Attempting to tear down Democratic candidates is just plain stupid

[CajunBlazer]

It serves no useful purpose.

I am tired of posters referring to the tearing down of other Democratic candidates on this board as "vetting". To assume that those who frequent this board are "vetting" our candidates is absurd on the face of it.

"Vetting" does not not consist of pulling pulling articles, polls and opinion pieces favorable to our favorite candidate and/or unfavorable to the opposition candidates and posting them here. That's not vetting, that regurgitating old information to try to win an argument. Vetting is defined as "investigating someone thoroughly, especially in order to ensure that they are suitable for a job requiring secrecy, loyalty, or trustworthiness." We are not investigating anything.

In addition, only a tiny fraction of a percentage of voters frequent this board. Those who don't at least read this board on a regular basis know nothing about what is posted here or care for that matter. So let's not pretend what we post here is going to affect who gets elected.

And also let's not pretend that we are actually making any progress on convincing even those who do frequent this board to switch sides and vote for our candidates. I find it extremely hard to believe that that even a few people are changing their minds on who they will vote for at this point. What tearing down other people's candidates actually does is make them resentful and less likely to vote and/or volunteer their time and money for your candidate in the future.

Let's face it: The only reason why people are trying to tear down other people's candidates is that they are trying to win an argument. And that's pretty petty in my humble opinion.

[randys1]

1. Didnt see the vetting comment, and it is absurd, of course.

BTW, I am a big fan of Ari Rabin*Havt of Sirius, and today on his show he explained that Bernie is NOT a Socialist or a Democratic Socialist in that he doesnt want to have

social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,

He was explaining this in a supportive way, that he likes Bernie and that it would serve Bernie best if he were able to explain himself with the uneducated voters, etc.


The very FIRST call after he spoke about this was a Bernie supporter who attacked him and said with friends like him Bernie didnt need enemies.



She is a politically immature, well meaning, political supporter of a candidate. That is the best way to explain her and those who react like this.

Oh, and Ari used to work at Media Matters, so she brought that up. What is absurd about that is Ari is a big fan of Bernie's, but that didnt matter to this politically immature person

[merrily]

7. His post TODAY said Bernie should explain himself? Where the hell was Ari yesterday, while Bernie

was going exactly that at Georgetown U.? And it sure wasn't the first time. Bernie's been explaining for months. Interview, speeches, the first debate, etc. smh

[randys1]

8. OMG was that YOU?

[merrily]

32. Non sequitur, followed by an rofl smilie. Wow.

[randys1]

33. Was it? YOu instantly jumped on my comment as if you knew about the call or Ari

in general.

let me say in a very clear way, whoever that caller was displayed the epitome of political immaturity.

Especially if they listen to Ari for two days or more, maybe a week, because they would know

Ari's expertise in politics is vast compared to most and that he is a supporter of Bernie, in general I mean.

[merrily]

35. I never said he wasn't a supporter of Bernie. How about addressing what I actually posted,

instead of some straw man of your own making?

Bernie has discussed many times what he means by Democratic Socialism. Why someone who is supposed to have been following Bernie all this time has missed all of those instances is beyond me.

[randys1]

36. if you didnt hear the conversation Ari was having, you might want to pass on this

If you believe that the "socialist" tag isnt on Bernie or cant be put on him by righty, then you are simply mistaken

We arent discussing what people here know...






You said this

His post TODAY said Bernie should explain himself?

Who are you referring to? Ari doesnt post here that I know of, maybe I am the one who is confused.

[merrily]

37. sorry, you changed the subject again.

As far as saying "his post today" I meant to say "his show today." As the bolding showed, today was the important thing, given Bernie made a fantastic speech only yesterday explaining what Ari said today Bernie should explain. The medium in which the claim was made was not significant. I saw your post about radio and call in but typed post by mistake. Big deal.

If you believe that the "socialist" tag isnt on Bernie or cant be put on him by righty, then you are simply mistaken

And right there is where you changed the subject. The issue YOU began this subthread with was Bernie should explain himself, not what tag some moran might put on him no matter how many times he's explained himself.

As my prior post said, Bernie has been explaining himself for months and did so again, and brilliantly, only yesterday. And, for the third time, instead of addressing that point, you went elsewhere.

BTW, the right calls Obama and Hillary socialists too.

[PatrickforO]

12. Well, there's always gonna be someone who takes things too far.

I think it's human nature. The destructive thing I see is when people say, 'Well, I'm not supporting candidate X because his/her supporters suck."

That's completely ridiculous, and petty too. Because if 'candidate X' wants to implement stuff you want to see and the other candidates don't, but you're not gonna vote for X because of his/her supporters, then basically you're allowing someone else to take what you want away from you.

You are giving up what you want because you're pissed at a supporter. This is especially illogical if you are basing your decision on supporters here. Because as the op ed points out, we are a bunch of little tiny fish swimming in a MUCH bigger ocean.

So, research the hell out of each candidate. Find out not only what they SAY, but what they have DONE and how consistently they've done it. Then, make your decision and on caucus/primary day, carry out that decision. Don't worry about some person on here. Worry about your best interests.

Lastly, I'll just say that I like DU a lot. What I like about it is that I can comment on current events and argue positions with other people, many of whom are very bright. But you know what? At the end of the day, this is a form of entertainment. It is a fun way to keep abreast of current events and understand what's happening out there, nothing more. But those are the key words, are they not? 'Out there.'

For those who treat this site as if it were life itself, I guess that's OK, but you're in for some heartbreak because not everyone's gonna like you. Not everyone's gonna agree with you. Sometimes you or your ideas will be put down. And no one on here will ever really understand or agree with you because there are as many opinions as there are people who post on here.

And, as I said, you're gonna get all worked up over a few people on this tiny little site who put you down, and if you don't vote for the candidate whose policies you like best because of that, then you've allowed yourself to be 'wedged' away from your best interest. Who wins then?

Hint: it isn't you.

[randys1]

15. Not sure who you believe is doing this. If you think it is me, then you misunderstand my

reason for being here in the first place.

I continue to post on this solely to hope that I will convince someone that they must vote, no matter what, for whoever the dem candidate is.

I do this because I know the GOP will steal millions of votes using electronic voting and they will deny millions more the right to vote.

So if I can change a couple minds here from "my way or the highway" to "i will hold my nose and vote", then I do that.

I will buy them a clothes pin to use to hold their nose, as long as the Democratic party wins the election.

That and to promote my twitter account which exists to support democracy

[PatrickforO]

23. No I wasn't even thinking of you because you're not obnoxious.

Any more than I am, I guess. But yeah, if any one of the GOP buffoons in the clown car end up getting elected and they have even reasonable coat tails and the Senate goes to the GOP, then we're good and truly fucked.

No one wants that.

This has been a very interesting race, though. Twice, Clinton's been the 'heir apparent,' the 'inevitable one' and twice she's being seriously and credibly challenged. Now, while I will vote for Clinton if she's the Dem nominee, I will have to take you up on that clothespin. Clinton is way too poll-driven for my tastes. I want a living, breathing person in office who actually stands for something, and not a wind sock or a weather vane.

That said, it is very interesting to watch how this is playing out. For instance, I believe, based on several things, the most recent being that school poll that had Bernie up in the 'fifties,' that Bernie has a huge groundswell of support that isn't visible to the media, the pundits or the pollsters.

I mean, look what's happening with the American people in general. EVERYONE I know is pissed at the rigged game. EVERYONE I know is tired of having the establishment pee down our backs and then tell us it is raining. So the right wing is embracing the dangerous demagogue Trump and Carson, who is a horrible human being in his own right, is second while the establishment Repubs like Bush and Rubio are way far back.

And on the Dem side, we have a candidate who personifies real progressive, like FDR progressive positions, a candidate in the middle and our heir apparent inevitable. On here, I have only seen a few Clinton supporters who will actually argue issues, at least with me. The rest do what is called 'snark' even though I really don't know what that is. Or they pound wedges. I'm thinking of one person in particular who pounds a certain wedge whenever s/he can. The O'Malley people are generally cool, but he's still far behind and lately they've been attacking about the Nurse PAC, which is amusing to me.

But we'll see how this plays out, won't we? Because this election really is about more than just the candidates. This capitalist cancer has gotten so bad that it is really about the ultimate future of our species. I know that sounds maybe over dramatic, but when you look at the rapidly rising temperature average, the melting polar ice cap and all the severe weather, I don't think it is.

I mean, nitpicky arguing about anything else, anything, is just like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic as it steams full speed toward the iceberg.

Interesting times, Randy's1. Interesting times. But, no, my comment wasn't aimed at you at all. To get specific, there are three posters on her I can name but won't at whom it was aimed. And none of them is you!

[randys1]

27. I agree Bernie may have way more support than it appears if one looks at the media.

The people I do listen to are those in minority communities who are affected where I am not.

Especially Gay and Black Americans.

Specifically to Black Americans, if I were they I would be amazed and annoyed and really pissed off that they are all of a sudden SUPPOSED to do A. vs B. That if only they knew what was good for them




Give me a fucking break. NEWSFLASH it makes NO difference who marched with MLK and who didnt.

As a white Bernie supporter I could very easily lecture various groups as to why I believe Bernie is better for them, based on my understanding of their history and Bernie's.

But that would be an absolute nightmare of a mistake, and arrogance and privilege and hubris unlike anything.

And why it would be all those things is because I dont have the first clue what it means to be them, and I have the luxury, let me repeat that word, LUXURY of wanting Bernie who may not be able to actually do XYor Z but because I know he is the best, I will vote for him, etc. VS the person who I know is NOT best for me, or my pocketbook, but someone who because of their tied in relationship (often the very reason I dont like them in the first place) they actually might be able to better protect a given minority from the shitholes.

........................................

[PatrickforO]

34. Well, that's all true.

I too have enjoyed unearned white privilege so will never know what it means to be a person of color, and male privilege so I will never know what women have faced.

All I say is that Bernie is the very best candidate to promote my interests, and I believe that his policies would resurrect the failing American middle class. I like him for his stance on global warming as the greatest threat facing our species because it is. As an economist I also like the idea of single payer healthcare not tied to employment for a variety of good reasons, and cutting Social Security not only is immoral but would significantly reduce demand for goods and services and cost jobs.

Now, I hate that these children of color are being killed out of hand by cops. That's just wrong on so many levels, as are private prisons. The war on drugs is a heavy contributor to the horrible failings of our 'justice' system. But, you know, I'm not gonna preach at some person of color and tell him/her why Bernie is best for them. They can look at him and make up their own minds. What I do mind is when surrogates of a certain inevitable candidate start pounding that wedge and do so every chance they get, because in a sense that's the same thing. That person/those people are basically taking away a choice from people when they should be laying out the facts about where their candidate stands on issues.

Because you know divide and conquer works real good. The oligarchs have been using it against the 99% for centuries. They've used it to commit genocide on the native Americans, oppress the African Americans and Hispanics, pit the Irish against the Italians, pit workers in one union against workers in another union, etc. Long, bloody, sad story that have victimized everyone in this country who has to work, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual or gender preference. It really has. Like when Bush pounded the gay marriage wedge real hard in 2004 and won the election when he should have been hauled up on war crimes charges.

So, the moral of what I am saying is that I don't pound wedges and I argue tooth and nail against those who do because wedges hurt us all worse than we can ever know.

[sabrina 1]

2. I agree that tearing down people isn't productive. But it depends on what you mean by that.

It's not tearing anyone down to look at their records on important issues. That is a necessary part of the democratic process.

[merrily]

5. Hillary supporters have been posting these "sit down and shut up" threads for months,

Last edited Fri Nov 20, 2015, 05:38 PM - Edit history (1)

like they're going out of style. (Were they ever in style?)

I'm so sick of them trying to silence criticism of their candidate.

[karynnj]

47. if that increases as she becomes the candidate

And President, it may actually drive the majority of long time posters away. It is not clear if it could survive that way.

[merrily]

53. If she becomes the candidate, things will have to change, per the TOS.

If she becomes the President and criticism resumes, I shudder to think what will happen.

In any case, my attitude toward DU has already changed. I used actually to care about giving people links, etc. That's gone. I used to learn something here every day. That's gone. I finally can see why some long time posters never post anything of value.

[reformist2]

66. The tone they've set here is indicative of how a Clinton administration would treat us... No thanks!

[merrily]

68. I keep trying to keep separate in my mind a message board and real life, but,

obviously, DU is changing fundamentally.

[longship]

3. Petty, and somewhat childish.

Like a two year old, that is.

The behavior here is so bad, that I will not publically announce a Democratic presidential primary preference here because I would prefer not to plunge myself into that vat of necrotizing fasciitis.

Those making it so need to take a long, long look at themselves.

Getting a DU time out is not a fucking badge of honor. I have only had one post hidden in my years here. When I got that hide I adjusted my behavior accordingly. I haven't been alerted on in a long time either. Let that be our metric here.

I am disgusted by the behavior here.

[merrily]

6. No one cares if you announce one or not, and your choice has long been apparent anyway.

[longship]

9. I don't think so, as I have never expressed it.

Plus, I have posted support and some minor criticism for all three candidates. Plus, I do not think I have yet decided myself.

So, unless you have a crystal ball, I would respectfully disagree with you.

And furthermore I do not understand why you would post such a reply.

[merrily]

11. "Apparent" is not a synonym of "expressed." You can make things apparent without saying them.

And, you've done that. nt.

[longship]

14. Rubbish. I have no preference.

I will support the Democratic nominee. PERIOD!!!

That is the only preference I have expressed here.

And now you are being argumentative which is the sort of behavior which has recently turned DU into a vat of necrotizing fasciitis.

But you have a right to your opinion.

But I am done here as things are turning into a childish "are too/are not" discussion which never goes anywhere good.

My best to you my DU friend.

[merrily]

17. You've posted many times that you will not state your preference, which certain implies you

have one.

[longship]

19. A distinction without a difference since I will not state it here...

whether I have one or not, which I also will not state for sure.

My intention is to remain staunchly neutral here until the nominee is selected. My reasons are because of what I posted above and other threads (that I find the behavior here on DU to be disgusting and counter productive). And then I will support the nominee fully.

You can believe what you want and I have no problem with that. However, you are very likely incorrect in your assessment of me.

Best regards to you.

[merrily]

20. No it is not a distinction with a difference. In one scenario, you are being sincere. In the other,

not so much. In both scenarios, you are putting down DU and DUers.

I made no assessment of you. I described your behaviors. And, though you may imagine you've been neutral, your posts have said otherwise.

[Cali_Democrat]

54. Not stating a preference implies that you have a preference?

[Skwmom]

4. Sticking your head in the sand is just plain stupid.

To win an argument, really?

Somehow I thought this was about the future of our country.

[karynnj]

10. Instead of vaguely stating what should not be posted, explain how discussions - in your opinion -

should go.

You raise the strawman of "vetting", which I have never seen any long time poster here us. You argue that people post things that favor the candidate they prefer -- that is advocacy. This is a message board and posts will be a mix of opinion and linked articles. Links are provided because - if they weren't -- you or others would ask for a link on any claim made.

Note - there is a difference between linking to right wing hate sites and to something more mainstream - or as I often prefer - primary sources -- ie Presidential or State Department briefings or the transcript of the actual speech HRC gave. People will and should be called out for the RW links.

Issues are key -- and the candidates have different positions and histories. In addition, trustworthiness and honesty are pretty damn important. Therefore it is completely legitimate to identify things that can be proven by actual facts.

[merrily]

13. +1

[longship]

16. Mutual respect, no personal attacks. Let's start there. nt

[merrily]

18. Didn't you just post this to me? Do you not consider it a personal insult? I do.

An over the top personal insult at that.

And now you are being argumentative which is the sort of behavior which has recently turned DU into a vat of necrotizing fasciitis

Really? I did that to DU? My posts get alerted on, because that is DU lately. Still, I have had a 100% chance of serving on a jury for a long time, which means the posts of mine that have been alerted on have not been hidden. So, if DU is what you claim, I doubt it's because of me.

And, btw, I've experienced your argumentativeness at length, and over something a lot less important than who the Democratic nominee will be. So, maybe you want to grab a mirror when you talk about personal insults and argumentativeness.

[longship]

22. I haven't had an alert in a long time.

Because I do not disrespect other DUers. Nor do I make personal attacks. I may criticize behavior on occasion, but always with respect.

I have no bone to pick with you merrily except that you are possibly wrong about me.

"Sort of behavior" was not a personal attack.

Thanks for responding anyway.

As always, regards.

[merrily]

24. Again, I said nothing personal to you or about you, other than that your preference has long been

obvious, that you've been argumentative to me in the past (and on this thread), that you've insulted DU and DUers and that you've insulted me. Proof of everything but my first claim is right on this thread.

For proof of my first claim, one has to look at your posts over time.

[longship]

25. Obvious to only you, possibly.

And you are being argumentative again.

So I am done with this thread.

I am aware of your opinion, since you keep repeating it.

So let's just leave things there.

I sincerely hope you have a nice day.

[merrily]

29. Not obvious only to me, by far. And you've been argumentative with me on this thread as well as in

the Bernie Group. So, again, grab a mirror.

The major difference between is that I admit to having a preference and state the preference and I admit to arguing with you while you take the position that you are above me and most of the rest of DU in those respects.

[CajunBlazer]

30. In response to your request....

It is useful to point out all of the positives about your favorite candidate and why you think that they are important

It is also useful to point out how candidates differ on various issues and why you believe your candidate has taken the right positions.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that it useful to be positive about your candidate.

What is not useful is to try to tear down other Democratic candidates for the reason I provided in my original post. And let's not pretend that it is okay to post articles and opinions which have the net affect of tearing down a Democratic candidate because they come from "mainstream", i.e. legitimate sources rather than from some "right wing hate site". You and I know that we can find "mainstream' sources to prove any point we want to make. Google is an amazing tool.

And since you brought it up, let me point out that "trust" is an important issue, but it is highly subjective one at best. Who you trust and who I distrust might well be the same person. However, when you go around calling other people's candidates lairs, they are not going to be very appreciative. So the question is: Are you trying to convince them that your candidate is the better choice or you trying to win an argument even if you have to alienate them to you and your candidate in the process?

[Bread and Circus]

21. Yes, please tell Hillary Clinton to stop.

[99Forever]

26. Yessir, this uppity gettin' alll fact-sy shit has to end.

Now, sit down, shut the fuck up, vote for who we tell you and eat your fucking peas.

[CajunBlazer]

31. No, say what you like, but please act like a grown up instead ....

like a kid arguing with another kid on the playground.

[merrily]

38. In fairness to 99Forever, your comment in Reply 31 is not what I got out of your OP, either.

[99Forever]

41. Well thanks old sage for the permission to do....

.what I would anyway. BTW, I have a granddaughter that will be voting for Bernie.


See ya on the playground.

[Thinkingabout]

28. Bookmarking for future reference.....

[merrily]

40. LOL!

[merrily]

39. If nothing we post matters anyway, why worry about which articles get posted?

Arguments on a political message board? Oh, my....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. So, what do suggest we talk about if not the candidates?

This is a political discussion board. Candidates are running in the primaries. Generally, the conversations are about politics, policies, and politicians. And, people from all sides are, indeed, trying to prove points and win arguments.

[CajunBlazer]

43. So you admit that trying to tear down othe Democratic candidates is

not intended to help you favorite candidate, but is instead its all about "trying to prove points and win arguments". Then I will leave you to your childish behavior. I'm only concerned with winning the election.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. I find that my influence in elections is limited to one vote.

As you stated in the OP the influence of DU is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what would prefer we talk about. Biscuit recipes? Dog breeds? Favorite singers?

Or, is this just another Loyalty Oath demand?

You still haven't answered my question? What should we talk about?

[CajunBlazer]

45. I find that influence on the election is limited only by my willingness to participate

Just because what I write or post on DU has little or no influence on the election, that doesn't mean that my influence is limited. In the past I provided funds to the campaign of President Obama and a number of Democratic Senate candidates and participated in calling voters in several states to ask for their support and to get those likely to support Barrack out to vote.

As to what you can "talk" about, if you want to talk about the primary process there are plenty of things to talk about with out trying to denigrate the opponents of your favorite candidate. I find that such tactics destructive and childish. Some of the most passionate Democrats are on this board. These are the people most likely to be active in the political process as volunteers and it doesn't make good walking around sense to be turning them off with attacks on their candidates.

I know you are a Bernie supporter and you have stated that wouldn't support Clinton in the general election if she won the nomination. So let's say that Sanders wins the nomination. Most if not all of the members of DU will probably vote for him, but don't you want these most passionate people really supporting Bernie, giving freely of their time and money to get him elected? Does it really make any sense to piss them off with your ceaseless attacks on Hillary. And the same can equally be said to Clinton supporters who have been attacking Bernie.

Look, I really don't give a flip what you and others like you "talk" about. I just think it is stupid when people act in a manner that is contrary to their selfish self interest just so they are trying to make a point or win an argument.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Opinions differ.

I'm not denigrating her. I'm questioning her fitness to hold public office. If Hillary supporters don't want to support Hillary in the GE, that's their business.

I think that supporting Hillary is selfish and contrary to what most people on this board stand for.

BTW, aren't you "trying to make a point"?

In don't vote for labels.

[CajunBlazer]

48. At least we are having the conversation you wanted....

without trying to destroy democratic candidates. See there are plenty of other things to talk about on this board.

However, now I have better things to do.

[yardwork]

49. Thank you.

[CajunBlazer]

50. You're more than welcome!

I just needed to get that out; it's been bothering me when I read this board for a while.

[yardwork]

52. Me too.

[Cosmic Kitten]

51. Destroying the party from within is WORSE

The democratic establishment is
trying to dismantle the base
and jam 3rd-Way economics
down out throats.

Eff that!

[Dem2]

56. 3rd way is so lame

I've been pushing the 4th way for some time now.

[Dem2]

55. I may have introduced "vetting" into the conversation today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=831379

I think I was speaking in a similar vein as you are in your O/P, however.

[CajunBlazer]

57. Well, I guess you did, but I was referring to other posts....

... another one of which I saw today. But no, it wasn't yours. This person specifically defended the tearing down of other candidates as vetting.

[Scuba]

58. How about Republicans posing as Democratic candidates? Is it OK to expose them?

[CajunBlazer]

60. Sure, but their are no candidates fitting that discription running this time around.

Last edited Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Given that you appear to be a Bernie supporter, I am assuming that you are referring to Hillary Clinton since I have that kind of sillyness from uninformed Bernie Supporters before. I you can't tell the difference between Clinton and the candidates on the Republican side, I am not sure you should trust yourself enough to vote.

[Le Taz Hot]

64. And there it is . . .

". . .since I have that kind of silliness from uninformed Bernie Supporters before. "

Physician, heal thyself.

Funny, it's ALWAYS the Establishment Democrats calling for Kum Ba Ya. Then a few posts later, they out themselves. They just can't help themselves.

[CajunBlazer]

69. What a sly way of avoiding replying to my point....

...but let's pursue your tangent. I admit that I support Hillary, big deal. What you are implying is that my original post was only directed at Sanders supporters - go back and read it again - it certainly wasn't. It was directed all posters that are involved in what I believe are stupid tactics which do not benefit their candidate, and could easily end up hurting them. I do find it interesting that a number of Sanders supporters are finding that the "shoes" I described is just their size and think that I am talking only about them. What does that tell you?

But back to your main point - I have never attacked Sanders, here on DU or anywhere else. I don't engage in what I consider stupid political tactics. If Hillary wins the nomination, I don't want some of the most passionate progressives not actively supporting her or worst yet, not even voting for her.

Bernie supporters need to understand that winning the nomination means nothing if we can't win the general election. If Bernie wins the nominee, he is going to need people like me not only voting for him, but actively supporting him with our time and money. Back in 2008 I was initially a Clinton supporter. When Hillary dropped out of the race and Obama won the nomination I became an Obama supporter, donating very generously of both my time and money to his campaign. I must admit to the failings of human nature I suppose, but right now due to the sometimes vicious attacks of Sanders supporters, I am feeling less than enthusiastic Bernie's candidacy.

Let me put it in terms just about everyone can understand - Bernie supporters would be wise to not piss off Hillary supporters like me.

[Chan790]

59. Hardly. Tearing down bad Democrats is an obligation of all Democrats.

If you don't like, I suggest tuning-out.

Politics is sausage-making and...well...having made enough sausage in my day, (my brother is a pizzaiolo and charcutier; my entire family is in the restaurant trade. I keep getting dragged back into it.) I can tell you part of the process is pulling out the pork that seems a bit unfresh.

[CajunBlazer]

61. The defintion of a "Bad Democrat" is dependent on the person is making the evaluation...

which leaves all democrats free to tear down the opponents of their favorite candidate. Yep, let the destruction all of Democratic candidates by their fellow Democrats begin; that seems rational. Sounds like the Republicans Party.

Your entire family might be in the restaurant trade, but evidently you never learned to use the "making sausage" analogy properly. While some may consider the process of sausage making process gross, one of the the main points of the analogy is that out of it comes a delicious product.

That analogy doesn't apply here because, as I pointed out in my original post, the tearing down of Democratic candidates on DU serves absolutely no useful purpose, and in fact can be very counter productive.

To put this in the framework of the analogy, the process of making sausage making would have died out a long time ago if the final product always tasted horrible.

[Blue_In_AK]

62. A lot of the conversations around here lately

pretty much boil down to "Nyah, nyah, nyah, you and your candidate are LOOSERS." (And, yes, I know I misspelled that.) It's tiresome but I guess to be expected.

[Steven the Somnolent]

63. Priority #1

Keeping a Republican out of the White House. I will vote for whomever is our party's nominee!

[Le Taz Hot]

65. The Cooking and Baking Group

is down the hall and to the left. Just follow your nose, you can't miss it. Oh, and it helps to bring something, anything, from Trader Joe's. They'll like that.

[McCamy Taylor]

67. In 2008, it was called "unDemocratic". Now it's just "stupid".

I expect in 2020 it will be "yeah, so what" and in 2024 it will be "of course we must handicap our own before the general otherwise we might win".

I am, of course, being sarcastic. Here is the emoticon for those who are sarcasm impaired. Only one group benefits from this scorched earth primary policy---and it is not the Democratic Party.