rest of us are so stupid, we'll fall for "it's all the media's fault. Hillary and her poor IT guy that was paid roughly $10,000 less than Hillary as Secretary of State plus paid privately, bear no responsibility for all this stuff that's been deleted and is missing".

We get it. "Shoot the messengers! Hillary takes no responsibility for anything she says or does when lying and deception are involved!!! And the media is horrible for reporting it!"

Goldberg, Rose.

And, any critical thinking person would know that.

I don't think much of these kinds of references, frankly--most people here don't trust the people who wrote those hate-filled screeds as far as they could throw them.

Democrats consider both Jonah Goldberg and William Safire to be, quite simply, asswipes.

You don't make your case when you lean on THEM for your "proof."

smh.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/05/us/memo-places-hillary-clinton-at-core-of-travel-office-case.html?pagewanted=all

In the memorandum, apparently intended for Thomas F. McLarty, who was the White House chief of staff, Mr. Watkins wrote that "we both know that there would be hell to pay" if "we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady's wishes."

Now, what exactly did Mr Safire get wrong in that example of Hillary's deception. Not a damn thing.

LA Times better?
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/23/news/mn-44043

Mrs. Clinton maintained that she played no part in the firings.

"Mrs. Clinton does not know the origin of the decision to remove the White House travel office employees," her lawyers told congressional auditors in 1994. They added that the first lady "did not direct that any action be taken."

Mrs. Clinton told Congress in 1996 that the earlier answers "were accurate."

But later that year a memo surfaced from then-presidential aide David Watkins stating that the first lady had been behind the firings. The matter was then referred by Atty. Gen. Janet Reno to Starr, who began submitting evidence about the controversy to a federal grand jury.

Specifically, Starr examined whether Watkins perjured himself during a congressional investigation of the episode when he insisted under oath that Mrs. Clinton had not played any role in the firings.

During lengthy hearings by a Republican-led House committee, the White House later surrendered memos written by Watkins that suggested Mrs. Clinton had instigated the firings at the urging of Hollywood producer Harry Thomason, a longtime friend of the Clintons who was seeking a share of the White House travel business.

The nonpolitical travel office, staffed by career employees, is in charge of making all travel arrangements for the White House press corps, whose members reimburse the office for expenses incurred in covering the president on his travels throughout the world.

President Clinton later apologized for the firings and offered other jobs in the government to most of those who had been dismissed.

Is there anything there that materially contradicts William Safire's example?

Nope.

You can go through each one of those examples in my post. There is video and/or documentation to back them up. I refer to the Washington Post Pinocchios. Politico. The set of four email lies. The Bosnia sniper lie. the Irish peace lie. NAFTA lie. etc. None of those references relied on Goldberg or Safire or the right wing. But we're supposed to ignore all of Clinton's lying because Safire and Goldberg also observed it and took the time to describe it with real examples? Ridiculous. Not everything everybody says is wrong unless you like them and embrace their point of view. Safire and Goldberg made their case with real examples of Hillary's deceitful behavior. Shooting them as messengers is not going to change that in the eye of the public. Either Hillary lied or she didn't. In the cases I noted that they brought up, the vast majority of the public would regard them as Safire & Goldberg did: as lies. It doesn't matter who wrote about them - Hillary lied.

Your commentaries would fit very nicely in some venues; they're out of place here--obviously so.

Fox makes "videos" all day, too--doesn't make them worth anything.

When a whole bunch of messengers have been provided and they used quotes, documents and facts to back up their work. When a right leaning journalist proves his position with quotes and facts, it really doesn't matter what we think of him because it's those darn quotes and facts that the candidate has to confront - not the guy who pulled them together.

So shooting the messenger will never work with me. I think we have an obligation to assess the claim when it's properly presented and backed up - regardless of who makes it.

Washington Post is Republican? Nope.
NY Times is Republican? Nope.
LA Times is Republican? Nope
Politico? Nope - maybe a little right leaning with some of it's authors but not throughout Brietbart and others have accused it of being left leaning.

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post who gave Hillary three Pinocchios for "everything I did was permitted" is 56 years old - significantly younger than Hillary or Bernie
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/09/hillary-clintons-claim-that-everything-i-did-on-emails-was-permitted/

"easier to carry one device for my work… instead of two." Washington Post's Brian Fung exposed that lie
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/03/31/hillary-clinton-also-used-an-ipad-for-e-mails-undercutting-her-single-device-defense/
he's not an "old" reporter.

Mediaite, linked on DU about 9600 times backs up the "I never had a subpoena" lie
http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-said-she-never-received-a-subpoena-benghazi-committee-yeah-you-did/
I don't know how old the author is is but he's not old:
https://twitter.com/kenmeyer91

“The server contains personal communications from my husband and me” LIE exposed by Mediate
http://www.mediaite.com/online/bill-clinton-explains-why-he-doesnt-use-email/
You don't even need a reporter for that one - just watch the video.

Let's cut the the chase here. We don't need reporters, Hillary can tell you all about her lies herself


If you don't like that Youtube video (much of which was prepared by a pro Obama supporter - not someone from the GOP), there are plenty on Youtube that do a similar thing.

Quinnipiac "Clinton has the lowest rating for honesty as American voters say 60 - 36 percent she is not honest and trustworthy"
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2299

The above are examples verified by multiple people - some on the left or right, young and old, in various media outlets - some left or right leaning, of why the American people would feel that way.

You might get away with shooting one or two messengers with some folks but you'll run out of ammo trying to pick off all the media who have exposed this problem.

I'm sure Hilary supporters are not jumping up and down with glee at this post. They've probably heard it all before maybe with their hands over their ears. But the GOP are going be a lot more unfair about it next fall. And we better factor that in when we're considering who should lead that campaign.

Then you gish gallop into the distant past.

You could quote Hannity and Limbaugh for all the traction you'll get here among Democrats. When you lead with right wing sources, it's not a good look.

You quote a Quinnipiac poll that is almost two months old--why didn't you go for the most recent one?

OH, I see why!! Read the latest poll--check out that first sentence: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2310

As for your sad little hate-video, there's nothing at that Disney Princess's ABOUT page that reveals her affiliation--and she's getting a load of shade from the left, and cheering from wingnuts, so I rather doubt your characterization of her.

And the only people who give a shit about e-mail gate are wingnuts who hate HRC. No one's calling for the SECDEF (never mind HRC's predecessors) to be frogmarched, are they? The "Because Hillary" schtick is getting old.

Keep showing us all your best sides--they're VERY revealing.

I'm not afraid of a right wing take because I'm confident I can quickly sort through what parts are true and what parts seem false.

I don't go into with with the assumption that everything they say is false because that's not true. They're not always 100% wrong while we're always 100% right.

President Obama Says Protesters Need to 'Be Able to Listen' to the Other Side
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/95155/20151116/mizzou-protests-president-obama-protesters-need-listen-side.htm

The president explained that it's very important for protesters to "be able to listen" to dissenting ideas in order to be effective in winning over people who have a different set of beliefs.

The president also referenced protesters during Civil Rights Movement who engaged in acts of civil disobedience and were willing to go to jail in order to stand up against discrimination. However, he added that "the leadership of the movement consistently stayed open to the possibility of reconciliation and sought to understand the views - even views that were appalling to them of the other side."

The president, who protested against apartheid in South Africa as a college student, went on to talk about students on some college campuses that have tried to shut out speech they disagree with and prevented controversial people from speaking on campus.

"You don't have to be fearful of somebody spouting bad ideas. Just out-argue them. Beat them. Make the case as to why they're wrong. Win over adherents," he said.

I don't have time to research whether LatinPost is right wing or not. I don't care. I knew Obama had said stuff like that many times before so I grabbed the first one with his quotes that are not perfect but loosely good enough.

We shouldn't be afraid of the other side or put blinkers on because we miss opportunities to learn - even when they're being ignorant like Donald Trump. We can learn from an excerpt and watch Bernie or Hillary take his position apart. Or we might learn something about their perspective that helps us propose a better solution.

We're supposed to be intelligent adults. We should be able to handle it. Unfortunately, you're someone who can't do that. That's your loss.

I see that you are fairly new here--maybe you haven't had an opportunity to read the TOS here, and that's why you're comfortable dragging right wing crap in here and expecting Democrats to tolerate it.

If you continue down this road, don't be surprised if other Democrats here at DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND object.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

1. Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
I'm not. I support Bernie. I've never supported the GOP over the last six decades.

2. Vote for Democrats.
I've always supported Democrats. There were times I didn't mind Nader but not over a Democrat.

3. No bigoted hate speech.
I haven't done that. I'm firmly against such a thing.

4. Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.
I haven't done that. I back up all my stuff with a pretty good set of sane facts or evidence - often with links.

5. Don't willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights.
I could use a little improvement there. I always provide a link but I do not always remember the source - except at the top of a thread - when they ask for it. But in the posts above, that certainly got covered.

6. Don't threaten anyone (including yourself).,
7. Respect people's privacy.,
8. Don't post "shock content" or porn.
9. No spammers.
10. Don't do anything illegal.
11. Don't post malicious code or mess with the software.

I don't think there's anything there in that above list that I've done to violate those rules.

12. Don't do anything else which is similarly disruptive.
"obviously disruptive, malicious, or repugnant to this community"

I strongly and honestly suspect there is a fairly significant number of DUers who agree with my position on Hillary's honesty. 60% of Americans do including 25% of Democrats. Do you really want 25% of the site to leave because you think she's honest and trustworthy? Do you want a site where everybody has the same opinion about everything? That's a pretty dull place.

We're having a primary. I like Sanders more than Clinton handily. You appear to like Hillary more. Both are on the Democratic ticket. I think Bernie has a better chance in the general election and I'm not alone on that - in part, because 60% of Americans think she is dishonest/untrustworthy - particularly the voters she needs to get some of in the general - independents and republications.

After Xmas, I'm going to join the Iowa phone bank for Sanders. If I phone people up armed with repeating the love in material at DU.com for Hillary, how effective am I going to be for my Democratic candidate, Sanders. If I phone up and I'm acquainted with FOX News and what some of the right leaning news sites and candidates are saying, I've probably had some time to think about my rebuttal that I'll need in milliseconds during my phone calls. My sister and I did that for the Obama campaign and it worked out pretty well. We knew our stuff and had a number of canned responses to handle the objections of those on the fence. I'm also going at some of the media in Iowa - like I did for Obama - again, I'm going to need to be on my toes, fully acquainted with both sides against those guys. If you're going to campaign effectively, then chatting some of those issues up here isn't a bad dress rehearsal. If I want my candidate to win and I value my time, it's not a bad exercise because I expect to run into my fair share of Clinton supporters and I'd like to turn a few of them around. It's for a pretty good cause- a Democratic candidate.

Thirdly, this behavior by the DNC - who even David Axlerod maintains is "putting their finger on the scale for Hillary" is very troubling. Bill Press "smells a rat" The DNC are interfering in Sanders getting a fair shake. And your candidate is either behind that or complicit with it - there is no reasonable door #3 there. Am I breaking the rules lodging a grievance over a Democratic candidate for president not getting a fair shake from his own National Committee? You're in the minority if you do not think there is a blatant problem with bias there.

If it's disruptive to make a stink over that then give me the boot. I will never completely compromise or lay down on the unfairness of what the DNC is doing to the Democratic candidate I support. If that happens, then this site isn't worth my time. This site would be as bad as the right wing media you reject if it curtails freedom of speech on such a fundamental issue of fairness in a primary for the nomination of this party's candidate for president of the United States.

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

Why are you bringing in the opinion pieces of wingnut neo-con freaks and "right wingers in general" to support your claims?

You don't see how that might color one's opinion of the views you espouse?

If you don't want to be perceived as a right winger, don't drag their shit into the house.

Quoting William Safire, a Pulitzer prize winning journalist for the NYT (who happened to vote for Bill Clinton), for the mention of certain facts unpleasant to a democratic candidate doesn't make Jarqui a right-winger.

"prove" their points, it is not unreasonable to assume that the person subscribes to the views of those sources.

Safire was a Republican, one who worked for NIXON in all his ugliness, and now he's pushing up daisies and has been for six plus years now. You want some insight into his GOP mindset?

Here ya go--straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595078824/Republican-brains-can-have-often-conflicting-ideas.html?pg=all


He voted for Clinton and IMMEDIATELY started dissing him AND his wife (real classy, that)--that was likely a protest vote because he didn't like Poppy Bush. Wikipedia is your friend.

When a person hangs out with "conservative libertarians," and don't be surprised if people start to think a person shares those views.

But if you are looking to source for facts, a NYT columnist doesn't seem like the worst place. They might not always be as far-right as Safire was, and so they may not post facts damning of democrats as often, but when they do (as safire did) they are still facts. They have the NYT factcheckers (whatever they are worth post-Judith Miller...) and reputation still.

That's my thinking on the matter. RW opinions may certainly be bunk, but if they are employed by a liberal paper with a reputation to uphold, I can trust the facts contained inside quite a bit though not without question.

It used to be you could rely on a paper to care about their reputation. Not the case anymore.

They've put some scummy stuff on their front pages for purposes that are unclear to me. They've made some awful missteps in recent history. Hiring Judith Miller, with her War Slant, was a huge mistake. On the other side, falsely accusing John McCain (and I am no fan, but fair is fair) of having an affair with a lobbyist (all he did was exchange a few ribald jokes with her, in public) was another (sources? We don't need no steenking sources!) and then, of course, the Coup de Grace--this Hot Mess:

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/a-clinton-story-fraught-with-inaccuracies-how-it-happened-and-what-next/?_r=0

Yeah, they admit their "mistake," but that horse is out of the barn, and I don't appreciate people coming in here wearing a DU hat and beating that horse to death, over and over again. It's just not right.


Ahhh, but wait...there's always more. Quite recently, they displayed some of that ANTI-LIBERAL liberal bias they're getting well known for:

http://wgbhnews.org/post/what-new-york-times-screw-tells-us-about-liberal-medias-anti-liberal-bias

especially AP stories since they are more of a wire service for facts than a news/opinion/slant machine.

So yeah, the NYT has let their standards fall, sadly, and doesn't stand for the liberalism they once did. It's a really sad state of affairs.

William Safire was a Nixon speech writer - but had his phone tapped by Dick Nixon. He won a Pulizer prize and sat on their board deciding who should win a Pulitzer for about a decade - he wasn't a complete hack as a writer. He was a libertarian and he was a conservative - but he worked at the New York Times. Maybe he had some things in common with David Brooks - who is NOT a liberal Democrat and I also often disagree with .. but sometimes I can agree with. Safire in my mind was not not a pure hard right wing nut. I do not have him in the same place as Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc - mindless extremists on the right or the Tea Party, Birthers or Freepers. He was definitely conservative - particularly in foreign policy and on the right on many things but not purely and mindlessly so.

Safire got sucked into supporting the Iraq war but so did the woman you support for leader of the Democratic Party and Joe Biden, who I like very much as I like John Kerry and Harry Reid - who also supported the Iraq war.

In his final years as a columnist, he ripped the second Bush administration for being against his libertarian views. Like probably you and definitely me, he was against the Patriot Act. So again, he wasn't blindly all in for Republicans and constantly giving them a free pass for everything they wanted.

You can broad brush him all you want. I often disagreed with him but I have a different view of how he was not extreme on the right. He was fed up with George HW Bush and voted for Bill Clinton. That's hardly a pure right wing guy. And part of what drove him away from Clinton was Hillary and her lying. He gets some sympathy from me there.

His ideas are at odds with those of this website. He shouldn't be used as "proof" of anything, save I before E except after C.

He had a facility with language, and he wrote a scholarly column on the topic.

If you want to put a fine point on all this, Bernie Sanders "supported the Iraq War" too. He voted against the resolution when he knew his vote would not make a difference, but he voted to FUND the effort when he knew a NO vote would be noticed adversely. So....whatever. I wouldn't be so rude as to call him a LIAR, though, even though his approach to war issues has not been truthful.

It's quite astounding how "poor little Safire" somehow "got sucked in" to endorsing war, but the woman representing the state where 3K were killed, who only gave the POTUS authority to use as a stick to shake, is somehow mendacious in her reasoning. I think you're saying more than you realize with your comments. But keep defending the guy!


Your last sentence is a real doozy--a "conservative libertarian" was "driven away" from a Democratic President because of the .... FIRST LADY?

That's my response to that...assertion.

Any old port in a storm, I guess, but that logic just doesn't fly with me.

That's silly nonsense.


http://www.sanders.senate.gov/video/flashback-rep-bernie-sanders-opposes-iraq-war

Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution.

One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first.

Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?

Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''

Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation of Iraq could be extremely expensive.

Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered.

He went on record BEFORE the vote and spoke out clearly against the war, providing five reasons why he would not support it. And when we examine the reasons he gave, he was right or proven right on ALL of them. That's not voting no just for fun because it doesn't matter. That is taking a stand and firmly going on the record.

Your candidate, who spoke with shortsightedness and naivety on why she supported the legislation, has admitted it was a mistake because unlike Sanders, she was horribly wrong. Her judgement in the heat of the moment was sorely lacking.

He knew what the vote would be well before he got up in the well and gave his little speech. That wasn't an attempt to change minds, that was posturing and inoculating. For all intents and purposes, the deed was done--his little speech wasn't changing ANY minds:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/h455

No he most certainly did not. Those Yea votes were between 2006-2008. Hillary also voted for all three. In 2006, the GOP held the House and Senate. In 2007-08, the Dems had a bare majority in the Senate with 2 independents including Sanders so they were limited.

Feb 2007 Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) delivers a blistering speech on the failures of the Bush administration's planning, execution, and understanding of the war in Iraq.


Mar 2007: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduces a resolution in the Senate calling for an end to combat operations in Iraq.


During that time period, Bernie quite clearly laid out his position on the Iraq war consistent with his original vote against it in 2002-3.

When Bernie voted yea on a bill that included funding the Iraq War, funding on that bill also included things like
- the War in Afghanistan
- War against Terrorism
- General Defense
- Unemployment Benefits Extension
- GI Bill
- Relief for Hurricane Katrina
- Housing Reform and Affordability
etc, etc
when they were going to get the funding for Iraq anyway and it's pretty tough to stop funding a war suddenly when you're in the middle of it.

It was one of those silly things Congress does to suck folks like you into thinking Bernie supported the Iraq war. If he voted against the bill, folks like you could get sucked into thinking Bernie was against fighting terrorism, or UI or the GI Bill or Hurricane relief, etc.

The record clearly shows Bernie was consistently against the Iraq war from the outset and most folks aren't going to get sucked into nonsense logic trying to interpret his vote as something else like you're lamely trying to do.

Hillary Clinton spoke out clearly why she supported the legislation authorizing the Iraq war so we're not playing that game there. Without the original authorization it got, none of the votes on the Iraq war that followed would have happened.

I did not "equate" her with Trump

Here's the only place I brought Trump up:
"Bernie will always have my heart and respect. Hillary won't. Neither will Trump and the rest of those scoundrels."

Just because Hillary and Trump do not get "my heart and respect", doesn't mean I "equate" them. A thing they now have in common is that neither will get "my heart and respect" (or support). That does not mean I equate the two.

" I think she'd sell her soul to the Devil on any policy to get elected. She strikes me as having the heart of a cold blooded reptile. There's a ruthless, calculating nature to her. You don't get straight talk from her - it's too often carefully phrased word games to sleazily circumvent the truth. "

compare her to whoever the Pug candidate is. My guess at this point is it will be one of these 3-Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. Listen to those three now, so you'll get the real feel of who & what they are, and what policies they want to promote. Then, when it comes time to vote, make the comparison between the Dem & Pub candidates.

My guess is you'll either not vote at all, or choose the Dem, because ALL THE CANDIDATES speak to the audience of the moment, and many times that means saying things a little differently to different groups. When one person hears several speeches from the sasme candidate, they view them as lying.

Oh, and BTW, ANYONE who has been hounded, blamed, and accused of all the things the Pubs have done to Hillary for MANY, MANY YEARS, would calculate everything they say too.

I'm a Bernie supporter too, and I really hope he wins the nomination, but if he doesn't, I will vote for whoever the Dem candidate is. because I detest the current makeup of the SCOTUS, and the next Prez will have the opportunity to nominate at least 2, and possible 4 judges. I don't want the SCOTUS to be even WORSE that it is now, for the next 40 years!

Unless Senator Sanders is the nominee...

Then nothing, but nothing will keep me from voting for Bernie in the General Election!

most worthy candidate. I'll decide who that is.

If elected (and I'm supporting Bernie in the primaries), Bernie is only going to be effective to the extent people follow his lead. But it seems like a bunch of his supporters here don't seem to want a leader. Which I fear will doom Bernie to failure if he is elected.

causes I most believe in. He defines the battle in the way I think it should be defined and he isn't just a technocrat, he actually has a kick ass political philosophy. I do find him to be a leader! I also might find my boss to be a leader or my father, but they don't cast my vote and I don't do blind allegiance to Bernie or anybody.

of the nominee, where does that leave Bernie going forward? With virtually no influence, whether the Democratic nominee wins or loses.

Because being unable to attack Sanders on any meaningful front, Clinton's supporters have been striving mightily to cast Sanders supporters as disloyal, white supremacists, fifth columns, psychopaths, everything else you can think of.

They demand a purity test much like the people they loath. Either way, Sanders gets my vote.

She's got all the endorsements, money, media attention and polls, right? It's in the bag!

I will be voting, I can not see ANY of the Republicans who would be good for our country.

It is very clear who the "DNC nominee" is right now.

Problem is, the rest of the country hasn't been asked yet.
The former Hillary for president national chairperson and former "veteran of the 1992 Clinton-Gore War Room, providing research, analysis, and whip counts to the Clinton Administration as a member of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs."

While I do have problems with HRC on policy, I also have hope she will 'evolve'. Albeit very little hope.

I have serious issues with the people she surrounds herself with, takes advice from and are putting their finger on the scale in her favor. I have very serious trust issues with someone that became a multimillionaire from speeches at Wall St banks and investment companies. A person that made more money in a 20 minute, closed door, no press, speech at CitiBank, than I will make in a 100 lifetimes.
A person with 20 SuperPACs. She has more SuperPACs than all other Dem and teapublican candidates.
How can I trust a person on campaign finance reform that has 20 SuperPACs and gives me chronic alcoholic's excuses of "I'll stop later"?

That is why people express such frustration at your candidate's campaign and supporters.

Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary and general election for president.

at du are not a group with which I feel any connection. For chrissakes, they created a new website for the sole purpose of bashing liberals. Then there is the candidate herself, with her triangulation and decades of flip flopping, and now her own hand picked it company let the database get breached...at least twice.

Ick. The party has decided to let millions of Sanders voters walk away, including lots of young ones, just because Hillary is pre ordained. Enough already.

Hard by Sanders supporters. It I about electing Democrats, it is our best chances to hold women's choices, healthcare and perhaps provide an economy where we can support our families. We see what the Bush years got us. We don't need more Alito, Thomas and Roberts to the SC. We are fighting voter issues and it could be worse with another presidential and congress from the GOP'S.

then Hillary needs to distance herself from DWS right now. Because she has been awful at getting and keeping Democrats elected as the party chair.



Besides the supreme court, we also don't need to lose more seats in the senate, house, state houses, and governorship's. I personally don't want to see the federal house gerrymandered until 2030 due to an inability to win back state houses.

From many of the comments here it would not matter if the chairperson of the DNC was Jane Sanders and Sanders was still down in the polls, the chairperson would still be at fault.

how to vote. If Bernie wants to vote for HRH, that's his business, not mine.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

better than any republican by a mile.

And I especially trust many who have endorsed her to know her better than I could. Dean, Harken, Lewis, Boxer -so many who wouldn't fight so hard for her if she were any of the things you say.

Her sniper fire story so the opposite.

Or they'll be so mad at him for losing that they ignore his advice to spite him?

If He becomes president he's a winner, if he doesn't he will be one of the most influential and powerful Senators.

soul of the party. Are we going to go the corporate/DLC way or are we going to move back to being the party of the people?

If we vote to continue to go right we are not helping anything. We are making the problems worse.

That said we are not stupid - electing her is a move right - electing a R is surrender.

Sanders would aggressively work for Clinton in GE, and vice versa. I expect Clinton to be our next President and I would LOVE to see Sanders in the cabinet.

If Bernie won, Hillary would sit idly by, wishing him the worst. Her thirst for power is too great to bequeath the position with any grace or humility.

In fact, there is strong evidence to the contrary. She and Bill both campaigned hard for Obama when he won. That's a fact.

Opinion. HA! And you said I had nothing. Jokes on you!

she continues the dismantling of the fabric of this country. She will do it at a slower pace. She's Alabama's offense and the republicans are Oregon's offense. Alabama is 3 yards and a cloud of dust, it gets results but it takes a while. The republicans are Oregon the do damage in chunks. They're trying to finish the country now.

Not sure about your football analogy but I get the idea.

I still think it's better to have Dems in office than not.

Slower of Two Evils

I.e. If Bernie decides to support Clinton he's basing it on his opinion it will have no effect on my decision to not support her because it's my opinion that she's unfit to hold public office. There may be those that differ with opinion.

plus there are some states (Alaska, for one) where voting for a Democrat, ANY Democrat, won't make a bit of difference. This state hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964 and isn't about to start now, especially if Mrs. Clinton is the candidate. In such cases, people can vote their conscience.

And dear HRC group that just blocked me, I have never said that I won't vote for Hillary if she's the nominee, nor have I ever posted in your group. Whatever...

Many of us take our responsibilities as voting citizens seriously, and don't actually just follow along like sheep behind leaders telling us how to think and vote. That includes obediently "following" an endorsement.

So I get it.

Be clear: I have not, and will not, state my General Election intentions one way or another here at DU. First of all, it's nobody's business unless I choose to share, and I'm simply not going to do that during the primaries. Secondly, we haven't even held a single primary; that's what I'm focused on. Finally, I have plenty of time to consider the GE. I'll do that after the convention, when there is a nominee to consider. The only real thoughts I have about the general election at this point are these:

1. All of ours are better than theirs.

2. I think Sanders is not only the best candidate on issues and record, but the best candidate to win the GE. Those are some of the reasons I think we ought to be nominating him.

I get it. I'm a political lone wolf, so I really get the anger and frustration engendered by people trying to bully voters into line, and trying to marginalize dissent. Those are really counter-productive strategies for people like me. For some of us, our first impulse is to hit back, and votes can be a tool. When the corrupt neo-liberal status quo seems unbeatable, some will look for a better place to spend their political capital. I think it would be more honest to simply acknowledge that the neo-liberal power structure of the party is happy to see the door hit whatever portion of the left walks away on the ass on their way out. Sure, some will cast lesser evil votes, at least for a few cycles. Those voters will be tolerated, and will continue to be marginalized within the party. It's no big deal, since the party power structure can count on recruiting the so-called "moderate" republicans who are horrified by the FUBAR taking down their own party. Those "new" Democrats are more likely to support the neo-liberal agenda. They'll be welcomed.

Really, a better strategy might be to trust fellow Democrats to vote their conscience, and lay off poking the angry donkeys. They, we, have teeth and hooves, too. It's a matter of respect. Respect for democracy with a small d, the right for every voter to vote their conscience whether or not you agree with them. It's also a matter of intelligence. It's some months between the convention and the GE; why anger and further disenfranchise those whose votes you don't want to lose? Why not back off and give them some time to regroup? That's a smarter strategy.

And there is really no reason to panic before the first primaries and caucuses are held. If it worries you, work to nominate a candidate that earns those votes. If you aren't willing to do so, let them go in peace.

is....

Well...

To each his/her own. In the primaries, I'm voting for, and think that Bernie is the best Democratic candidate since FDR... BUT!!!!!!!!!!!

In the event that he doesn't win the nomination, I will support whomever is the Democratic nominee.

Trump isn't going to be the Democratic nominee. It looks like the nominee will be one of two people. Either Sanders or Clinton.

Why would you not vote for whomever wins the democratic nomination in the general? If enough Democrats refuse to vote in the general election, Trump could win... If he's the Republican nominee that is.

To answer your question though, If O'Mally were nominated, I would vote for O'Mally in the general vs either not voting or voting for a Republican, or for a candidate representing a party that had no chance of winning.

This line of thinking "if my candidate doesn't win the nomination, I refuse to vote" is immature. Childish really. Adults didn't used to act that way.

.... is the wind beneath the wings of many Bernie supporters. As soon as he endorses Clinton if she is the nominee, they will throw him under the bus. They will rave about Bernie Sanders, how he will make the best president this country has ever seen, how he will save us from the corporatists and the war mongers, but as soon as he endorses Hillary Clinton, he will become what I have suspected for a while. An excuse to spew hatred upon Hillary Clinton. This is not an indictment of all Bernie Sanders supporters. It is only for the obvious. Just so we get this straight, as far as DU is concerned I am not aware of one Clinton supporter who will not vote for the Democratic nominee. There has to be two sides for a conflict. So far there has only been one.

So what if we do or don't. You just want us to vote for h in the GE if she makes it. There is nothing else you care about from us. That's it.

Some will, some won't.

.... as it perfectly describes many of Bernie's supporters actions. Other than that, what you state makes little sense, so I will just direct your attention to post number 55.

And see, you do love the meme.

whoop dee doo.

... we've had a little fun with it

If he is nominated but no ban hammer yet for either
On du some duers are more equal than others

.... in which I will put them with others who have vowed not to vote for the Democratic nominee if it is someone other than who they support right now. If any member of Democratic Underground chooses not to support the elected nominee, then they should do the honorable thing and withdraw. They would have no purpose here other than to further sow seeds of discontent. That is my opinion and sentiment.

My vote is my business alone
Not for public display

He understands the political system and he's honestly trying to swing things more his way.

When the fat hits the pan though he knows how it's going to be and he's ready for any eventuality.

I think he's fantastic and he's trying to make sure the next President is as far left as possible if it's him or not.

Ignore the shrill minority that will not vote not matter what Sanders says, the majority of his supporters are sensible.

The DUers who won't are nothing but the canary in the coal mine. It's the millions of disenfranchised and independents that Bernie appeals to that Hillary will end up losing in the GE. Those people won't be goaded into any vote, they just won't care (and many of them probably won't vote). We're not threatening what we will do, we're warning what will likely happen.


The good news is that even with those millions that won't vote, the Republican candidates are repugnant. So there's a good chance she'll garner enough cross over votes just by not being them to win (Demographics really do favor us in a nationwide election).


To put it bluntly when voters turn out Democrats win. And I believe that more voters will turn out for Bernie than will for Hillary. That also helps down ticket. I think either candidate would win against Republicans. I just think it's going to be lower turnout (and hence closer) with Hillary. And yes that is just my personal opinion.




If anyone thinks I'm telling people to not vote for the nominee, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm also not blind to what's going on this election.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the casual Sanders supporters out in the real world (i.e. not in the DU) will vote for Hillary in the general. They see the bigger picture, and are sensible enough to pick between Hillary and whatever thug the GOP pushes forth.

We 'love' his positions on various policy issues. And unless Hillary were to adopt those policies, which seems highly unlikely, his endorsement of her in the general is meaningless in terms of transferring our 'love' to her.

That is why many of us never got on board with h when there were no challengers.

We will not do what Sanders asks just because Sanders asks.

Clinton would have to earn the votes of Sanders supporters. Just like Sanders would have to earn the votes of Clinton supporters.

If Bernie doesn't get the nomination (the assumption underlying this discussion), he will still be a Senator and one who, potentially, would have much greater influence within the Democratic Party and within a Democratic administration if another Democrat is elected. But that influence will be directly linked to his ability to marshal his supporters -- to lead them. And if too many of Bernie's supporters sit on their hands that influence will be dissipated whether or not another Democrat wins or not. (Obviously, if another Democrat wins even if Bernie's endorsement of that candidate does not produce support for that candidate, Bernie's influence is greatly diminished. And if the Democratic candidate loses because Bernie's supporters won't follow his lead -- you have the same result: greatly diminished influence for Sanders.

I love the lectures about "the reality of politics" from people who ignore the existence of the Electoral College.

The more Bernie is able to marshal his support -- to have his supporters follow his lead -- the greater his influence.

If we're not, I'll just point out the following: How much influence did Nader have?

W's administration should have been utterly crippled by losing the popular vote, if your "total numbers" claim was at all true.

While we can excuse his post-9/11 ability to "get things done" as a result of those attacks, he was not at all hamstrung before 9/11.

We're discussing how a particular person or group gains influence. A politician who can ensure that his/her supporters will follow his/her lead has far more influence than one that doesn't.

And if you're going to have influence on a national level, then it is national support that matters.

Again, take 2000: Because W won, Gore had no influence despite his numbers. Neither did Nader. If Gore had won despite the failure of Nader voters to support Gore, Nader would have had no influence.

Hillary Clinton does not represent my interests, and she is pro-war.

He will endorse her as if YOUR daughters life depends on it, because he knows it does.

He will endorse her and WORK to get her elected as if the world might end if he doesnt, because it could.


Yeah, no shit he will endorse her, he is a mature, intelligent, RESPONSIBLE man who knows the consequences if the alternative takes power.

Is that we have been continually badgered about supporting Hillary in the generals. After hearing it twelve or thirteen times in a week it can be really annoying. Especially if you heard it a dozen times at least last July or so when we were learning that the GOP would be having lots of debates and we would be having three before the end of the year.

That was particularly annoying. Demanding support in the generals (which the majority of us will give, albeit begrudgingly) when there hadn't been a single debate or at all.

Now multiply that by a few months and a few badly scheduled debates.

We felt a lot of people were basically saying:

"We want your support... now shut up and support our candidate because we don't want to talk about your candidate."

or worse

"You are dirty scum that aren't real democrats anyways so you better support our candidate to provie it."

Given just how low many of them are willing to stoop to smear Sen. Sanders and his supporters - I can't see how they can reverse their position if the Senator from Vermont was to win the nomination.

A fundamental difference is that most Sanders supporters are motivated by his positions on issues and his philosophic way of thinking. Most Hillary supporters are motivated by kind of personality cult. I agree that for whatever motivates them either would be better than any Republican given how the psychotic the Republican Party has become. But would it not be a wonderful thing if for just once we could vote our conscience for real change, to move our country forward and seek a newer world instead of just voting for the one who is (and I am certain of this) significantly less dangerous than the GOP alternative.

Here is someone who also said that they would support Trump over Sen. Sanders:

Douglas Carpenter (19,801 posts)

129. I pledge to support Hillary if she is the nominee? Do you pledge to support Bernie if he is the nominee?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868787

-----------

131. Absolutely not
I'm a Democrat. He is NOT a Democrat. I wouldn't vote for him if you held a gun to my head, just like I would never and have never voted for a republican in my 38 years of voting. In fact in the minuscule chance that he was nominated I would never give another red cent to the party, knock doors, or phone bank for Dems.

Not in a million fucking years. And frankly, at least 50% of that feeling could be credited to his supporters who have spent the last several years smearing the shit out of real Democrats.

So no, never, ever, ever would I vote for him. Never.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868804

that are posting stuff like that in the DU, then they should be banned as well.

There's no place for this divisiveness.

The primary hasn't even begun yet. The first state votes in 5 weeks.

Can we just focus on the primary and let everyone support who they're going to support. Maybe even blow off a little steam?

All of this hand wringing about things that won't happen for months!

They're loud, but small enough to be statistically insignificant. If Hillary wins the nomination, the majority of Sanders supporters will vote for her in the general because they understand the consequences of not voting.

This has been brewing since before OWS and continues with Bernie, but does not stop with Bernie. It goes on after Bernie. The gap between rich and poor has been growing for decades now. There will come a time when the poor will rise up no matter who the Presidential nominee is. The tension has been growing for decades now and unless someone does something to reverse it it will continue to grow until it boils over. I am not going to say who I will vote for in November as I don't want to violate the rules of the website.

it's amazing. I could not hate any Democrat, let alone that much. It's personal with them. They are not really pro-Bernie, just anti-Hillary. Right wingers probably don't hate her as much.

This is deja vu all over again. We've heard it before from both sides in previous elections. I guarantee if you go into a voting booth and the choice is Donald Trump or a garden slug, you'll vote for the slug.

has grown MUCH larger than Bernie Sanders. Once again, Camp Hillary is missing the missiles flying over their collective heads.

And when he gives a speech...just like Hillary did...to remind voters what is at stake in the fall, that will seal the deal.

There will be a vanishingly tiny number of shrill holdouts, but they can be ignored.

unlike his supporters. He knows that if he doesn't win the primary, his words can't be used against him like Hillary's were against Obama. It's bad enough that we have to worry about the GOP winning and possibly selecting the next 3 USSC justices but then we have to worry about whether or not Sanders supporters, who have spent so much time crucifying HRC, will actually stand with the Democratic candidate (should HRC win the primary).

Nothing much positive ever comes out of in-fighting.

if she gets the nomination. I would no sooner vote for her then I would for trump or cruz or any of the other scumbags. IMPO hill is just as psychotic and just as much of an ego maniac who will do only what is good for hill.

If hill gets the nomination and republican wins the presidency the fault lies with those who supported hill in the primaries.