Three things HRC supporters could do here to make things less toxic here

[Ken Burch]

1) Stop acting like Bernie has no right to even be running.

2) Admit Bernie is as good on racial justice issues as anyone else in the Democratic race.

3) Quit mocking the very idea that Bernie could get nominated. There's a long time to go and the contest is far from settled.

In other words, treat Bernie and his supporters with respect and as equals.

None of that is asking all that much.

If you prefer your candidate, you've got plenty of other grounds to campaign for her on. Some Bernie people could behave better(though some of the "Sanders supporters" here are probably rw shit-stirrers who've just infiltrated). And if your candidate does get nominated, you won't be entitled to just demand support from Sanders supporters. You will have to reach out to them in a conciliatory way(as Sanders supporters will do with you and engage on at least some of their issues.

If HRC does win, I'll be one of the people working hard to get Sanders supporters to support her in the fall. Don't make our job harder by being overbearing and arrogant about the whole thing.

[lovemydog]

1. k & r

Most of the over top stuff just serves to anger people. It's the worst method of trying to persuade anyone of anything.

[eridani]

2. One problem with this is that the tactic will only work on Democrats

Democrats are generally strategic voters, which means that if we can't get our first choice we'll go to work for a second or third choice.

A lot of Sanders supporters are highly alienated voters for whom involvement in the campaign is their first involvement with any larger cause at all. It will be a very tough sell to get them to stay involved, at least with electoral politics--many will go back to direct action of some sort, doing that and only that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. That might be true; but, it cuts against what we are told about DUer's that support Bernie ...

they are the strategic voters ("all or nothing" is a strategy) and they have been involved in electoral politics for-like-ever.

[eridani]

11. If you don't go for what you want full bore, you will never get it.

That comes first, and settling comes later, if necessary.

[bvar22]

97. I know another guy who said that:

[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

154. So true! Too bad Hillary is only willing to SAY she'll fight for the things her pollsters TELL her to stand for.

That's not leadership...but, this is:

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Armstead]

23. Some are, some aren't. It's a collection of individuals /nt

[rhett o rick]

143. Many of the millions of people that have come forward to support Sanders are doing so

to fight back at the corrupt big money politics that Clinton represents. If you stab them in the eye, they will not grovel before Clinton. The same thing happened in 2000. The progressives didn't want Gore who represented more of the conservative Clinton regime that bowed down to Wall Street and killed Glass-Steagall. But the Democratic Party Elite, fully in the pockets of the billionaires, decided to go for it and they lost. Looks like the same deal for 2016. The Conservative Wing that controls the Democratic Party Leaders, is saying "frack you" to the progressives. And when they want progressives to support Clinton in the general, they think they can bullying them. I say "frack that". If you nominate Clinton, then you deserve what you get.

[1StrongBlackMan]

153. Okay, and if ...

WE, as in the Democratic Party, nominate HRC, and you say "frack that", WE ALL (including the poor and disenfranchised that you pretend to care so much about) do not deserve what the gop will bring.

(Note: I say "pretend" because you can't, both, care about the most vulnerable of us, AND be willing to subject to the clearly greater of several evils; just because your candidate loses the primary. That, IMO is, both, infantile and narcissistic.)

[rhett o rick]

157. But those supporting Clinton are not worried about the GOP just like those that supported

Gore weren't worried about Bush. They think they can bully the progressives into voting for a continuation of the same old shit. Millions of registered voters never vote because they see it as hopeless when you have Corp-Thing 1 running against Corp-Thing 2. Many of those people see an opportunity to change things. Just like Obama promised but didn't deliver.

Things have been getting worse for 40 years and each step of the way the conservatives in our party, afraid to fight for their rights, tell us "accept it because it could be worse". At some point we must stand up to the Goldman-Sachs and their puppets and say, "Enough".

We must do more than merely defeating the Republicons, we must turn around our collision course with total disaster.

[1StrongBlackMan]

158. Are you kidding? ...

No ... Sadly, I know you aren't.

Those that support HRC, currently, are doing so for various reasons, including a belief that she will be/is the strongest Democrat in the G/E.

Those of us that, do not currently support her; but, WILL support her IN THE G/E, should she be the Democratic nominee, are doing so because we are VERY concerned about what the GREATER EVIL, that is the gop, will bring.

[rhett o rick]

159. I think Sanders will be stronger in the General. In addition, if Clinton does win

the General, we will slide farther into the hole. Her allegiance to Goldman-Sachs and the billionaires is stronger than for the people.

Interesting that some are willing to align with the billionaires, pretending that there is no quid pro quo.

[1StrongBlackMan]

160. I'm sure you do ...

I think Sanders will be stronger in the General.

Against the evidence to the contrary.

Interesting that some are willing to align with the billionaires, pretending that there is no quid pro quo.

What I find interesting is that straw man has been set ablaze by the consistent rubbing of Bernie supporters.

align with the billionaires, pretending that there is no quid pro quo.

The G/E is not about your straw man; but, ALL about, preventing the Greater evil.

[rhett o rick]

161. Strawman? Clinton supporters are choosing to lay with the devil of the 1%, to insure that

they won't suffer a worse fate. They fail to recognize the manipulation. There seems to always be a greater evil" to justify voting for the choice of the Oligarchy. Isn't that something. We don't have two viable parties and who does that favor? Clue, not the 50 million Americans living in poverty. Goldman-Sachs not only doesn't care about poverty but recognize that while their profits increase, so does the poverty rate.

For 40 years the wealthy conservatives have chipped away at the New Deal regulations. And every step of the way conservative Democrats helped them. Even now Clinton doesn't want to reestablish those regulations (e.g. Glass-Steagall). She says she wants to help the 99% but I don't believe she will do anything to jeopardize her relationship with her friends the billionaires.

There are two sides to this class war and Goldman-Sachs isn't on our side.

[Armstead]

27. It's called reaching out. Ever hear of it?

Instead of browbeating those people for not being "real Democrats" or dismissing the values and ideals that drive them, and calling them unrealistic or Berniebros, etc. perhaps a little coalition building and education would actually help to expand and invigorate the Democratic base.

[Gman]

60. I am really tired of the "reaching out" line

It's rolled out every four years here for some reason going back to 2004. Back then I bought it. And I sure didn't see that kind of reciprocation in 08 from Obama supporters. In fact, many turned on Obama within 48 hours of the election. So I think now it doesn't matter if someone reaches out or not because minds will not be changed. And if someone's vote, especially in this election, depends on someone else being nice, then that person really doesn't understand what is at stake. Frankly, I think that in some cases it's passive aggressive.

And I'll contrast that attitude with another. My longtime old friend who is a former international VP of a major labor union supports Sanders. He knows I support Hillary. Not once has he implied if I be nice he'll vote for Hillary in the GE should she be the nominee.

[bvar22]

163. Obama backstabbed Progressives within 48 hours of the election:

[font size=5]
The DLC New Team
[/font]
(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

Not a single Democrat who voted AGAINST the Iraq War was appointed to a position of power or authority in the Obama Administration.

Despite being the LARGEST Caucus in the Democratic Party, only one member of the Progressive Caucus was appointed to the Obama White House, Hilda Solis (Dept of LABOR) and if I remember correctly, this was a late appointment after the Democratic Wing of the Party started raising hell.

[Gman]

164. Well they're not the only wing

As they like to think of themselves.

[bvar22]

165. Who said that?

The Progressive Caucus IS the Largest Caucus in the Democratic Party.
Full Stop.

[Hortensis]

86. Reaching out works fine with some Bernie supporters,

the kind who can and will work then as partners in the election of a democratic candidate after a nominee is chosen. We know them because they don't HAVE to be reached out to but often do plenty of reaching out themselves, at least halfway. And they know we're reachable too.

But then there are the others. The fact is, the subset of Bernie supporter we're talking about needing to be "reached out to" here tends to be really combative, aggressive, thin-skinned, prone to take both real and imagined offense, eager to see himself as a victim, righteous, hostile toward and unable to evaluate clearly anyone not seen as on his side, and severely lacking in ability and/or willingness to see things in perspective.

Reaching out to them has not had any real positive effect because they need enemies in order to be themselves. And they know just who those enemies are: Every person here who supports their candidate's opponent more than Bernie, and of course everyone outside DU they see as party establishment. (Not the GOP!) Sure, they want to be reached out to -- for acceptance and confirmation that they're right in all things, but once gratified they attack. Because that's what they do with enemies.

I wasn't here during other elections, so I am very curious to watch what happens after the primary. In fact, I should probably make a list of some I see as currently "unreachable" so I can watch what they do after. I'm not expecting any big transformation in behavior, though. The question is more, who will they identify as their enemies then?

[Armstead]

94. People are individuals

Yes some will be hard-headed and dogmatic and refuse to compromise.....But in fact, some who are younger, may be that way now, but as they get a little older will moderate their views and be more receptive. But if they are made to feel alienated from the Democratic Party and believe it does not support their values and beliefs, they're going to be less likely to support it down the road. They may just get cynical.

Others who have become jaded over the years are likely to say screw the whole political system, or at least the Democrfatic Party, if they are made to believe that they are only seen as a useful tool for votes, with nothing to show for it.

And many otehr variations.

(Personally, I'm one of those who have very liberal views, and identify with what used to be Democratic liberal core values, But I have gotten so frustratedas it became more corporate and conservative -- and that my views, which were once mainstream, are now considered the "fringe left." I don't give up totally, but it gets harder to care with each rightward lunge over the years.)

The point is, if someone doesn't fit into the narrow template of a partisan Democratic according to the standards of the "centrists" who don't really care about the issues that Sanders is raising, the party is going to continue to lose its legs over time.

[Hortensis]

101. The thing is, I don't believe there is a "narrow template" of partisan

Democrat. Very much to the contrary. We are a broad range, and a whole bunch of us aren't very partisan at all. (That's a liberal thing -- lack of strong partisanship and tolerance of different viewpoints.) There are, for instance, conservative Democrats of various types, including some here who probably are socially con but support Bernie's left-wing economic goals. Also for instance is a strong-minded block of very religious Black democrats who aren't changing their minds to agree with me on a lot of issues any time soon. But the point is -- they're Democrats, and I'm glad of them. Most Democrats, of course, are at least somewhat liberal but nevertheless come in a variety of types.

There's a lot of disagreement and quarreling among all those groups, but the thing is -- they don't all identify each other as the primary enemy to be defeated. That's a really narrow and extremist thing to do.

Which brings me right back to the strong little group who have gathered here who support one candidate and who do identify everyone else in the Democratic Party as the primary enemy to be defeated. They have NOT been rejected by the party and become alienated -- rather they alienate themselves from the party proudly. They aren't going to change, they unquestionably fit a "narrow template" themselves, but fortunately they are a small group compared to all the other groups gathered together under the party mantra.

Please do not think in discussing them, I am discussing you. I am also not discussing people newly involved in politics who just find themselves caught up in the noise and fervor of the GD-P. Some of those may fall away from lack of commitment, but hopefully when presented with a single candidate to support some will want to continue on and not be influenced by the "narrow template" people. If they don't, it won't be because they were driven away by the intolerance of the most tolerant and accepting party in America.

BTW, we now know that political involvement is one of those things that is genetically linked. Really. Most people who aren't involved at all just aren't interested because they lack at least the pair of genes that's been identified so far. Amazing, isn't it? Democracies fail for lack of involvement, so I'm thinking we probably do need a law making voting mandatory for all except conscientious objectors -- and those should have to register every election just to make sure they're not really just objecting to being bothered.

[Armstead]

106. Well, I think the template has gotten narrower on the core issues

The Democrats have always been the Big Tent party and that's a good thing.

However, since the 80's there has been a narrowing of "acceptable" positions, and it isn't liberal in terms of issues that affect Wealth and Power. I distinguish between moderate liberal Democrats, who still have clear liberal views but maybe are more go-slow, and corporate conservative Dems, who are pushing in the opposite direction too often.

Something that too many seem to forget is that part of the move to the right by the same forces (DLC, Third Way) that now claim to be "socially liberal" was an effort to distance the party from the civil rights, and anti-war, anti-poverty and feminist turmoil of the 60's and 70's. It was a deliberate strategy to move away from the "special interests" which was code word for AAs, activists, unions, the poor, etc. For too many years, the word "liberal" was associated with leprosy.

IN the 90's some of us got increasingly angry and frustrated as Bill Clinton and that brand of Democrats dismissed progressives as the "far left" and meanwhile pushed for conservative policies like deregulation, privatization and enabling monopoly power and corporate "free trade." I remember being really excited when Bill Clinton got elected, and increasingly pissed as he pushed things that were against every political and economic principle I believe in...And I'm not a radical. Just a guy who believes that competition and regulation are good for the economy and for people, and that working people should get rewarded if their employers succeed.

And that faction is still trying to keep their grips on the real power in the party. That's what's going on below the surface of the "Bernie vs. Hillary" campaign. Will Democratic power mean we will still have to worry about those who supposedly represent us as much as we have to worry about Republicans?

If it is to truly remain a big tent party, this campaign, and election and Presidency will have to truly become more inclusive, or else they will continue to become less and less relevant to many people.

[Hortensis]

107. Sorry, Armstead. Deflection into another arena won't work.

People squabbling over power at the top after the nation shifted to the right 35 years ago has absolutely no parallel with what's going on DU.

This is not "what's under the surface" here. DU is a large community of opinionated people, one particular group of whom is currently so extremist that it cannot abide anyone of any persuasion other than its own. Pretending that their extreme intolerance and bad behavior are actually caused by the very irritation and lack of respect their behavior engenders among others is ridiculous.

Just for the record, though, the Democratic Party is the nation's largest predominantly liberal party and because of that people from almost every possible background have found it best represents their interests for more than 100 years. Its political goals as an organization may change from era to era, always inevitably disappointing some, but it cannot possibly become more inclusive. I mention that because it is the reason I am still proud to call myself a Democrat, even if I am myself often disappointed.

[Armstead]

108. There are jerks and hotheads in any group of people

And there are reasonable people who occasionally act like jerks and hotheads. (Ahem, guilty.)

Apart from the Tiger Beat sniping that goes on at DU though, this is an underlying and long building friction. Look back at all the primaries since DU has been around (except maybe the last one where there wasn't a contest). And look at the times between that. This stuff is nothing new. It's just crystallized around the primary.

As far as extremist, if one totes up the actions and policies of the Democrats that are under the craw of many people (to varying degrees) opposition is hardly extremist.

I don't think objecting to banks and investment houses being given free rein is extremist. I don't think it's extreme to object to allowing massive monopolistic corporations and giving them unbridled power. Opposing the Iraq War was not an extremist position. I don't think opposing "free trade" agreements that are corporate giveaways negotiated in secret and rammed through Congress is extremist. I don't think throwing a lot of poor people to the wolves in the name of welfare reform is extremist...etc.

It may be inclusive in terms of who can technicaly belong and call themselves a Democrat. But in terms of calling the shots, it has gotten very limited.

[Hortensis]

109. It's the form of the objection, Armstead, and this thread

is supposedly about people who are dishonestly being mischaracterized as abusive being asked to be less so for the sake of the nation. Hypocrisy in action.

[Armstead]

119. I respect you, and don't want to get into a circular argument about it

Let's just agree to disagree

[Hortensis]

121. Yes. I like that idea. Have a nice evening, Armstead.

[artislife]

147. The double standard.

I am a Latina and the idea that Bernie doesn't reach out and EARN the votes from my community is posted on by the h supporters with a tsk, tsk but when another group of people wants Hillary to reach out and EARN the votes from the progressive community, it is the fault of the community.

This is utter Bull.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

156. Not gonna happen...and, when Bernie wins the nomination, the next thing you know, it'll be "PUMA time, " like we saw the Hillary Brigade pull in 2008...

...just sad.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[mythology]

52. If that's true, then how does making them feel crappy help?

Yes there are those who say Sanders or nothing, but even some of them can probably be convinced and you don't know which are which until it comes time to vote.

I'm happy to vote for any of the three candidates as they are all good in their own rights (much less compared to the shit show that is the Republican primary).

[DFW]

3. That is indeed not asking much

To the three points:

1. I have seen VERY little of that. Some, but nothing to be taken seriously

2.) Quite agree, though only a few hark on that one, too.

3.) I have seen plenty of posts that voice the opinion that Bernie won't get nominated, but none that actually mock the notion. Given the breadth of his support, I agree that his nomination, while at THIS point unlikely, should not be dismissed as an impossibility. No way, no how.

On the other hand all the "how could you POSSIBLY" posts aimed at Hillary supporters, and by NO means just by suspected rw infiltrators, have been anywhere from condescending to downright vicious, and need to be addressed in the same manner for your message to be effective. As it is, if I see the word "corporate" in a post, I skip over it immediately. No need to waste my time wondering what it says.

I will be strongly supporting our nominee whoever it is because the alternative, whoever it is, will be abhorrent to me. The notion that there is no difference is just as laughable as it was in 2000. Come next fall, I'll be glad to be a Hillarian, a Bernista or an O'Malleyist if the alternative is a Republican Clown Car passenger in the Oval Office.

[pnwmom]

10. Good post. Thanks. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. I completely agree, except on number #2 ...

2) Admit Bernie is as good on racial justice issues as anyone else in the Democratic race.

No one, that I have seen, has said otherwise ... and as a frequent poster on race issues (and, more recently race and Bernie), I think I would have seen it.

The only people that I have seen saying anything close to that are Bernie supporters, when they write about what they interpret me, and other SJW, race-nagging, race-baiters, as REALLY saying in our attempt to be divisive for partisan/oligarchic/assholism reasons.

[Bobbie Jo]

24. This.

Well said.

[Armstead]

30. Saying from Day One that Bernie has a "problem" with race...

That's what got me and many others stirred up. Bernie had to essentially introduce himself to all voters, as a comparative unknown against an established candidate.

Whether Clinton or Bernie have been more supportive of specific racial justice issues is fair game doe debate. But what has occurred has taken it way beyond that. And that was not a choice of the "Sanders supporters."

He was NEVER given a chance in the beginning to start out with a level playing field on that issue. For whatever reason, the whole BLM episodes were used to portray him as uniquely hostile to AAs. He was made to seem "special" in a bad way, rather than perhaps having the same blind spots that most white politicians have, including Clinton, in terms of current priorities of the AA community.

It set the perception of Sanders from that start that somehow he does not care about racial issues, that he is WORSE than other white candidates on race. When in fact that fact that Bernie's longstanding advocacy for "social justice" is one of the reasons that many have been attracted to him.

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. THAT WAS NOT WHAT WAS SAID ...

What was said was: Bernie IS having problems attracting non-white support (as in an observation of what was occurring), and speculation as to why that may have been.

It set the perception of Sanders from that start that somehow he does not care about racial issues, that he is WORSE than other white candidates on race.

Again, this interpretation is held only by Bernie supporters.

[Armstead]

45. I will have to strongly disagree

If I were an AA who wasn't familiar with Sanders, I wouldn't like or trust the guy either based on the false memes that were created around him from the beginning of his campaign. But this "special problem" was manufactured from the beginning based on a mischaracterization of him from the start.

The debates over "socialism" and whether Sanders is "too far left" or electable etc. are no surprise in the primaries. To be expected. That's just a variation of the larger dynamic and tensions below the surface in the Democratic Party that goes beyond "Clinton vs. Sanders" as individual candidates.

And the need for Sanders to earn the support of AAs is certainly a legitimate an issue, as one element of the need for him to earn the support of all voters. Obviously its a challenge for a newcomer to earn the votes of people who don't know who he is.
--------------
This is from my own experience. I had been away from DU for a while, and decided to check in to after the Netroots thing. Just idle curiosity, expecting a little flap.

I was absolutely appalled and totally shocked at the vitriol being hurled against Sanders and the people who support him.Sanders was a hostile racist, because he got surprised and visibly irritated at being interrupted. Sanders supporters who tried to defend him were attacked as "racist white progressives."

And that escalated into a lot of toxic back-and-forths that were totally unnecessary -- and irrelevant considering Sanders actual history and his willingness to add BLM's issues into his platform and message ,because he already BELIEVED IN them.

Both sides (including yours truly) were guilty of creating a negative feedback loop that made ANY rational discussion of the actual issues impossible. And that continues to this day.

[Bobbie Jo]

85. Whoa, hold up there...

I was absolutely appalled and totally shocked at the vitriol being hurled against Sanders and the people who support him.Sanders was a hostile racist, because he got surprised and visibly irritated at being interrupted. Sanders supporters who tried to defend him were attacked as "racist white progressives."

Speaking of hurling VITRIOL, take a moment to read through the comments linked below.

SHOCKED and APPALLED don't even begin to describe how I was taken by this ugliness.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128027165

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251504091

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251503212

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251506368

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027060303

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251505656

[Sheepshank]

95. obviously, it's obvious if any just cared to look back 24 hours worth of OP's.

today's pushed meme...the Hillary retaliation machine.

If Hillary become POTUS, how in the hell will she find the time to govern with that hit list to be worked on, that is added to with such frequency?

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. The point is ...

you are NOT African-American ... you have a different life experience, so stop saying, "I would think/do, if ...", because this sub-thread (and the many others like it) demonstrate that you get it wrong, every-damned-time.

And the need for Sanders to earn the support of AAs is certainly a legitimate an issue, as one element of the need for him to earn the support of all voters. Obviously its a challenge for a newcomer to earn the votes of people who don't know who he is.

But Bernie is NOT a newcomer, after 25+ years in Congress.

[sheshe2]

142. ^^This^^

[cui bono]

146. Says the one who posted the two most vile OPs ever, one of which attempted to paint Bernie

as a racist.

Not Enough, sheshe.

[1StrongBlackMan]

152. Perhaps, you should re-read what She-She wrote ... not just those 3 words; but the entire piece ...

and even you will understand why she wrote those 3 words.

[jeff47]

72. The "Not good enough, Bernie" post doesn't exist? (nt)

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. I have seen posts opining that his communication of race issues to the Black community ...

is not good enough ... other than that, NO ... they do not exist, except in the writings of Bernie supporters' interpretation of what others have said.

[jeff47]

111. Except those aren't the "Not good enough, Bernie" post.

They're actually attempting to be substantive.

The actual "Not good enough, Bernie" post is about how a crowd in Vermont didn't have enough black people in it. It's a cut-and-paste of an article by a white woman, who apparently decided she knew what African Americans think because there are not a lot of them in Vermont to show up at the Sanders kick-off event.

[1StrongBlackMan]

116. Perhaps you can point me to a link (PM it if you are concerned about an alert) ...

because the posts about the crowds (which I have made several) is not a statement of Not good enough, as a rebuttal to all the "Bernie is going to run away with this primary ... Just look at how big his crowds are" posts.

Hell, my much maligned "Wake me where Black folks get to play" post was exactly that ...

And ALL such posts were followed by the substantive discussion of Bernie IS drawing huge crowd because he is limiting his appearance to his core demographic, i.e., upper-middle incomed, white liberals. (Which was a wise strategy, given his need to build momentum quickly). Which is a separate matter from whether Bernie is/was good enough.

[jeff47]

117. Here ya go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026737025

Quoted from:
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2015/05/not-good-enough-bernie.html

It should be noted that the underlying blog post has been edited in order to remove the photographs of the kick off event and discussion of those photographs.

because the posts about the crowds (which I have made several) is not a statement of Not good enough, as a rebuttal to all the "Bernie is going to run away with this primary ... Just look at how big his crowds are" posts.

And again, that's an attempt to have a substantive discussion. Not play "Where's Waldo" with black people.

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. I don't think that phrase has the meaning that you are assigning to it ...

It is due to all of the above that I have to say that when Sen. Bernie Sanders kicks off his presidential campaign with a suggestion that he is launching a "political revolution to transform our country," and yet makes zero mention of any of the issues that burden people of color in this country, my response is simply..."Not good enough, Bernie."

Especially, when one reads more than those three words. The piece isn't saying that Bernie isn't "Good enough"; but rather, his campaign launch was not good enough to address racism (i.e., the lack of mentioning it) ... which is consistent with the substantive discussions.

I swear, some Bernie folks have taken reading comprehension to a new low

BTW ... the "Where's Waldo" with black people was Bernie supporters trying to refute that Black folks/PoC were not feeling the bern.

[DFW]

38. I'll cede that point

It's one thing I follow least, being white, not thinking for a second that any of our 3 candidates has a racist bone in their bodies, and seeing as how no one in their right mind and with an IQ over 6 thinks non-whites will have it better under a Republican-appointed Attorney General.

[Ken Burch]

42. Bernie was singled out for attack on this

We all agree that institutional racism needs to be stopped YESTERDAY. Bernie always agreed on that and he NEVER, EVER said that establishing institutional racism would end police killings of PoC or any other form of institutional racism.

The issue is urgent...every Dem candidate and their supporters gets that and is at least trying to stand with you...the objection was only to the idea that this one candidate deserved more disruption on that than anyone else in the Dem race(and the harping on things that didn't matter like the racial makeup of Bernie's crowds) .

It's things like that that led to all the references about Bernie's involvement in the freedom movement that you found so annoying. If Bernie hadn't been personally targeted on race(when he was never the problem), you wouldn't have seen that.

We are with you. If you don't want to support Bernie, I respect that and that's your call, but please, if nothing else, accept he's trying to be part of the solution and that his supporters are as well.

Black Lives DO Matter.

[Armstead]

49. Bingo. Nail on the head. /nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

100. I disagree with this on many levels ...

The issue is urgent...every Dem candidate and their supporters gets that and is at least trying to stand with you...the objection was only to the idea that this one candidate deserved more disruption on that than anyone else in the Dem race(and the harping on things that didn't matter like the racial makeup of Bernie's crowds) .

But, accepting it as true that Bernie was, singularly targeted (though the facts do not bear it out) ... why might that be? Do you think it was because Bernie was the single candidate in the race for Democratic nomination, whose platform was devoid of a social justice/anti-racism plank?

Why would Black folks NOT react to that observation?

[Ken Burch]

122. I'm sure it was a temporary omission(agreed that it should have been there).

I have no idea why it wasn't there. If I'd been in the headquarters in Burlington(or had a way of contacting them-they didn't even have an email address at that point) I'd have pushed them directly to include it. I did do that in the Bernie group on DU. Repeatedly. It was an accident that it wasn't in the platform(Bernie's campaign was never going to be based on appeasing racists and ignoring institutional racism and police murders of PoC). Most likely, they were putting together the website in a hurry and they just spaced it.

The point of the references to Bernie's past that so annoyed you was that he'd already proved his commitment on anti-racism issues in that past, for fifty years of that past. If you were an organizer for SNCC(a position in which, like all other organizers, he was at physical risk, given that Chicago was and is just as insanely racist as Mississippi), you have walked the walk and you always will walk the walk. I've personally never heard of any former SNCC people who ever ended up becoming dismissive of the need to fight racism. If you know of such people, I'd really like to hear examples, because that would be a horrible thing.

And you didn't exactly let up on the guy when he ADDED the anti-racism plank and made attacks on institutional racism a daily part of his stump speech(he was already FOR social justice...people on the left always are, for God's sakes). You STILL personally treated him like he couldn't be trusted, and you helped abet the meme that Bernie was intentionally running a campaign based on ignoring racism. And you endlessly perpetuated the canard that Bernie believed that economic justice would automatically end racism, when he had never said anything, at any point, that came remotely close to that absurd idea.
What he did and DOES believe is that you have to fight for social justice AND economic justice, because economic injustice essentially makes social justice impossible(as the Clinton adminstration proved).

Bernie's feelings aren't the main issue here(and I'm pretty sure he'd agree with that), but I think it looked to a lot of his supporters, especially, that there was this deliberate campaign to discredit him and drive him out of the presidential race over this(it sometimes seemed as though BLM thought the only way to stop police killings of blacks was to get Bernie to withdraw from the race, for God's sakes), and the intemperance of their responses was driven, I think, by the perception that the first politician those idealistic young people had ever trusted was being demonized for a failing he didn't actually have. I'd say it's comparable to how a lot of Obama supporters(including myself) felt about the "birther" slur.

Would you at least agree that Bernie should no longer be under suspicion on this issue? That, while he needs to keep talking about it(obviously, as a DLC member, HRC never really cared about opposing racism, since the main point of forming the DLC in the first place was to get the Democratic Party to ditch blacks and black issues), he has proven himself on this? That he has put the issue to rest in terms of his own trustworthiness? That would do a lot, I think, to stop the harsher comments from Bernie supporters.

[1StrongBlackMan]

124. Frankly, it wasn't a "temporary ommission" ...

it was a 3 month oversight, that only got corrected after BLM made it too big an issue to ignore. And even then, he's addition of race into his stump speeches was sporadic, at best.

But from this piece, you clearly think that he has done, and is doing enough, even going as far as to dismiss the omission as "a falling he didn't actually have" ... well, the majority of the Black electorate, disagree.

[Ken Burch]

127. ALL of the Democratic candidates can still do more.

What O'Malley and HRC are doing isn't good enough, either.

Now it should be about pushing the issue equally with all of them...not singling Bernie out when he no longer deserves harsher treatment than the others. It would not be a victory for BLM if HRC defeated Bernie.

[1StrongBlackMan]

128. What don't you understand about Bernie's being the only ...

Democratic candidate that spoke exclusively in terms of economic primacy?

Both O'Malley and HRC had, and spoke of race, as a plank of their platform, from day one. Neither needed to re-frame their platform.

While all can do more, only one had to be pushed.

[Ken Burch]

130. He never said that economic justice would end institutional racism.

He never said or felt that institutional racism and police violence didn't matter.

I agree that he should have addressed these issues at the start, and pushed him to do so myself from the start.

He assumed(wrongly)that his decades of work fighting racism would speak for themselves.

But now he's publicly as strong as the others(and was always stronger than them on the issue in his voting record).

So it should be considered put to rest with him now. That's all I'm saying.

Now, it's about equally holding all three of their feet to the fire(since, despite their platforms, HRC and O'Malley were always deeply compromised and untrustworthy on the issue in their actual records

[1StrongBlackMan]

151. I never said he said economic justice would end institutional racism or address police violence ...

I'm saying that he wasn't talking about social justice AT ALL ... until he was confronted by BLM. And then, when he did ... the was like he was speaking a foreign language.

But now he's PUBLICALY as strong as the others

And the emphasis that I added, is EXACTLY the point of his lack of traction among the African-American electorate, writ large.

and was always stronger than them on the issue in his voting record.

Not true ... HRC's voting record is on par with his; but more, O'Malley's voting record, and record of initiating policy, is much stronger.

So it should be considered put to rest with him now. That's all I'm saying.

Thank you, but no ... my concern/reservations are not quelled because you, an unaffected person, declares it "put to rest".

[BlueMTexpat]

21. I agree. Thanks for the post. eom

[Dem2]

70. That paragraph

"On the other hand all the "how could you POSSIBLY" posts aimed at Hillary supporters, and by NO means just by suspected rw infiltrators, have been anywhere from condescending to downright vicious, and need to be addressed in the same manner for your message to be effective. As it is, if I see the word "corporate" in a post, I skip over it immediately. No need to waste my time wondering what it says. "

Those "how could any living being possibly support that war monger, Hillary - I mean she practically murdered all those Iraqi's single-handedly" feeling posts are so far over the top.

I'm not even decided on who I'll vote for, but some of the tear-downs of either candidate are too much IMO.

[DFW]

71. I'm basically in the same boat

I've been around too long to say that in politics, ANY assumption a year out is nothing more that that. The first Democratic convention I attended was L.A. 1960 as an 8 year old with my dad. The only serious candidate he knew personally was Humphrey, and when I was introduced, my dad told me to say, "hope you get the nomination." I asked him, "what is a 'nomination?'" At age 8, you don't necessarily know this kind of thing.

Some of the tear-downs are obviously heart-felt, but some are obviously contrived and parroting from other sources. Their angry, superior, cutting tone always says more about the one using it than how good their favored candidate is, so I don't let it bother me. Bernie Sanders himself said he knew his campaign would have to disavow some things said by some of his supporters. I think he was only saying what every Democratic candidate has known for years. Republicans seem to be different animals. They seem to live for hyperbole.

But the one that gets my vote in the primary will do so for what they say, not what their supporters (and certainly not their detractors) say on an internet board.

Like Frank Zappa sang, they'll "stomp and smash and bash and crash and slash and bust and burn."

Fine, but it won't influence my primary vote any more than similar language from the Republicans (just wait--the RNC is probably perusing DU for ammunition daily) in the General will influence my vote next November.

[Gothmog]

89. Good post

I personally like Sanders a great deal. I am hung up on the electability issue like many voters

[DFW]

102. I was, too, but am less so than I used to be

If the Republicans come up with someone that does a better job with facts and gravitas in public appearances, it might concern me more, but their field is SO weak right now that I find the race for the Democratic nomination to be pretty much as in 2008: our nomination IS the presidential election.

Of course, two caveats: this is just MY opinion, and it only goes for here and now. A LOT can change between now and next November. Hell, a lot could change between now and Iowa. So don't go running into the arms of one candidate or another just because of my spouting off. Form your own opinion and support whom you like best in the primaries. Just two things--don't let yourself be swayed by posts on DU or any other board, and vote the Democratic nominee next November, even if your pick isn't the nominee. Anyone who tells you you shouldn't vote because either 1.) it's a lost cause or 2.) it won't make a difference is either a Republican or has their head stuck straight up their ass (again--just my opinion, you understand!).

[stonecutter357]

4. .

[Paka]

5. K&R

Thank you Ken for wonderful advise.

[treestar]

6. omg

incredible! Bernie supporters have nothing to do with the toxicity? You are absolutely kidding.

Nobody says number one. Number 2 is subject to disagreement. Number 3 is in the polls. OMG BS supporters treat us with respect? Really? Signed, an unprincipled oligarch supporting corporatist.

[Ken Burch]

8. I did a thread for Sanders supporters, too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251801997

[yardwork]

20. Nothing there on the constant insults hurled at Hillary supporters here.

[Dustlawyer]

55. This Bernie supporter will tell you that, in my opinion, most of the trouble is caused by

a small core group of supporters for both candidates. Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters are generally the same other than who they support. There will always be some that take it too far or enjoy attacking others to get their jollys.

I respect the right for people to make their own choices and support their candidate in discussions on the issues. Not much for snark and/or personal attacks. I believe that it is counter-productive for both sides to keep up the childish attacks, but I understand there is not much that can be done. We do also have paid trolls and RW trolls that come to stir up trouble. I try not to take the bait (mostly successful, but not 100%)!

Democrats will gain in this election, and it's our job to see that those gains are as big as possible, regardless of who is at the top of the ticket.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. See there you go again ...

MOCKING (which I suspect is at the root of all of this ... "Join the revolution or, at least stop laughing at us" (notice I said "US" and not Bernie.

But that said, see #13 for accuracy of OP's point #2.

[Ken Burch]

43. You don't have to "join the revolution"...but at least stop acting like it's a joke.

If you want to end institutional racism, you need to bring down the existing institutions and build new ones from below. The institutions we have now are too corrupt and decrepit to be reformed.

[yardwork]

7. It would be interesting to begin linking hateful posts about Hillary supporters to this thread.

This might be the first time I've seen the phrase "Hillary supporters" here. Usually were called hillbots and far worse.

[Ken Burch]

15. I never use the phrase "Hillbots". n/t.

[yardwork]

17. Quite a few others do. Will you suggest they stop?

Or is all your advice directed at Hillary supporters?

[Ken Burch]

22. I've twice linked to the equivalent thread I started for Sanders supporters.

Look at my response to oberliner's post for the most recent link.

And yes, I do condemn the use of "hillbots".

Will you, by the same token, condemn those who imply that the Sanders campaign is some sort of anti-Democratic conspiracy?

[yardwork]

56. Tes, I have an OP or two supporting all our candidates.

I'm about as close to neutral on the candidates as one can get. I have strong opinions about their supposed supporters on DU.

[oberliner]

12. Do you have a list for Bernie supporters as well?

Any suggestions on that front?

[Ken Burch]

14. Yes, I do:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251801997

[oberliner]

16. Cool - thanks!

I missed that you already posted that link above - apologies.

[Rose Siding]

47. No, you don't

That thread offers no equivalent to this one's "treat Bernie and his supporters with respect"

Take your pick of insults hurled at this most accomplished woman tossed about here in the du bubble all day long:

corporatist, shill, oligarch, turd way, liar, war monger

I don't come down hard on BS or his supporters, but respect? Poster, please.

[yardwork]

63. So true. And look at the posts in that thread.

More vile insults directed at anybody who supports Hillary.

[hootinholler]

65. Nice list.

corporatist: "I represented Wall Street."

shill: Well to be honest, Hillary is not a shill, however if there is a nest of shills coordinating attacks here.

oligarch: See corporatist, see also turd way.

turd way: Yes a lot of people here think the Third Way is pretty shitty for average folk. Hillary was a poster child for the DLC (which Bill helped to found) while in the Senate and later until it disbanded. When it broke up resources and a few people moved to the Third Way think tank which is still advocating tax structures friendly to the haves and have mores. There's a name for that form of government but it seems to have slipped my mind at the moment, maybe I'll see it on some list.

liar: Sniper Fire.

war monger: IWR, To paraphrase: We came, he died. {snicker}

So when are factually supported notions an insult?

[Rose Siding]

68. Case in perfect point.

Each of your points can be factually disputed but why would anyone bother? The construct is fictional.

You have a few rhetorical instances lacking context, but have you honestly read any of her actual record and policy plans? Let's just take Wall Street for example. To give you the benefit of the doubt I'll post a link. If I copied and pasted the entire thing it would blow you away. Should you find time, and would like any remaining criticism to be fact based, have a look.

Hillary Clinton: Wall Street Should Work for Main Street
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/

You should definitely compare the substance of the two-

https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/

[hootinholler]

78. The construct may be fictioinal

But you introduced it.

I welcome Hillary to positions closer to Bernie's and hope that if elected she will maintain them.

Oh, there's this also.

[Sheepshank]

96. This welcoming Hillary's positions....is....unusual

it's very mush more often labelled in much more insulting tones....and those insulting tones are not employed by Hillary Supporters. We generlly welcome evolution of thought.

[hootinholler]

104. those insulting tones are not employed by Hillary Supporters

Um, yeah, sure they aren't.

From the day Bernie announced, all those insults and charges of being mean and nasty poopyheads never happened.

I know you love evolution. How could you not?

[redstateblues]

79. Twisting"I represented Wall Street" =

The GOP "You didn't build that"

[hootinholler]

105. if you say so

How about "I told them to cut it out?"

I know for the sake of civility you didn't mean to imply I am akin to a GOP operative.

[Indepatriot]

18. #4)

Stop playing the "hate" card every time we criticize HRC's policies, voting record, or positions on issues. I'd be willing to bet that 95% of Sanders supporters don't give a damn about Hillary on a personal level. We despise many of the things she stands for politically BIG,BIG DIFFERENCE.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. The "RACE-CARD" ...

Sighhh

[bravenak]

28. Gender Card.

[Ken Burch]

34. There isn't any reason to think that most Sanders supporters have an issue with HRC being a woman.

Our campaign is just as committed to feminism as HRC's (more so, in fact, since the most progressive candidate will almost always be the most feminist, and since feminism and hawkishness in foreign policy are in inherent conflict-no U.S.-involved war can ever liberate women from oppression).

[bravenak]

35. I think you missed the gender card war.

It was dumb.

[cui bono]

125. Yup. Extremely dumb.

Don't know why Hillary and her supporters decided it should have been played.

[bravenak]

126. I do not know why certian folks think accusing women of playing the gender card is not sexist.

Dumb I guess.

[cui bono]

135. Calling out someone playing victim and trivializing sexism by doing so is a feminist move.

That's why I do it when people play the gender card like Hillary did and like I've seen done at least three times on DU before, twice by self-proclaimed staunch feminists.

Claiming sexism when none is there over silly matters sets back feminism.

[bravenak]

136. Hillary has been the recipient of MUCH sexism. All women are.

[cui bono]

138. So she should have known better. All women should.

[bravenak]

141. She did nothing wrong. People made themselves look sexist by reading things into her words.

They always think she has bad intentions so they look for anything to get disturbed over. And they are so defensive because they are losing to her so badly, that they see slights and attacks of magnificent magnitude in EVERYTHING. Let her mention her gender? GENDER CARD! But they mention it frequently, knowing that it is wrong for Hillary to use her gender to attack THEM, but perfectly reasonable for THEM use her gender to attack HER. Because double standards, and she is after all, "just any woman" and he a Better feminist than "her", and besides look over here, here is a graphic of women saying "Sure we want a woman president (referring to Hillary), but NOT JUST ANY WOMAN!!!". See? Mentioning her gender by saying 'look! even women don't want her!', is perfectly fine if it is a campaign with a man running against a more popular woman and he needs to even up the score, but if SHE mentions being a woman??? GENDER CARD!


PLEASE. Yeah right she has anything to be sad about when he has graphics WITH HIS FACE AND NAME ON THEM using her GENDER against her like that. I was surprised to see his name ON something that uses her gender against her like that. But looking at how sexist our society us, nobody probably even noticed, and those that did, made excuses for it.

[Lilith Rising]

144. Damn straight.

[cui bono]

145. I can't make any sense out of what you just said, but Hillary played the gender card and tried

to make Bernie look sexist. She was wrong and that kind of behavior is an embarrassment and a setback to the women's movement. And as a bonus it makes her look like a ruthless human being who will stoop to such a ploy for political gain. She knows Bernie never said what she implied that he said. Her supporters may not be as smart as her, but I'll bet they all know it too.

[cascadiance]

73. Many if not most of those supporting Bernie earlier supported Elizabeth Warren...

... and many of us did so PRECISELY because we wanted to keep the "gender card" out of the debate of who made a better candidate and to have it focused on issues, not personal characteristics. Note my SIG that still has support for her here.

I want someone that supports women's issues and POC's issues, and not just measure someone based on whether they are in that category or not. I'm still hoping that if Bernie gets nominated that he picks someone like Warren to help get a woman in line as the preferred candidate for the next election when Bernie leaves the presidency if he were to win.

I'm thankful that most people haven't tried to go after Bernie for being Jewish, or support him for being such. With what is going on within Israel now with the Iran resolution, etc. I could see perhaps someone throwing that out, but thankfully most people recognize that characteristic of his having no real relevance to the discussion. I mentioned once that Muslim POC congressman Keith Ellison's endorsement of Bernie making him a possible interesting running mate of Bernie as an effort to note how that pair of individuals on a ticket would be a great way to try to expose how voting for someone just based on identity politics is ridiculous, and that we should be focused on issues that a candidate and that candidate's VP selection stand for are the measure we should be looking at, and not personal characteristics, and an extrapolation on their physical characteristics and religion, etc. to be the big factor of measuring people as candidates for office.

[Ken Burch]

32. He said the hate card, not the race card.

He was talking about the accusation that Sanders supporters "hate Hillary", which implies that there was no good reason for anyone to prefer Bernie to HRC.

[Bobbie Jo]

67. Speaking in terms of "CARDS"

is the appropriation of RW language. It's particularly grating to see it in use here over and over again.

Put the damn CARDS away. It's starting to look like Billo and Limbaugh have set up camp here.

[rbrnmw]

155. Those cards were put in the deck by them

They stacked the deck with the cards and now want to accuse us of playing them.

[Bread and Circus]

40. Do you like to put words in other posters' mouths?

[MannyGoldstein]

26. You wouldn't say that to a MAN'S supporters

would you?

Next, you'll be telling us not to imply that any criticism of Our Next President stems from misogyny!

[Thinkingabout]

29. We have class as Hillary supporters, if the visceral remarks are halted and to have DU return

To a true Democratic site of the most important mission is to elect Democrats.

[Darb]

31. Better title: Pot meets kettle, calls it black.

Clean your own kitchen. And then go attack Bush, or TRump, or Rubino, or Crudz, or Randy, or Crispy, or .............

[Demeter]

39. Thank you!

I was beginning to feel like Alice in Wonderland around here...fallen down a rabbit hole and can't get up!

[MohRokTah]

36. Maybe Sanders supporters should look in a mirror. eom

[SidDithers]

37. "Admit Bernie is as good on racial justice issues as anyone else in the Democratic race. "...

But he's not.



Sid

[Ken Burch]

48. Yes he is. Unlike your candidate, Bernie has never supported racist crime policies

such as the death penalty, something white people support almost exclusively out of the irrational fear that black people want to kill white people.

And unlike O'Malley, Bernie doesn't have the blood of black people on his hands.

Bernie has never been lacking in commitment...he just didn't emphasize the issue enough in his first speeches.

You can't point to any actual failings Bernie has on race in terms of his record as mayor, congressman or senator.

[Bread and Circus]

59. The only racism I have seen in a Democratic Primary was by the Clintons.

[Dem2]

69. "Bernie has never supported racist crime policies"

I know it's a response to a post I didn't even read (which I'm sure was worthy of what you've posted), but it seems to fly in the face of the tenor you wanted in your two "less toxic" threads.

[MannyGoldstein]

58. He's far, far better

E.g., https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/leadership-team

[LovingA2andMI]

61. Well, at least he's getting better....

As if he was not always good on Racial Issues all along..... #SMH

As OF COURSE Bernie has been. That's why....

Nina Turner changes her mind on Hillary Clinton, endorses Bernie Sanders for president

[Bread and Circus]

41. K and R. One of the best posts in a while.

[blackspade]

44. Thanks Ken

A good companion OP to your last one.



On edit: I see that introspection is a skill lacking for some within our party. Sign.
Thanks for trying though.

[Lil Missy]

46. Can't do it. #3 is a deal breaker. Although,

I can agree 100% on #1. He does have a right to be running, and I think he adds a lot to the process. I like Bernie. I simply think HRC is better qualified.

[Ken Burch]

50. If you prefer your candidate, that's your call.

Why is #3 a dealbreaker?

[Lil Missy]

51. Because I don't believe for a second that

Sanders has a chance in hell of taking the lead. Yeah, Yeah, I've heard all the arguments - I just don't believe any of them.

[RandySF]

66. I'm in the 1%?

I had no idea. I guess I'll fill out my retirement papers today.

[yardwork]

103. In the companion thread, we're called fiscal conservatives.

We're also told that none of us will ever vote for Bernie even if he is the nominee.

This, even though I've never seen a post from a Hillary supporter saying we wouldn't support Sanders. I see supposed Sanders supporters say that they'll never vote for Hillary every day here.

[72DejaVu]

54. Thank you for the thoughtful post

My responses to your points:

1. I will respect Bernie's right to run as a Democrat, and will expect his supporters to respect my view that long term service to the party is a reasonable factor to consider in choosing to support a candidate.

2. I have no doubts about Bernie's commitment to racial justice. I also have no doubt that his campaign has utterly bungled the issue to his detriment, and that the performance of his campaign is a legitimate issue.

3.of course Bernie can win. I read with serious consideration posts that rationally discuss his possible path to victory. I reserve the right to mock those based on magical thinking.

And one point of my own; I've been a close follower of presidential politics since the 1960s. I would suggest that those, of any persuasion, who believe that this has been a particularly nasty primary campaign do a little research.

[LovingA2andMI]

57. Can I give you a HUG THREE TIMES OVER for this line....

"And if your candidate does get nominated, you won't be entitled to just demand support from Sanders supporters. You will have to reach out to them in a conciliatory way(as Sanders supporters will do with you and engage on at least some of their issues."

Thank you for writing this, because truer words have never been written in a LONG TIME!

[Nitram]

62. Ken, too bad you put the entire onus on Clinton supporters.

I would have gladly have observed all three of your edicts above if so many Bernie supporters had not been so childishly nasty about Clinton. So, I admit, I get a certain childish pleasure pushing all three of the buttons above just to get a rise out of immature Bernie supporters. It's a shame, but the possibility of calm, rational discussion without gratuitous and silly attacks against the opponent of one's preferred candidate seems to have passed.

But I'd gladly follow all three of your suggestions if Bernie supporters would promise to:

1. Stop calling Clinton a cheating right wing corporatist liar.

2. Admit that Hillary is ahead in the polls.

3. Forego accompanying every post of praise about your candidate with a jab at Clinton.

Many of us have pled for decency, but have been met by the Bernista meme, "I'm not taking any stinkin' loyalty oath!" I anticipate that at least one Bernista will respond to my three point above with, "But she is!

[jeff47]

74. Too bad you didn't read the thread, and note the "for Sanders supporters" companion OP. (nt)

[Nitram]

75. They weren't posted together when I responded to this post.

[jeff47]

77. Posts have timestamps.

The links in this thread to the companion OP were posted 2 hours before your reply.
The actual companion post was made 3 hours before your reply, and about 14 minutes after this OP.

So...what did you mean by "weren't posted together"?

[Nitram]

81. I mean, while I was browsing the DU page, the one I responded to was at near top.

And the other one was nowhere in sight until I scrolled down later. I'm not finding fault with you, I' trying to explain why I responded before I saw the other post. Would you like me to delete my response?

[jeff47]

82. I'm just trying to understand what you were saying.

"weren't posted together" isn't exactly a lot of information.

Still, I'd recommend at least scanning the replies before making your own, especially when your reply includes an attack on the OP.

[Nitram]

84. No, I'm not going to check to see if there's is a companion piece for every post I read.

I suggest you put a note at the bottom that there is a companion piece that you'd like people to read before responding to a post.

[yardwork]

93. Too bad that thread doesn't address the vile attacks in Hillary and her supporters.

In fact, if you read the thread in question, you'll see an example of the kind of filth that gets hurled at Hillary supporters every day on this forum.

[jeff47]

112. Yes, the horrible attacks like accurately quoting her and her record. (nt)

[yardwork]

113. Bullshit and a deliberate lie. You know what I'm talking about.

Go to that thread and look at the posts to which I respond. Nothing about anybody's record. Just a baseless accusation that no Hillary supporter would ever vote for Sanders. Vile filthy personal attacks on DUers.

[jeff47]

115. The one vicious, terrible smear of people who said they won't vote for a socialist

will follow through?

My god...the horror. That's nowhere near as awful as the claims Sanders is lying about marching with MLK!!

[Bluenorthwest]

64. I'd like to say that I am very happy that Bernie's candidacy might allow me a Primary vote for a

candidate who has never once trash talked my rights, never invoked his God's wrath against my community, never sneered at any minority group seeking parity and justice. Every candidate thus far has had a history or campaign element including anti gay verbiage, positions and surrogates, they have all praised bigoted anti gay persons while denigrating LGBT persons as unworthy of parity and of justice.

Those of you who can't stand the idea that LGBT might want to, for once, vote for a candidate who has never opposed our equality are in my view stone cold bigots, fully imbued with characteristics that would allow them to pass as a Republican in a room full of Republicans.

Those who want to harass and bully us, you will fail because hate and bigotry always fail. Always.

[artislife]

148. Odd, Bernie seems to actually like people. nt

[Buzz Clik]

76. That's a friendlier list than I expected:

I thought it would go something like:

1) Admit that HRC is a 1%er sellout who is more Republican than Democrat
2) Shut the fuck up
3) Go away and don't come back

By the way, I have been told all those things in the past 24 hours by Avid Sanders Supporters.

[DonCoquixote]

80. ^^^^^^THIS

If HRC does win, I'll be one of the people working hard to get Sanders supporters to support her in the fall. Don't make our job harder by being overbearing and arrogant about the whole thing.

[jeff47]

83. Too late. (nt)

[barbtries]

87. well put

i'm a member of both groups and can barely stand to read a post in either. Condescension is unattractive, off-putting, and in this context, counter productive.

voting for the democrat whoever it is - let's NOT allow a crazy republican into the WH!! please

[Gothmog]

88. This will be much easier if the Sanders supporters could explain how he is viable in general electio

I have repeatedly asked for an explanation as to how Sanders will be viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may be spending another billion dollars. Viability and electablity are valid issues. According to the online quizz, Sanders is closer to my positions than Clinton but I can not get over the viability issue. Many Democrats will have a hard time supporting Sanders and doubt that he will be the nominee due to the lack of an explanation as to how Sanders can be viable in the general election

[eridani]

137. He is viable because he can mobilize the 63%. Hillary is not at all an inspiration to--

--alienated voters, who are self-organizing now for Sanders. He has solid backing from Millennials, who are now a larger voting bloc than boomers--80% of them did not vote in 2014. Sanders has a chance to keep them involved for the long haul, and Clinton does not.

[Gothmog]

139. And yet the polling and Predictwise does not back up your claim

[eridani]

140. Polling is bullshit at this stage

And I say that about polls giving Sanders an edge as well. Explain what Clinton is doing to appeal to alienated voters, please.

[Ken Burch]

150. His lead over almost all GOP candidates is the explanation.

And any financial edge HRC has over him will be negated by the fact that nominating her brings all the Nineties anti-Clinton hate memes back into play. Why should we put ourselves through all of that shit being smeared all over the tube all over again?

[gwheezie]

91. That's how I've been posting

I think Bernie is terrific. I wanted him to run. I support HRC but thought what the hell, Bernie would make a good opponent.
He could win the nomination and be the next president, anything could happen. I always thought dems better have more than Hillary in the fight. Something unforeseen could happen god forbid and to have a popular 2nd place contender ready to step up just makes sense.
As far as his supporters, they are fighting to get him nominated so they might go over the edge occasionally. Irl no Bernie supporter I know acts like a handful of his supporters on social media. I don't see Bernie being influenced by his more vocal supporters.
I try to be nice to his supporters, we will need them to elect Hillary. Sometimes it's hard not to allow a little sarcasm into the conversation.

[TSIAS]

92. I think it's too late

I doubt people on either side will be able to forgive. I think the "fly swatter" sigs were the last straw.

[Arkana]

99. 1) He certainly has a right to run. No one has suggested he doesn't.

2) If anyone honestly believes Bernie Sanders is a racist, they are dumb, but it is not an impossible idea that being from Vermont may not have exposed him to too many black people after he became an elected official.

3) Polls right now do not suggest he will win the nomination. Pointing that out isn't "mocking" the idea.

[Todays_Illusion]

110. But Ken, if they admit Bernie is a legitimate candidate it will be no contest. /s

[DCBob]

114. One could argue..

that convincing others your opponent has no chance to win is an effective campaign strategy.

[JoePhilly]

120. I happily agree to all three ... with one caveat ...

... If I am responding to a Bernie supporter who ...

a) is saying they won't vote for Hillary in the GE no matter what, or

b) claims Hillary is some manner of evil, or

c) attacks Hillary supporters as being bad democrats, or RINOs, or stupid, or unprincipled ...

... then I will respond as I see fit.

I find the folks doing a, b, c above, to be some combination of .... politically naive, strategically ignorant, the kind of folks who will turn on whoever becomes President the second they compromise on anything, or RW trolls.

Basically, I raise or lower the level of my response to match the person I reply to. If the OP is disrespectful, they don't deserve a respectful reply.

btw ... good OP.

[uppityperson]

133. Ooooo. Decisions decisions. Play or call mirt?

[merrily]

131. Could be that ship sailed.

[Major Hogwash]

149. Sunk like the Lusitania.

But, it's the thought that counts.
Ken has always tried to be sort of a peacemaker at DU.

[merrily]

162. How's that been going for him?