Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: NYT: The Right Baits Democrats to Help Take Down Hillary [View all]hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)34. lol the responses are predictable but if you said that there were
trolls trying to bring down Sanders it would be believed by the same people dismissing this.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
101 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It's not a strawman. You can disagree that this explains what you and other DUers have been doing
stevenleser
May 2015
#5
Yep, because I am talking about statements made by you. I get that you don't understand the
stevenleser
May 2015
#62
If it makes you feel better to think that, by all means. Folks can read this thread and
stevenleser
May 2015
#65
The article has links to things that actually occurred. It's firmly grounded in fact.
stevenleser
May 2015
#68
That is automatically proved wrong by links to the actual tweets and other things that occurred.
stevenleser
May 2015
#76
The article is partially about Tweets, so yes, a link to the Tweets in question is pretty important.
stevenleser
May 2015
#80
More suggestions of logical fallacies when you don't understand what those fallacies mean. nt
stevenleser
May 2015
#86
Someone is protesting w-a-y too much, using playground rules and name calling
Sheepshank
May 2015
#71
Yep, I have no idea. It's silly. The article is exquisitely sourced. Claiming it is nonsense is just
stevenleser
May 2015
#75
Don't worry about his response to you. He refuses to acknowledge the sourced facts in the article.
stevenleser
May 2015
#69
It means attacking the person instead of that person's statements. I attacked your statements. nt
stevenleser
May 2015
#99
I think the total they are spending is over Two Billion between all RW candidates
randys1
May 2015
#83
The kneejerk responses to this are bizarre. It shows the futility of attempting to have
stevenleser
May 2015
#14
No, the intention is to advocate being careful whose stuff we follow and repost.
nolabear
May 2015
#10
Supporting a candidate is very different from denigrating their rival, in my area negative attacks
Bluenorthwest
May 2015
#97
Most the anti Hillary on left base forums are FUD, winger-ish memes with winger-ish retorts
uponit7771
May 2015
#26
with McConnell praising Obama as the lone crusader on the TPP and Dem Senators working
MisterP
May 2015
#33
It's fascinating how many DUers thought this NY Times article was about them.
stevenleser
May 2015
#61
totally lol'ing at the numerous arguments on this thread against the op article
Sheepshank
May 2015
#100