Just banned from Hillary Clinton Group

[pantsonfire]

Last edited Wed Mar 23, 2016, 09:15 PM - Edit history (2)

Not sure if I can honestly say I'll vote for her in November, this on top of my reservations. It seems like all Hillary supporters on here don't care about winning over Sanders' supporters, are they hoping the fear of Donald Trump will force us to vote for her?

[VulgarPoet]

1. Well considering a new loyalty oath goes up once or twice a week

I'd assume they're just scared of Trump. Just remember, 0 + 0 has never equaled 1, and never will. They're using Orwellian Inner Party math to justify that.

[Ned_Devine]

28. More like five times a day

[Scootaloo]

55. I'm not missing much for having trashed GDP, I take it?

[Ned_Devine]

59. Not at all

The HRC supporters here, for the most part, are a special breed of ridiculous. I never thought it would be like this here where there would be such a concerted pushback against the progressive candidate. It almost feels like there are operatives involved doing some of the posting while some of the people that go along with have brains that are easily manipulated. That's the nicest possible way of saying what I'm trying to say. I mean, they have one paid operative that posts all the time named Steven Leser. But the others, I'm not so sure. It's definitely a frustrating time to be a member of this site, especially if you've been here for over ten years like I have.

[Scootaloo]

60. You mean the journalist Steven Leser, of Fox news guest fame?

Say it isn't so!

[Ned_Devine]

67. Yeah. He's very combative

In my interactions with him, he avoids the actual substance of the debate and proceeds to say that I'm insulting him. It's very weak and ridiculous.

[senz]

76. It gets uglier and uglier every day.

They don't even try to be decent people. Heck, they don't even try to be people. Now that all the time-out miscreants have been released, they clog up GDP and have the numbers to plump up the rec count of their abusive OPs. It feels like we're outnumbered, trying to squeak by in a culture of loud, oafish bullies.

I've almost had it myself. I used to think we could help Bernie through comments and support of important OPs, but we may have reached the point where lurkers only see brash stuff from Hill fans and would chalk this site up as a Hillary website.

We were doing pretty good for awhile there. I have a feeling this site is losing its future.

[Scootaloo]

80. releasing hte inmates from Arkham was the silliest thing I've ever seen Skinner do

They're working real hard to undermine that whole "Poor us we're on timeouts because we're persecuted" martyr schtick they had going. The abusive behavior is why so many of 'em were chronic TO'ers. I see several have like, nine damn hides now. All earned.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Congratulations.

What took you so long?

They fail to realize the harm they do to her chances, if she goes on to win the nomination.

Exile #607

[broiles]

44. Ditto, Exile #5.

[TheCowsCameHome]

46. Whoa! You've got a lot of seniority.

I salute you for being on the first wave.

[Depaysement]

3. Join the party!

Most of us have been banned. When I was banned, they acted like they won the election.

Not sure how I will vote in November. Hillary and her supporters here make me want to vote third party. I will probably work down ticket, though.

[pantsonfire]

5. I was thinking of voting for...

Cha for president, the mod who banned me.....lol.

[VulgarPoet]

11. If not Bernie, then Dr. Stein-- but democratic full-down ticket.

Hillary had me turned off from the jump, and her supporters only managed to double down on that effect. I only know two Hillary supporters who aren't completely unbearable to talk to-- actually enjoy talking to them.

[pantsonfire]

29. Jill Stein ok, but...

I see a Nader 2.0 vote there, hopefully not.

[DhhD]

39. It is true that a Democratic Senate can control the president and House for the most part.

[ghostsinthemachine]

4. Wear that badge proudly!

I got banned the other day myself. They are uptight over there, so anything said negatively gets the heave-ho.

[pantsonfire]

7. I will!

They're treating the messy situation in AZ, probable "voter suppression" as a ploy by us to diminish her win, ridiculous.

[PFunk1]

6. One, welcome to the (now growing) club

Two, it that's true then say hello to president Trump.

[pantsonfire]

8. Stuck with Clinton then if she wins the nom...

[blm]

9. As a fellow banned poster, I will just say this…No internet supporter of any candidate has

the power to determine my vote. Though some of the HRC supporters can be all out annoying with their unattractive gloating, hurt feelings will never take priority over the Supreme Court nominations, protecting Social Security, protecting working class and working pro families from the GOP's fascist agenda.

I used to be more lax about that when I lived in the very blue state of California, but, now I live in a purple state under the iron grip of GOP neanderthals and EVERY. VOTE. SERIOUSLY. MATTERS. We don't have the luxury some may have to succumb to feelings hurt by internet supporters.

I don't think those posters who publicly advocate for not voting are here at DU as honest supporters of Sanders. Those HRC supporters who target Sanders and his supporters with the most loathsome smears are also suspect. This board has been a favorite target of GOP operatives since the 2003-4 election cycle.

It's Standard Ops for GOP strategists at this point.

[pantsonfire]

12. She's the better of two evils....

hopefully soon we won't have to make that decision.

[revbones]

10. Welcome to the club!

I think I'm #606 if I recall correctly.

[pantsonfire]

13. Cha ban you too?

[revbones]

14. I think it was someone else. nt

[k8conant]

15. I don't know what # but Cha banned me two weeks ago

for questioning a statement.

[LiberalElite]

22. Heh. I humbly assert that

the number of us banned by Cha could be a whole new subgroup, me included.

[pantsonfire]

30. chachacha

Perhaps we should form a secret anti-Cha group? muahaha

[shanti]

72. cha

has been on my ignore list for years. it's not just her hillary business that's offensive to me.

[CoffeeCat]

16. I really don't know what they're thinking

But the way I see it, there are two potential answers:

1.) They erroneously believe that this primary is like any other primary--and that after the dust settles a couple of party mucky mucks will come out and give unity speeches and like magic--we'll all be besties.

2.) Hillary has all ready written off the left/progressives in the party and will end up choosing a Republican/Independent running mate, like Kasich or Bloomberg.

I think anyone who thinks that #1 will happen (and will work) is grossly misreading the psychology of the electorate. It's really not about Hillary or rejecting her, per se. It's about many in the Democratic party who are done with establishment politics; many who feel our government is beyond corrupt and no longer serves "We The People."

Given all of this, I tend to lean toward #2 happening. #1 forces you to completely rely on the left uniting for the GE. That's a big gamble. #2 allows you to neutralize the Progressives (make them irrelevant) and enables you to pick up Independents and some Republicans. As it stands now, Clinton is polling abysmally with Independents (indies on the left will go for Bernie; right indies will go for Trump). A Bloomberg or a Kasich would allow her to cobble together some kind of coalition to beat Trump in the GE.

I don't see how she does it with #1.

[farleftlib]

20. Hammer. Meets. Nail.

Bang.

She will move right and then Hillarysplain to the left that's what she "has to do" but she's really, really going to govern like a moderate.

[pantsonfire]

21. "I'm a progressive that get's things done!"

[CoffeeCat]

24. No one believes that

Not even HRC herself.

Progressive...ha!

Endorsed by the neocons. Funded by Wall Street. And Progressive. Riiiiiiight.

[pantsonfire]

31. No really she is.............................NOT

[Jane Austin]

57. I really hate the grammar mistake in that slogan.

Wish someone had edited it.

[pantsonfire]

63. "I'm a progressive that gets things done!" ?

[pantsonfire]

84. Thanks for pointing that out six fee under. nt

[DhhD]

43. Bernie needed to primary the president in 2012. Apparently Sanders did not make a speech of

support for Obama in 2008. If she is the nominee, why would Sanders give a speech to support her, if he is planning on primarying her or someone else in 2020?

Right now the Republicans in Congress are controlling a president. The president fell into this trap: third wayers got him to commit to chaining Social Security in 2013. Then the majority leader of the Senate, a Republican from Kentucky, stopped the process. Lesson We the People learned, a New Democrat president, could not go out and campaign for progressive Democratic candidates in 2014. And guess what? 1) Mitch McConnell won his seat back! Apparently it is easy for Republicans to lead New Democrats as they are all Center Buds. 2) Democrats lost many races and seats.

2016-Republicans can claim that they saved Social Security from third way New Democrats like Hillary and Bill Clinton, as they remember the past.

[woodsprite]

17. I figure that's what Bill was thinking when they encouraged him to run. n/t

[Babel_17]

18. Will survive :)

[Hiraeth]

19. Hillary wants her house back.

Bill promised her.

[senz]

78. lol! Thanks for the laugh, much needed. nt

[oldandhappy]

23. Welcome!!

[pantsonfire]

38. HI!

[abelenkpe]

25. Fear of Donald

Will make us vote Clinton. We will all carry on same as before. Citizens United will stand, infrastructure will rot, congressional obstruction and baseless hearings will rule the next four years.
Or Donald will win. That would be a huge shameful drama fest. Don't polls put Clinton over Trump by a tiny one percent? Better figure out how to cozy up to independents and Bernie supporters soon.

[BernieforPres2016]

27. Speak for yourself

Nothing will make me vote Clinton.

[abelenkpe]

33. Not saying you will

Or should. But agreeing with OPs belief that Hillary supporters assume Bernie supporters will join them against Trump. It's a risky strategy. I know many who claim they won't. Also don't know any republican who won't gleefully vote against Clinton.

Interestingly, my few friends in FB are passing around an article claiming people who say they won't vote for Hillary are privileged. Which is funny because they are rich, comfortable and privileged. And don't polls show that Hillary supporters are wealthy and older while Bernie supporters make less and are younger?

[BernieforPres2016]

40. Hillary supporters assume a lot of things

If they were rational and not in the top 1%, they wouldn't be supporting her in the first place. Maybe Hillary can win without a lot of Bernie supporters. Hillary and Trump would probably be the 2 most hated Presidential candidates in U.S. history (based on their current negatives and their continued downward trajectory) and one of them would have to win.

[mahina]

42. I'm seeing that article too.

[pantsonfire]

32. Clinton must provide me a drink when I cast my ballot.

[abelenkpe]

36. Only a drink?

I'm gonna need a four year supply of Soma.

[pantsonfire]

37. At the very least.

Being sober would be terrible.

[BernieforPres2016]

26. I got banned by that group without even knowing I posted in their forum

I responded to a post that I got to from a link and didn't even know I was in that group. I don't even remember what I posted and suspect that I would have gotten banned for my user name alone. Not that I care. In the first 3 or 4 days here I never saw one Hillary supporter who was willing to talk about issues and since then I have put every one of them I see on Ignore.

[pantsonfire]

34. Its redick

It reminds me of Clinton's line about young voters, "You may not support me now, but I support you regardless" (or something like that).

[polichick]

35. If she is the nominee, Trump will win - a shit ton of voters have had enough of...

the Clinton Machine.

[DhhD]

45. A down ticket Democratic Senate can control Trump. House members would finally be aware of their

hostile constituents if they supported the madman tRump.

[polichick]

47. I don't think enough voters will turn out for Clinton.

[marble falls]

85. My worry exactly. We won't be able to start fixing Congress with a low turnout.

[polly7]

41. Whoot!! You're in a great club. nt.

[Goblinmonger]

48. Jury's in

I was #4

On Wed Mar 23, 2016, 11:54 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Just banned from Hillary Clinton Group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280155268

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Yet another questioning whether to vote for the Dem nominee. This needs to stop, yesterday.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 23, 2016, 11:58 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: An ignorant post which I prefer to leave so everyone can see the stupid.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Maybe the alerter forgot they used their way back machine to go back to March 23, 2016 when we don't have a Dem nominee yet. Other than that...spot on. in case you need that.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not for jury. That's admins job.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I will discussing this abusive use of the altering system with DU Admins. I have seen some pathetic alerts in my years here but this one is probably the worst. you are wasting my time, and everyone else's, and I won't stand for it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I almost clicked on recommend. We don't have a nominee yet. Hold your horses. Let's have a rigorous debate. Not one of the Pacific coast states has voted yet. Hillary is not the nominee. The primary goes on.

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

[Katashi_itto]

49. Cool! I should look to see if I am banned, although I never post there.

[Runningdawg]

50. OP I wondered that myself

I had no idea you had to lock step EVERY single issue with a candidate to support them. Before I had 50 posts here, I made the mistake of saying in the HC group that I did't agree with her on ONE position. The next thing I know, I am banned from the group. I tried not holding it against them, but it sticks in my craw. I have been a tried and true democrat all my life and will vote blue no matter who. But if all I had to go on for a HC presidency was the actions of her supporters I would be voting Kasich.

[SamKnause]

51. Welcome to the club.

I am number 23 or 24 on a list that is over 750.

[FourScore]

52. Wear it like a badge of honor,

and don't allow zealots on the internet to determine your actions. Vote or don't vote based on YOU and YOUR beliefs, conscience., gut, etc.

[amuse bouche]

53. Wrong. I just want a D to win

[cloudbase]

54. I've been thrown out of better places. n/t

[senz]

56. I am shocked and upset at what was done last night

to artislife in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511555460

She said she had at times wished harm on the opponent's supporters and their children. Then someone took a screenshot of her comment and started a terrible swarm/ flame war against her in which the enraged swarm twisted her words into a direct "threat" against their children. Then they started PMing the administrator that she is threatening children, and now she is on review.

It was like watching a wildlife program where a bunch of predators surround and tear apart a smaller animal. She was set up. I have to share this because people need to be aware of what's happening here.

I'm just stunned.

[pantsonfire]

64. Still banned?

[senz]

69. They shock me. I've encountered Tea Partiers who were more decent.

What they did to artislife was a vicious setup.

[pantsonfire]

70. Bring this up in Ask the Admins?

[senz]

73. Not sure it would do any good.

The administrators are the ones who put her on "review" status. They did so in response to PMs from some of her attackers. The administrators are Hill supporters -- they admit it and use the ^H as their avatar. It is doubtful that they would be of much help. About the only avenue I can see is to try to make them understand, via PM, that she was not threatening anyone, despite what her attackers say about her. But it's doubtful even that would work. At this point, they are merely tolerating us.

[rogerashton]

58. Me, too.

I will wear it as a badge of honor.

The OP asked:

Do you think Bernie has the right to call his campaign a sucess even he will not win ?

I wrote

Of course.

He has accomplished two things.

1) He has shown that small money can compete effectively with big money.

2) He has shown that the "socialist" label is not a death sentence in American politics.

Those are major successes, and the fat lady hasn't quite yet begun to sing.

That got me banned. And the funny thing is, I expect to vote for H in November -- but her supporters sure will do their best to persuade me not to!

[pantsonfire]

65. We should file a petition against the moderators of that group...

They are clearly violating the mission statement of this website...or focus our efforts on kicking ass in WA!

[rogerashton]

75. Nah --

Let them play their game. Means nuttin.

[senz]

68. You used the word "fat lady." That word makes

her "feminist" followers go nuts, even though you weren't referring to their candidate.

I've seen them do it every time anyone referred to their candidate as a little overweight or really any even remotely negative reference to her appearance.

Her appearance is sacred to them. When she takes part in debates, victory speeches, town halls, their primary responses are always directed to how pretty she looks.

And I've even seen them try to tweak us by talking about how unattractive Bernie is or showing awkward photos of him. They can't understand that we don't care what he "looks like."

That's how their minds work.

[rogerashton]

74. Yeah, that's what I figure.

Can Hillary sing? I'm pretty sure she doesn't have operatic training. Not that that is a bad thing. I'll vote for her anyway.

[cui bono]

62. I got a glorious ban! I'm extremely proud of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=6967

Okay, wait... so you want to 'tattle' on Bernie supporters of DU?

You were the one calling Bernie supporters childish all over another thread.

Now, before I continue, I saw this OP on the Greatest Page so that's why I clicked on it. I did not come into the group looking for trouble.

I'll tell you something I see in here though. In the top 8 posts of this Hillary group are two that are complaining about Bernie supporters, this one plotting against them.

In the entire first page of posts in the Bernie group you don't find anything similar at all, they are all about Bernie himself, or something to do with him, but certainly not about Hillary supporters.

A couple weeks ago (I think around then) there was a negative post about Hillary supporters and it was locked and self-deleted and several Bernie supporters, myself included, asked in the OP (and I sent a pm to a host asking for the OP to be deleted/locked) to not do that. As I said, the OP was locked and self-deleted.

I realize the whole Bernie supporters are mean and childish is the new thing on DU, but we are not plotting as a group against Hillary supporters like this OP is. And when there was a negative post about Hillary supporters it was taken down due to the dislike of it, it was not cheered on as this OP is, or the one about Ghadaffi is. We aren't looking at this as a war between supporters as this group seems to based on these two well regarded OPs.

Also, I have had a personal experience with a very active Hillary supporter where they edited a post well after I had replied and they had replied to me again. It was a very dishonest thing to do, editing a post to make it seem that my response was completely wrong. I don't attribute that to all Hillary supporters though. I look at people based on their posts and actions on DU.

How about you do the same and worry about your own OPs and posts and don't look at this as a war between supporters and use this group to plot against the 'others'. To ask what you guys keep asking Bernie supporters.. is this the way you think Hillary would want you to act?

[pantsonfire]

66. What to do about it?

It seems they've banned almost 600 DU users, are they any reasonable moderators to trust on here?

[eridani]

82. The most recent numbers--

Sanders group
Number of subscribers: 972
Number of people trashing: 166
Number banned: 302
Ratio of subscribers to banned: 3.22

Clinton group
Number of subscribers: 368
Number of people trashing: 330
Number banned: 744
Ratio of subscribers to banned: 0.49

[pantsonfire]

83. This is gold! Thanks n/t

[senz]

71. I got mine before I knew there were such things as "Groups" here.

As a long time lurker, very occasional commenter, I knew nothing about the structure of the website and the culture of its longtime members. So one night I saw an OP I wanted to reply to, found it the next morning, and replied. Had no idea I was posting in a "Group," much less the Hillary Group. I poured out the reasons why I'd come to distrust Hillary -- and then, presto, an email announcing I'd been blocked from posting the Hillary Clinton Group by William769. It didn't make sense until I learned about groups. This was back in July of 2015.

This was my comment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/110711961#post18

I saw this thread last night but was too sleepy to reply and almost didn't find it today. But I want you to know that what you say has some truth to it, even for me. I can understand how you feel, up to a point. When Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, I danced all night with a crowd of happy revelers and burst into tears when they played "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." After the hideousness of 8 years of what may have been irreparable damage inflicted upon our nation by that phony actor Ronald Reagan, and after 4 years of the seemingly nice but actually cynical Poppy Bush, it felt like the sun was finally shining on our fair land when we had a Democrat in the White House again.

Despite Bill Clinton's questionable moves (WTO, NAFTA, 1996 Telecom Act, repeal of Glass-Steagall, harsh welfare reform), I supported him throughout the 90s. A large part of my support was a reaction to the attacks by what Hillary correctly termed the "vast rightwing conspiracy." I spent the 90s (and ever since) enraged by what they were/are doing. The newly developed Worldwide Web connected me with fellow angry Dems who were finally opening up about our shock and anger at Republican viciousness. I burned at that putrid sh!t Kenneth Starr's impeachment website and a little later, my online cohorts and I read Joe Conason's The Hunting of the President and exploded at what the Supreme Court did to our country on December 12, 2000.

But nothing made me angrier at Republicans than what they did to Hillary Clinton. I couldn't believe it when, early in Bill's presidency, some southern state repubs hung her in effigy. They seemed to hate her even more than Bill -- and she was only the First Lady. I read faces fairly well and could see how shocked she was and how frightened inside, even while putting on a very brave front, which I think she has done ever since. So I do feel for her.

But then her image began to crack. It happened in bits and pieces and wasn't an orderly process in my mind. One of the early fissures was when she decided, seemingly out of the blue, to run for the Senate from New York state. New York? Neither of them had ever been New Yorkers. This bit of carpet bagging was jarring. Then she voted for Dubya's war. What? Who is this woman? Then I read somewhere that Bill really missed the White House, and fairly quickly it became apparent that Senatorial ambitions were merely a stepping stone to regaining the White House -- and the pro war vote was mere ash-covering, keeping her record strong for her true ambition. Most people run for president after having run and served in the interest of their actual beliefs. Never has she expressed strong belief in any cause beyond women and children. Concern for the bread and butter lives of average Americans seems foreign to her. Then I caught some TV footage of Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea moving very slowly and deliberately through a crowd of people, walking in a sort of slow syncopated march with their chins up, eyes half-lidded, very serene, very above it all, and I realized that they saw themselves as royalty -- above and beyond the mere groundlings, those ordinary, plebeian Americans. I guess they think they're the new Royal Family. That's a whole lotta ego. And not much heart.

Then came the 2008 campaign. That was when Hillary finally blew it for me. She conducted herself without a shred of ethics. It became obvious that she would do and say anything, without any filter from a conscience, to get what she wanted. There were the lies, but what finally blew my stack was when she was asked if Barack Obama was a Muslim, and she replied with something like, "Well, he says he isn't, so, I don't know, probably not..." My jaw dropped, and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Then I admitted to myself what I'd been avoiding for years: Hillary Clinton has no conscience left in her soul. After that, news of the secrecy, the distrust, the punishment of any apparent disloyalty, didn't surprise me. And her recent behavior -- refusing to address Americans as if they mattered, putting emphasis on getting rich, hiding her views from the public, etc. Gross. And Chelsea's first job out of Stanford was with a hedge fund? Really? And then she married a hedge fund manager? Really? It just gets uglier and uglier.

When Elizabeth Warren came along pressing for a fairer, more equitable economy, I couldn't believe our collective good luck. When she didn't want to run (perhaps fearing Clinton retribution?), I had hopes for Martin O'Malley, whom I still like. As a long time fan of Thom Hartmann, I've loved Congressman, then Senator, Sanders forever, so when HE decided to run, that was it, for me. No he's not a Dem, but he's a better Dem than Hillary will ever be. Democrat is more than a party; it's a state of mind.

What do I think happened? Unless she was this way from the start and I missed it, I think the rightwing abuse hardened her to what she is now. If she ever had ideals, I think they're gone. I believe that all she cares about is herself and her family (possibly just her daughter). Period. I would not trust the American people's fate to her. But if it ends up either her or a Republican, then I will, with great regret, vote for her. And you will be jubilant that "she" got what "she" wanted. For herself.

[choie]

77. Take it as a badge of honor!

N/t

[Land of Enchantment]

79. Welcome to the club! I was banned on my third post by a 'Nancy' and there are a LOT of

Nancy's over there. They are a bit twitchy, eh? I have over 100 of them on ignore because they don't want to discuss anything of substance it seems, rather they seem to want to provoke arguments and I can live without that. Someone here once said arguing with them is like tryin to nail jello to the ceiling. I suspect this will get worse before it gets better--especially after the Arizona fiasco.