Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jillan

(39,451 posts)
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:34 AM Jun 2016

I was here in 2008. I supported Obama. But I don't recall being told that there could be

This discussion thread was locked by Skinner (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

no posts against Obama, the presumptive nominee.

Did I miss that or is this something new this year?

181 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I was here in 2008. I supported Obama. But I don't recall being told that there could be (Original Post) jillan Jun 2016 OP
I was here and I DO remember that. I took a little break, adjusted my attitude, MADem Jun 2016 #1
I hope Bernie supporters do the same... chillfactor Jun 2016 #2
Don't expect people back. peace13 Jun 2016 #3
That's fine vdogg Jun 2016 #151
We must not let tRump win... that goes without saying. InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2016 #159
They will; the ones who are Democrats and liberals, anyway. MADem Jun 2016 #6
I really resent people telling me, a 60 year old woman who has voted dem in every election jillan Jun 2016 #8
With you, love. elleng Jun 2016 #19
Hey love... sheshe2 Jun 2016 #144
No one is calling you as an individual those things Armstead Jun 2016 #171
Has anyone, anyone at all implied it is in fact, The Only Thing? LanternWaste Jun 2016 #174
Huh? Who said that? MADem Jun 2016 #20
Stop pretending that you are not trying to offend notadmblnd Jun 2016 #24
You need to just STOP. I didn't say what you're accusing me of saying. MADem Jun 2016 #30
You need to stop. notadmblnd Jun 2016 #36
Get over it. We are at the cusp of an historic moment for our nation. nt MADem Jun 2016 #38
No we aren't. More of the same. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #48
Mmm hmmm. nt MADem Jun 2016 #53
Historic moment, my ass... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #61
Status quo? Establishment? Please. Enough with the buzzwords. MADem Jun 2016 #65
So out to lunch...sorry I engaged... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #69
Two more--So out to lunch/lost cause. MADem Jun 2016 #112
Rack 'em up, MADem... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #118
You are the one "racking 'em up" -- not me. nt MADem Jun 2016 #122
I'm just pointing out a general trend with your... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #131
That is not what you are doing. nt MADem Jun 2016 #135
"By that standard, Strom Thurmond was the Che of the South". AgadorSparticus Jun 2016 #95
Yes. sheshe2 Jun 2016 #116
Yeah, that whole PP thing flummoxed me, too. MADem Jun 2016 #120
They have no place else to go. sheshe2 Jun 2016 #129
There's always Discussionist! MADem Jun 2016 #137
You do realize... Else You Are Mad Jun 2016 #177
I resent that there was all this excitement about there being the 1st black president but none about kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #110
There are lots of young women (and old women) and young girls for whom this is an important MADem Jun 2016 #113
See, there it is again... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #134
Well, he wouldn't have been--the first Jew, that is--to compete for the office, at any rate. MADem Jun 2016 #152
Very disappointing , but very predictable...considering the demographic profile of the "unexcited". Surya Gayatri Jun 2016 #145
Because she is a woman? notadmblnd Jun 2016 #74
For me, it's icing on the cake. And a BIG effing deal. nt MADem Jun 2016 #90
Well I hope you get a nice big slice of it. notadmblnd Jun 2016 #97
And she's used it like a hammer to accuse ... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #106
Who has done this? Who is this she who has done this thing? MADem Jun 2016 #108
She = her surrogates... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #139
I think collective punishment is a non-starter. "She" has done no such thing. MADem Jun 2016 #146
Oh, you have said plenty over the past year. Do you think our memories are that short? nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #41
I have supported MY candidate--and that, like it or not, is not a crime. nt MADem Jun 2016 #42
You've done much worse than that. And I do consider supporting Hillary pretty bad. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #47
You consider supporting Hillary pretty bad, do you? Why are you still here? MADem Jun 2016 #55
Not midnight yet, have some patience. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #60
It's midnight in my neck o'the woods--it's 0153 hours as I type this! nt MADem Jun 2016 #67
Guess your neck of the woods doesn't count. Blame Skinner, not me. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #68
I can wait until Pacific time, if needs must! nt MADem Jun 2016 #77
You'll have to. And till the convention too, nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #83
It's been over since NY. nt MADem Jun 2016 #86
Nope, it goes on through July. Deal with it. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #89
You are welcome to believe that if it makes you feel better. MADem Jun 2016 #99
I hate break it to you but DU is not the rest of the world. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #125
I am not talking about DU. MADem Jun 2016 #132
Not the whole world. Stop limiting your views. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #133
I am not "limiting my views." The whole world knows she is the MADem Jun 2016 #136
Never said she wasn't. Presumptive being the key word. You do know what it means? nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #138
Yes--and it means what it meant when we ascribed it to POTUS Obama, and John Kerry and Al Gore and MADem Jun 2016 #148
You've said plenty to me and other Bernie supporters ... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #57
I have NEVER gotten personal with you--but you can't say the same to me. MADem Jun 2016 #62
Well, you have gotten personal with plenty of others. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #70
No, I haven't. I stick to issues and ideas, and very often, when it MADem Jun 2016 #73
I've been a witness and on the recieving end. Try a simple search. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #79
If it's so simple, show me where I've personally insulted you. MADem Jun 2016 #84
I really don't have anytime to spare for you. Especially in light of the fact that I won't even be Live and Learn Jun 2016 #94
OK, in sum, that "simple search" turned up nothing. MADem Jun 2016 #117
Maybe you just can't see it when you do it. You certainly blame others for it when they aren't Live and Learn Jun 2016 #119
I can't see it because I don't do it--I simply do not name call. MADem Jun 2016 #121
Perception, I tell you. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #123
You can tell me all you want, but I just don't do it, and that 'simple search' could have been done MADem Jun 2016 #126
Don't bother, you obviously can't see it. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #128
Your entire post is BS...and I don't mean... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #76
+1000 nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #80
There ya go--"Your entire post is BS" -- how charming. MADem Jun 2016 #82
Speaking ill of a post is not a personal attack. Live and Learn Jun 2016 #91
Calling a liberal Democrat a conservative was intended to insult. MADem Jun 2016 #103
She didn't call you a conservative at all. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #105
"...you are no better than a lot of my conservative acquaintances. " MADem Jun 2016 #124
Nope, quite a difference. And, here I thought you were a teacher. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #127
No, no difference. And I'm not a teacher--obviously you confuse me with someone else. MADem Jun 2016 #149
There you go again... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #98
Annnnd a double down! nt MADem Jun 2016 #101
MAdem, I can't figure out why or how you pushed their buttons. AgadorSparticus Jun 2016 #104
I don't get it either. MADem Jun 2016 #107
Maybe it is just coming down to the wire and people are processing not just the loss AgadorSparticus Jun 2016 #111
You might be right! In fact, that is a likely explanation! MADem Jun 2016 #114
I was sleeping through all this and awoke Hortensis Jun 2016 #164
Our 'home' was rotting to the core any way. Moving on. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #130
You have more patience than me! WhiteTara Jun 2016 #180
"I see it over and over again--it's a pattern." Surya Gayatri Jun 2016 #147
no it goes this way if you don't vote for Hillary then you're not a Democrat or a liberal azurnoir Jun 2016 #25
Enough is right. 840high Jun 2016 #33
Ditto dat. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #39
I resent me, a 63 year old woman being called sheshe2 Jun 2016 #43
One person used the term corporate whore - the physician who helped write the ACA & he jillan Jun 2016 #46
One? sheshe2 Jun 2016 #49
Right? LisaM Jun 2016 #54
Thanks LisaM. sheshe2 Jun 2016 #75
Right, and young women who supported Bernie were told... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #66
+1000 nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #71
I never said that. sheshe2 Jun 2016 #78
You never said that, but Albright sure did tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #100
I recall many here calling Mitt a corporate whore and yet no complaints. Live and Learn Jun 2016 #72
MADem said nothing of the sort Hekate Jun 2016 #88
I think you MORE than qualify. InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2016 #160
Where did she say that? She didn't. Hortensis Jun 2016 #162
LOl. Never thought I'd see the day. Sanders and his supporters are not Democrat enough notadmblnd Jun 2016 #18
No one said that. Stop allowing bias to cloud your vision. MADem Jun 2016 #22
I may be bitter and angry. I can admit that and I can state many reasons why notadmblnd Jun 2016 #32
Because those who love the status quo know that Bernie started something that isn't over yet: Betty Karlson Jun 2016 #45
+10,000 nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #51
I think you're probably right. notadmblnd Jun 2016 #63
I don't know where or why you accuse me of that. I'm happy this nightmare is ending. MADem Jun 2016 #50
I disagree and that'll just have to be that. notadmblnd Jun 2016 #59
What do you mean no one said that?! tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #93
The disconnect with that is bizarre indeed. n/t JimDandy Jun 2016 #23
What's so Historic about this? I'm genuinely curious why so Exilednight Jun 2016 #155
We don't want status quo in the White House. Betty Karlson Jun 2016 #37
Bernie supporters likewise don't want Trump in W.H... Herman4747 Jun 2016 #172
Same here. I was a Clinton supporter. It stung to lose, but after a break, I got back with it. Lyric Jun 2016 #157
Hope people reconsider MFM008 Jun 2016 #4
Great but my question was about Obama in 2008. jillan Jun 2016 #5
I wasn't too close to the place, or the candidates, then, jillan. elleng Jun 2016 #9
I Cant tell you MFM008 Jun 2016 #92
Anything suggesting that he should lose or in favor of an alternative movement was quashed. Zynx Jun 2016 #7
Quite a distinction between 'constructive criticism' and 'concern trolling,' elleng Jun 2016 #12
Depends on how it's done. Zynx Jun 2016 #15
Concern trolling is, for example, posting about a new RW book against Hillary, pnwmom Jun 2016 #141
Not a new issue, elleng Jun 2016 #142
That would be an example of concern trolling at its lowest. pnwmom Jun 2016 #143
Here is what Skinner posted in 2008: JTFrog Jun 2016 #10
Thanks for this. There goes another conspiracy theory of things being different back then. grossproffit Jun 2016 #13
No problem. JTFrog Jun 2016 #17
Thanks for this - but it is different. We were allowed to criticize Obama back then - jillan Jun 2016 #31
I suggest you seek clarification in ATA. I think the guidelines are essentially the same. MADem Jun 2016 #52
How is it different? JTFrog Jun 2016 #109
Well done...thanks for taking the trouble to compile this. Surya Gayatri Jun 2016 #150
That's what it comes down to. joshcryer Jun 2016 #154
Thank you for posting this DesertRat Jun 2016 #58
Apparently, this years Hillbots are far more fragile SheilaT Jun 2016 #11
The Terms of Service were in effect then. JohnnyRingo Jun 2016 #14
The attacks against her have, on average, been far worse than what was said about Lieberman. Zynx Jun 2016 #16
You're kidding right? Lazy Daisy Jun 2016 #87
I was here in 2008 and recall no gag orders issued. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #21
You might want to refresh your memory at POST 10. nt MADem Jun 2016 #27
you are correct Cryptoad Jun 2016 #181
The rule then and now is that you cant trounce laserhaas Jun 2016 #26
No, we aren't in "uncharted" waters--Hillary is the presumptive nominee. MADem Jun 2016 #29
Presumps..assumps..are the mother of all..... laserhaas Jun 2016 #34
She will be nominated on the first ballot. If that's what you call "brokered" MADem Jun 2016 #40
so "brokered" jcgoldie Jun 2016 #115
You clearly have no idea what a brokered convention is. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #165
Clinton supporters are the minority here. joshcryer Jun 2016 #166
This is not GulfCoast66 Jun 2016 #44
There is not going to be a brokered Democratic convention. okasha Jun 2016 #176
I ignore negative posts about PRESIDENT Obama underthematrix Jun 2016 #28
Good for you laserhaas Jun 2016 #35
Obama never had anything to criticize, policy-wise, going into the nomination KeepItReal Jun 2016 #56
That's a big difference RobertEarl Jun 2016 #85
+10,000 nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #102
See post 109. n/t JTFrog Jun 2016 #169
That has always been part of the TOS here. nt tblue37 Jun 2016 #64
It's normal, and expected. Hekate Jun 2016 #81
Well, I've certainly been banned (unjustly, I believe) from the Obama room. PatrickforO Jun 2016 #96
You missed it. This is what happened then. n/t pnwmom Jun 2016 #140
Not really. There was no rule against being critical of his policies. Being critical of stated Bluenorthwest Jun 2016 #161
In 2008 most DUers had rose colored glasses. joshcryer Jun 2016 #168
It's in the TOS you agreed to when you joined the site BainsBane Jun 2016 #153
You sure do like to throw your little rule hammers around. It's my understanding that Clinton w4rma Jun 2016 #156
I don't think adhering to a system you agreed to when you joined is "throwing little rule hammers ar LanternWaste Jun 2016 #179
Maybe you don't remember it because sufrommich Jun 2016 #158
exactly. nt La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2016 #170
What JTFrog posted liberal N proud Jun 2016 #163
Lol La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2016 #167
+100 n/t. okieinpain Jun 2016 #173
I was here. I remember Skinner's carefully worded missive that constructive criticism LanternWaste Jun 2016 #175
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #178

MADem

(135,425 posts)
1. I was here and I DO remember that. I took a little break, adjusted my attitude,
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:36 AM
Jun 2016

and came back and supported Obama.

chillfactor

(7,587 posts)
2. I hope Bernie supporters do the same...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:39 AM
Jun 2016

we do not want trump in the White House.

 

peace13

(11,076 posts)
3. Don't expect people back.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:45 AM
Jun 2016

vdogg

(1,384 posts)
151. That's fine
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 05:00 AM
Jun 2016

As long as they're not here actively campaigning against our nominee, I don't care where they go.

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,123 posts)
159. We must not let tRump win... that goes without saying.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 07:35 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
6. They will; the ones who are Democrats and liberals, anyway.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:47 AM
Jun 2016

That narrow sliver of the Venn diagram that intersects with Trumpeteers might slide over to the Orange Gasbag, but for every one we lose from "our" side (putatively, anyway), we'll pick up twice as many (or more) from the GOP or the right leaning indys.

Women will quietly cross over because they KNOW this is an historic event in the story of our nation and the world, and all of those "vote your conscience" types will vote for Clinton because they'd rather continue to fight the battle against Obama and his successor, as opposed to have to DEFEND the ranting ravings of a fooking lunatic with a bad weave.

Sometimes, you're in a (relatively, anyway) better position as the OPPOSITION--because there's no justifying that kook Trump. Just none! I think that is the approach Ryan is taking.

I'll bet Boehner is so HAPPY he retired!

jillan

(39,451 posts)
8. I really resent people telling me, a 60 year old woman who has voted dem in every election
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:50 AM
Jun 2016

since Carter that I am not a Dem or a liberal because I support Bernie.

Enough!

elleng

(131,290 posts)
19. With you, love.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:01 AM
Jun 2016

sheshe2

(84,000 posts)
144. Hey love...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:08 AM
Jun 2016

As a 63 year old woman that has voted for dems their entire life I am tired of being called a corporate whore. A shill. An Oligarch.

Planned parenthood is now the "establishment" and thrown under the bus.
abuse abused.
You don't support the candidate. That is fine. Yet women need to rise not get thrown under a bus.

This is incredibly beautiful. One Billion Rising. Men and women rising together as one.



Hey love. It is so beautiful. Give it a minute. You will love the inspiration. The power of women, and the men that support them. This is amazing ellen. I know you will love this.

This is our strength our beauty our souls. This is us.
 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
171. No one is calling you as an individual those things
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:52 AM
Jun 2016

It's certain Democrats you vote for who are more attuned to the elites on issues of Wealth and Power.

A first Woman President is Historic and a good thing. But it is not the Only Thing.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
174. Has anyone, anyone at all implied it is in fact, The Only Thing?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:35 PM
Jun 2016

"A first Woman President is Historic and a good thing. But it is not the Only Thing."

Has anyone, anyone at all implied (which if course, is not the same as 'infer', yes?) it is in fact, The Only Thing? I've love to see that post if you could link it for us.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
20. Huh? Who said that?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:03 AM
Jun 2016

And why are you yelling at me?

Most people are not in that NARROW SLIVER OF THE VENN DIAGRAM here.

smdh--stop looking to be offended.

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
24. Stop pretending that you are not trying to offend
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:10 AM
Jun 2016

Surely you are looking at your reflection in your monitor when you write of bias clouds.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
30. You need to just STOP. I didn't say what you're accusing me of saying.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:19 AM
Jun 2016

I can understand that you are disappointed, but that is not my fault. Talk to your candidate about that.

Stop putting false characterizations in my mouth; it's obvious what you're doing and I don't appreciate or deserve it.

I was VERY careful to point out that a small sliver of that Venn diagram intersects with Trump--now, unless you consciously, deliberately and declaratively want to put yourself in that small sliver, no one is talking about you.

Stop acting like I am victimizing you--I went out of my way to make it clear that MOST people here will adjust and move forward.

Like I had to do eight years ago.

smDh!

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
36. You need to stop.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:25 AM
Jun 2016


MADem

(135,425 posts)
38. Get over it. We are at the cusp of an historic moment for our nation. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:28 AM
Jun 2016

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
48. No we aren't. More of the same. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:36 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
53. Mmm hmmm. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:41 AM
Jun 2016

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
61. Historic moment, my ass...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:48 AM
Jun 2016

Since when was promoting the status quo with exclamation points a historic moment?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
65. Status quo? Establishment? Please. Enough with the buzzwords.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:51 AM
Jun 2016

You can't get more 'status quo' or 'establishment' than taking a government paycheck over the course of four decades.

That's just so 'revolutionary.' By that standard, Strom Thurmond was the Che of the South.

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
69. So out to lunch...sorry I engaged...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:55 AM
Jun 2016

Lost cause

MADem

(135,425 posts)
112. Two more--So out to lunch/lost cause.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:22 AM
Jun 2016

Lovely.

tex-wyo-dem
69. So out to lunch...sorry I engaged...
View profile
Lost cause

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
118. Rack 'em up, MADem...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:30 AM
Jun 2016

There's a whole treasure trove of your snark I can easily pull up...

And I don't even need to use a stupid quote box

MADem

(135,425 posts)
122. You are the one "racking 'em up" -- not me. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:37 AM
Jun 2016

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
131. I'm just pointing out a general trend with your...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:52 AM
Jun 2016

Responses. And you still fail to even be the least bit consilliatory or to admit maybe you've been harsh in the past or anything. Just the same defensive posture and keeping up with the passive aggressive (and not so passive aggressive) smacks.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
135. That is not what you are doing. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:01 AM
Jun 2016

AgadorSparticus

(7,963 posts)
95. "By that standard, Strom Thurmond was the Che of the South".
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:08 AM
Jun 2016

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

sheshe2

(84,000 posts)
116. Yes.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:29 AM
Jun 2016

Planned Parenthood is now part of the establishment. I thought only the GOP hated us women. Dear Goddess. Planned Parenthood is now evil here? Women need to know there place in both parties now? Dear Goddess, I weep.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
120. Yeah, that whole PP thing flummoxed me, too.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:34 AM
Jun 2016

I couldn't believe how many people cheerily went along with it, too. It was a bit troubling!

I remember some of the same folks cheering on PP after the Komen Foundation pulled their donations--and excoriating Komen for so doing. Mayor Bloomberg wrote PP a huge check to cover their shortfalls, and people here were even cheering for him because he stepped up to support women's reproductive rights.

Now, all of a sudden, the last line of defense for women who need mammograms and pap smears is "establishment?" The place that serves the poor, the undocumented, those with no where else to go?

I was stunned by all that.

sheshe2

(84,000 posts)
129. They have no place else to go.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:42 AM
Jun 2016

No place else to go! I thought Bernie stood for women. I was wrong.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
137. There's always Discussionist!
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:08 AM
Jun 2016

It's a lot like DU in terms of 'ease of use,' and it welcomes all views. Some of those views are horrifying, but for people who decry "censorship" it might be right up their alley.

It's actually very simple and streamlined, too--Earl G (if it was him that did the hard work, I think I am right about that but not positive) did a beautiful job with that platform. He oughta sell templates!

Else You Are Mad

(3,040 posts)
177. You do realize...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:48 PM
Jun 2016

That in some form or another, the Clintons have received a government pay check for the last 35 or so years?

kerry-is-my-prez

(8,133 posts)
110. I resent that there was all this excitement about there being the 1st black president but none about
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:22 AM
Jun 2016

the first woman president. As a woman, it's very disappointing.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
113. There are lots of young women (and old women) and young girls for whom this is an important
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:26 AM
Jun 2016

and very symbolic occasion.

It really IS a big deal. If HRC picks Warren as VP, it will be an even bigger deal.

Won't it be something to see a CABINET that LOOKS LIKE America? Half the people around that table being female?

Her nomination, and her Presidency, are game changers. I hope the media stops carping and crabbing, and starts to appreciate this fact.

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
134. See, there it is again...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:00 AM
Jun 2016

We're not voting for some homecoming king/queen...the POTUS is the most powerful and important position in the world. I think it's great there is more diversity at the position (and that is important), but the main thing I care about is the person's positions on issues...period.

For that matter, there was absolutely no talk about Bernie possibly being the first ever Jew to hold the office, but that doesn't matter.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
152. Well, he wouldn't have been--the first Jew, that is--to compete for the office, at any rate.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 05:22 AM
Jun 2016

Many people do not realize that John Kerry, with his Irish name, doesn't have an Irish bone in his body. His grandparents (Fritz Kohn--later changed to "Kerry" -- and Ida Lowe) were Jews. They did what many did (Madeleine Albright's family, e.g.) for purposes of self-preservation, and subjugated their faith along with the name change.

Barry Goldwater had Jewish heritage (though he affiliated with a Christian denomination--Episcopalians or something on those lines, IIRC) and he received the GOP nomination. LBJ dispatched him rather handily, but his religious or ethnic ancestry wasn't at issue--his right-wing views took center stage.

Sanders is secular--the rabbi in Burlington says he doesn't participate in the religious community and is a 'universalist,' that's discussed in the links below.

Clinton is the only woman to gain a major party POTUS nomination; it's a pretty big deal.

There was plenty of cheery discussion about Sanders' ethnicity and faith origins in the mainstream press (noting that SANDERS didn't want to talk about it, in some cases--see the NPR story below), both here in USA, in Israel, and around the world. If you missed the coverage, you just weren't looking for it.

Here's some background:

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/02/454051697/sanders-could-be-the-first-jewish-president-but-doesnt-like-to-talk-about-it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/10/13/bernie-sanders-who-could-get-farther-than-any-jewish-candidate-for-president-has-just-opened-up-about-his-jewishness/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/24/bernie-sanders-our-first-agnostic-president/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-jewish.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/opinion/campaign-stops/bernie-sanders-and-a-first-for-jews.html?opinion&_r=0

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/192931/bernie-sanders-story

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/A-look-into-the-Jewish-side-of-US-presidential-candidate-Bernie-Sanders-428701

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-bids-for-jewish-history/429252/

There's lots more on those lines out on the web.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
145. Very disappointing , but very predictable...considering the demographic profile of the "unexcited".
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:26 AM
Jun 2016

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
74. Because she is a woman?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:59 AM
Jun 2016

For me, that's not enough.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
90. For me, it's icing on the cake. And a BIG effing deal. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:05 AM
Jun 2016

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
97. Well I hope you get a nice big slice of it.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:10 AM
Jun 2016

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
106. And she's used it like a hammer to accuse ...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:18 AM
Jun 2016

Bernie supporters of being sexist and mysoginist.

Fucking despicable.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
108. Who has done this? Who is this she who has done this thing?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:21 AM
Jun 2016

If someone makes those accusations, refute them with facts.

Responding with invective doesn't win the day.

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
139. She = her surrogates...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:28 AM
Jun 2016

Who have played the gender card with impunity accusing Bernie and his supporters of sexism and mysoginy, an absolutely discusting way to use the fact she is a woman as a tactical advantage to accuse her dissenters of discrimination.

Hill wouldn't do this herself, she lets the toad Brock take care of that slime.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
146. I think collective punishment is a non-starter. "She" has done no such thing.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:31 AM
Jun 2016

Individuals have said dreadful things on both sides of the primary process. It's convenient to term these individuals "surrogates" when one wants to place blame, but "she" is no more directing people to say ugly things than Sanders is telling his operatives, like "the toad" Weaver, to "take care of that slime." Right?

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
41. Oh, you have said plenty over the past year. Do you think our memories are that short? nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:30 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
42. I have supported MY candidate--and that, like it or not, is not a crime. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:31 AM
Jun 2016

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
47. You've done much worse than that. And I do consider supporting Hillary pretty bad. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:35 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
55. You consider supporting Hillary pretty bad, do you? Why are you still here?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:42 AM
Jun 2016

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
60. Not midnight yet, have some patience. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:47 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
67. It's midnight in my neck o'the woods--it's 0153 hours as I type this! nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:53 AM
Jun 2016

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
68. Guess your neck of the woods doesn't count. Blame Skinner, not me. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:54 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
77. I can wait until Pacific time, if needs must! nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:00 AM
Jun 2016

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
83. You'll have to. And till the convention too, nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:03 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
86. It's been over since NY. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:04 AM
Jun 2016

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
89. Nope, it goes on through July. Deal with it. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:05 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
99. You are welcome to believe that if it makes you feel better.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:14 AM
Jun 2016

The rest of the world has another view.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
125. I hate break it to you but DU is not the rest of the world. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:39 AM
Jun 2016

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
133. Not the whole world. Stop limiting your views. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:00 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
136. I am not "limiting my views." The whole world knows she is the
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:03 AM
Jun 2016

presumptive nominee.

Google is your friend!

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
138. Never said she wasn't. Presumptive being the key word. You do know what it means? nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:10 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
148. Yes--and it means what it meant when we ascribed it to POTUS Obama, and John Kerry and Al Gore and
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:37 AM
Jun 2016

Bill Clinton, etc. etc. You know--all the candidates who went on to be our party's standard bearer, who had garnered enough delegate votes to be chosen on the FIRST ballot at the convention.

LMGTFY: synonyms: probable, likely, prospective, assumed, supposed, expected


tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
57. You've said plenty to me and other Bernie supporters ...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:44 AM
Jun 2016

That was highly offensive with snark off the charts.

Look in the mirror and don't wonder why a lot of us won't be back.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
62. I have NEVER gotten personal with you--but you can't say the same to me.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:49 AM
Jun 2016

I talk about issues and differences, your response is to characterize me with slurs.

I see it over and over again--it''s a pattern.

If you want to leave, that's your choice. There's the door--use it when you please. Say your GBCWs and go on your merry way. If you expect a chorus of "Please don't go" from me, don't hold your breath. Your insults towards me are remembered and I simply will not miss you one bit.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
70. Well, you have gotten personal with plenty of others. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:55 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
73. No, I haven't. I stick to issues and ideas, and very often, when it
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:59 AM
Jun 2016

becomes too challenging for people who oppose my opinions to respond substantively (because I provide LINKS), I get called names like "neocon" and "Turd Way" and other childish invective. I get the "You people" routine, too.

And I will sometimes make note of it.

Over and over again, this is the pattern.

It's in the archives, you can see for yourself. I don't call people names, I discuss ideas.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
79. I've been a witness and on the recieving end. Try a simple search. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:01 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
84. If it's so simple, show me where I've personally insulted you.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:03 AM
Jun 2016

If you can find a post of me name calling you, I'd be happy to apologize.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
94. I really don't have anytime to spare for you. Especially in light of the fact that I won't even be
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:08 AM
Jun 2016

able to see you in less than an hour. You have a place of honor on my upcoming and first ignore list.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
117. OK, in sum, that "simple search" turned up nothing.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:30 AM
Jun 2016

I take pains to avoid personally insulting people.

I am not afforded the same courtesy in return, though. This very thread is a prima facie example.

I am not at all offended if you choose to ignore me. If my opinions trouble you, that's probably the most sensible course of action.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
119. Maybe you just can't see it when you do it. You certainly blame others for it when they aren't
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:34 AM
Jun 2016

doing it so maybe it is a problem of personal perception.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
121. I can't see it because I don't do it--I simply do not name call.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:36 AM
Jun 2016

But, as I said, I am not afforded the same courtesy, and this very thread is an example of that. I've been personally insulted several times already.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
123. Perception, I tell you. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:38 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
126. You can tell me all you want, but I just don't do it, and that 'simple search' could have been done
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:40 AM
Jun 2016

ten times over in the time we've been conversing.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
128. Don't bother, you obviously can't see it. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:41 AM
Jun 2016

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
76. Your entire post is BS...and I don't mean...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:00 AM
Jun 2016

Bernie Sanders.

If you can't look in the mirror and do some personal reflection, then you are no better than a lot of my conservative acquaintances.

I've been here since 2004 and DU has been a daily site for me. Nice send off MADem...thanks, appreciate it.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
80. +1000 nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:02 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
82. There ya go--"Your entire post is BS" -- how charming.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:02 AM
Jun 2016

"You are no better than a lot of my conservative acquaintances!"

Those are PERSONAL INSULTS. Heckuvajob, there, pal! I'll save this one for posterity, it's a keeper:

tex-wyo-dem
76. Your entire post is BS...and I don't mean...
View profile
Bernie Sanders.

If you can't look in the mirror and do some personal reflection, then you are no better than a lot of my conservative acquaintances.

I've been here since 2004 and DU has been a daily site for me. Nice send off MADem...thanks, appreciate it.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
91. Speaking ill of a post is not a personal attack.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:06 AM
Jun 2016

Maybe her conservative friends are as nice as you.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
103. Calling a liberal Democrat a conservative was intended to insult.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:17 AM
Jun 2016

But the attempt to justify the comments IS noted.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
105. She didn't call you a conservative at all. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:18 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
124. "...you are no better than a lot of my conservative acquaintances. "
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:39 AM
Jun 2016

A distinction without a difference.

The meaning is quite clear, and it is not laudatory.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
127. Nope, quite a difference. And, here I thought you were a teacher. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:40 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
149. No, no difference. And I'm not a teacher--obviously you confuse me with someone else.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:39 AM
Jun 2016

I admire teachers, have several in my immediate and extended family, but I've never done that job.

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
98. There you go again...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:10 AM
Jun 2016

As I used to say of my narsissistc mother in law, can't fix broke.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
101. Annnnd a double down! nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:15 AM
Jun 2016

AgadorSparticus

(7,963 posts)
104. MAdem, I can't figure out why or how you pushed their buttons.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:17 AM
Jun 2016

Nothing personal was said. You just made your point.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
107. I don't get it either.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:19 AM
Jun 2016

It's not the first time, but hopefully it will all end soon.

AgadorSparticus

(7,963 posts)
111. Maybe it is just coming down to the wire and people are processing not just the loss
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:22 AM
Jun 2016

Of BS campaign but also their other home, GDP.

See you on the other side! 😃

MADem

(135,425 posts)
114. You might be right! In fact, that is a likely explanation!
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:27 AM
Jun 2016

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
164. I was sleeping through all this and awoke
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:40 AM
Jun 2016

to see you'd been competently bam-powing a meteor swarm of insults from every direction. Oh, well. AgadorSparatacus undoubtedly identifies part of it, and today's a new day. Except...where's the announcement?

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
130. Our 'home' was rotting to the core any way. Moving on. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:43 AM
Jun 2016

WhiteTara

(29,730 posts)
180. You have more patience than me!
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 05:02 PM
Jun 2016

I don't usually answer that kind of stuff because there is no consensus building possible. They seem to be on a rant and you are their recipient. Lucky you.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
147. "I see it over and over again--it's a pattern."
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:34 AM
Jun 2016

As clear as the pattern of abuse in a dysfunctional relationship.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
25. no it goes this way if you don't vote for Hillary then you're not a Democrat or a liberal
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:10 AM
Jun 2016

because as we've been told conservatives apparently luvs socialism and "free stuff"

 

840high

(17,196 posts)
33. Enough is right.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:21 AM
Jun 2016

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
39. Ditto dat. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:29 AM
Jun 2016

sheshe2

(84,000 posts)
43. I resent me, a 63 year old woman being called
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:32 AM
Jun 2016

a corporate whore and an oligarch. Yup. That is what I am called for being a liberal
and voting for Hillary. I Am A Democrat, Always have been.

jillan

(39,451 posts)
46. One person used the term corporate whore - the physician who helped write the ACA & he
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:34 AM
Jun 2016

apologized later that same evening when he realized how wrong that was.

sheshe2

(84,000 posts)
49. One?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:37 AM
Jun 2016

LisaM

(27,848 posts)
54. Right?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:42 AM
Jun 2016

I feel as if I am in an alternate universe.

sheshe2

(84,000 posts)
75. Thanks LisaM.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:00 AM
Jun 2016

Thanks.

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
66. Right, and young women who supported Bernie were told...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:52 AM
Jun 2016

That there is a special place in hell for them...

So, touché

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
71. +1000 nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:56 AM
Jun 2016

sheshe2

(84,000 posts)
78. I never said that.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:01 AM
Jun 2016

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
100. You never said that, but Albright sure did
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:15 AM
Jun 2016

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
72. I recall many here calling Mitt a corporate whore and yet no complaints.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:57 AM
Jun 2016

The term has nothing to do with being a woman. Some here make a joke out of real feminism.

Hekate

(90,972 posts)
88. MADem said nothing of the sort
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:05 AM
Jun 2016

Chill

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,123 posts)
160. I think you MORE than qualify.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 07:37 AM
Jun 2016

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
162. Where did she say that? She didn't.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:27 AM
Jun 2016

I don't know you, here or elsewhere, but could it be that you have become addicted to resentment, even temporarily while angry over some situation...like a political reverse? Looking for ways to feed it? Some do, you know.

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
18. LOl. Never thought I'd see the day. Sanders and his supporters are not Democrat enough
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:59 AM
Jun 2016

but Republicans apparently are. Proud, proud moment for the Democratic Party.

One has to laugh. If not- it'll make some cry.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
22. No one said that. Stop allowing bias to cloud your vision.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:07 AM
Jun 2016

Unless you are one of the FEW in that "narrow sliver" of the Venn diagram that intersects with Trump, you are PLENTY Democrat enough. So no need to play the victim.

Being bitter and angry and sardonic isn't going to change anything.

It is a proud, proud moment that Democrats were the ones to nominate the first woman POTUS candidate from a major party. Sorry if you can't see what an important era this is. I won't allow your misery to ruin my joy, though--this is (as Biden says) a BIG F-ING DEAL, and I am celebrating.

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
32. I may be bitter and angry. I can admit that and I can state many reasons why
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:21 AM
Jun 2016

in regards to this election years primaries. However, you bitterness and anger is also on display. But the thing don't understand is why? Why are you bitter and angry?

 

Betty Karlson

(7,231 posts)
45. Because those who love the status quo know that Bernie started something that isn't over yet:
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:33 AM
Jun 2016

they continue to be bitter and angry because we continue to to campaign for something beyond a mere candidacy. They were bitter and angry when they found out Clinton couldn't have her scheduled coronation, so imagine the bitterness and anger when they realised that the entire rest of the election has to be spent winning Sanders supporters. Imagine the anger and bitterness about the propect of continuous criticism from the left for four years, if Clinton manages to win the presidency. Imagine how much they resent the idea that the 20th century is over.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
51. +10,000 nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:38 AM
Jun 2016

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
63. I think you're probably right.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:50 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
50. I don't know where or why you accuse me of that. I'm happy this nightmare is ending.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:37 AM
Jun 2016

Clinton won by millions of votes. More Democrats prefer her--that's life.

And I don't have any "bitterness and anger." That seems to be your issue, not mine.

I am overjoyed that she won the contest, despite the crap being flung at her by people who should know better.

She is battle tested and she will beat Trump like an old rug, and she will be a superb POTUS for ALL of us--even the people who couldn't see their way to supporting her in the primary.

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
59. I disagree and that'll just have to be that.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:47 AM
Jun 2016

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
93. What do you mean no one said that?!
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:08 AM
Jun 2016

Are you so blind...it's in black and whote all over this board. I can't count the number of times that Bernie and his supporters have been accused of not being democrats.

And Hillary herself has been courting rethugs and their donors, so no words necessary.

JimDandy

(7,318 posts)
23. The disconnect with that is bizarre indeed. n/t
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:08 AM
Jun 2016

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
155. What's so Historic about this? I'm genuinely curious why so
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 07:12 AM
Jun 2016

Many believe that a woman in the White House is historic. This isn't like Obama who as a true minority overcame insurmountable odds of a nation that looked nothing like him to become the leader of a nation where his skin color was a true hindrance in winning. Plenty of women have ran and won in countries that were often male dominated. No place had a person of African descent won that was dominated by whites, especially in a post industrialized nation.

This country is a majority women, and I could name several who could win IF they ran. Hillary's problem with winning isn't her gender, but rather her personality.

 

Betty Karlson

(7,231 posts)
37. We don't want status quo in the White House.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:26 AM
Jun 2016

How is that reach-out effort coming along?

 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
172. Bernie supporters likewise don't want Trump in W.H...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:17 PM
Jun 2016

that's why they supported Bernie.

Lyric

(12,675 posts)
157. Same here. I was a Clinton supporter. It stung to lose, but after a break, I got back with it.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 07:22 AM
Jun 2016

After all, I am a Democrat--I will never vote anything but Democratic. And I would never withhold my vote out of pique or spite or a desire to "teach a lesson" to the other side.

In other words, I am a freaking ADULT.

MFM008

(19,827 posts)
4. Hope people reconsider
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:46 AM
Jun 2016

Once they have settled down.
Defeating trumpelforeskin is the most important thing.

jillan

(39,451 posts)
5. Great but my question was about Obama in 2008.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:47 AM
Jun 2016

elleng

(131,290 posts)
9. I wasn't too close to the place, or the candidates, then, jillan.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:50 AM
Jun 2016

I don't expect those who didn't support hrc yesterday to suddenly convert overtly today. I do expect most will vote for the Dem candidate.

MFM008

(19,827 posts)
92. I Cant tell you
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:07 AM
Jun 2016

I dint join till 2010. The 2012 election of course was pretty sedate with a sitting democratic president.

Zynx

(21,328 posts)
7. Anything suggesting that he should lose or in favor of an alternative movement was quashed.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:49 AM
Jun 2016

I supported that then and I support it now. Constructive criticism, such as concern trolling, was allowed and, I think, abused by some.

elleng

(131,290 posts)
12. Quite a distinction between 'constructive criticism' and 'concern trolling,'
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:52 AM
Jun 2016

imo.

Zynx

(21,328 posts)
15. Depends on how it's done.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:57 AM
Jun 2016

Saying "Oh, I don't like how they're doing the campaign. At this rate we'll lose Virginia." is concern trolling masquerading as constructive criticism.

Done legitimately, yes, there's a distinction.

pnwmom

(109,021 posts)
141. Concern trolling is, for example, posting about a new RW book against Hillary,
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:33 AM
Jun 2016

that no one here can evaluate because it's an "insider's" yellow-journalism-style account of her private life.

There is no way such a post could be considered "constructive criticism." It would just be an attempt to post a hit-piece against Hillary.

Do you understand that now?

elleng

(131,290 posts)
142. Not a new issue,
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:35 AM
Jun 2016

and as the book has high numbers on sellers list, it's easily evaluated for any interested. Nothing like concern 'trolling,' whatever the heck that is.

AND further confirmed by another article.

pnwmom

(109,021 posts)
143. That would be an example of concern trolling at its lowest.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:39 AM
Jun 2016

No matter how many articles discussed the book. The truth of such a book's claims, since it purports to discuss Hillary's hidden private life, cannot be evaluated by anyone who just reads the book.

Only the author would know, and he's making a lot of money for shoveling his crap around.

 

JTFrog

(14,274 posts)
10. Here is what Skinner posted in 2008:
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:51 AM
Jun 2016
https://web.archive.org/web/20080828111734/http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6344459

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts)
Wed Jun-11-08 01:33 PM
Original message

Welcome to the General Election. So, what does this mean for Democratic Underground? Updated at 7:08 PM

Now that the Democratic presidential primaries are over, and the seven-day transitional period here on DU has passed, it's time to start looking forward to the General Election between Barack Obama and John McCain.

I think the switch to General Election mode has gone better than expected so far, and I honestly believe that the vast majority of visitors to this website have not had any difficulty moving forward and coming together to support our presidential nominee. Indeed, most of the people who were very active in the heated primary discussions of the past six to nine months have already made great efforts to rebuild the bridges they burned during that time. I'm very glad to see this - but not entirely surprised, considering that the differences between Senator Obama and Senator McCain are so vast and so glaringly obvious.

Unfortunately, there will be a very small number of people on both sides of the former Obama-Clinton divide who want to keep fighting the primaries. I know from previous experience that some of these people will not be able to let it go for years, and may never fully come to terms with what has happened. Hopefully these people will be able to find solace elsewhere because as of today there is no place on DU for those who seem committed to a never-ending rehash of the 2008 Democratic primaries.

If you are wondering what will be permitted here from now on, here is a short excerpt from our rules:

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.


That pretty much covers everything you need to know...

* Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party: Permitted.
* Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks against Democrats: Not permitted.
* Using this message board to work for the defeat of any Democratic Party nominee for any political office: Not permitted.

If you follow those rules, you'll be just fine. If you try to find a way around those rules, you take your chances with the moderators. It's that simple.

SO, WHAT DOES THAT ALL REALLY MEAN?

It is really easy to tell you what is permitted and what is not but in practice it is often very difficult to enforce the guidelines that we set, and that is particularly true in this case. We want to make DU a more civil and unified community where members can support the Democratic nominee, but we do not want to go overboard and disallow honest and open discussion of certain issues. This means that we can rarely draw a bright line and say "Do not cross."

With this in mind, here are a few issues to consider:

Now that Senator Obama is our presumptive nominee, he holds a special position in the party, and on Democratic Underground. Barack Obama is now the only person on the planet who can stop John McCain and finally put an end to the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration. You don't have to love the guy. Heck, you don't even have to particularly like him. But if you act like you want him to lose in November we're not going to cut you a great deal of slack.

You're still allowed to criticize Democrats. And you're even allowed to criticize Barack Obama. But if your criticism smells like a partisan political attack designed to tear down our candidates and help our Republican opponents, we're likely to conclude that it is.

Believing or spreading certain right-wing smears about Senator Obama or Michelle Obama could earn you an immediate tombstone. Ignorance is not an excuse -- everyone on Democratic Underground should know better on this stuff. Some examples: The suggestion that Senator Obama is a Muslim; xeonophobic use of his middle name; spreading rumors about secret videotapes with racist rants. If you're acting like a Freeper or a "concern troll," we'll assume that you are one.

You may not post threats to vote third party, to vote McCain, to not vote, or to write-in a Democrat other than Barack Obama. As in 2004, we will permit some room for sincere expressions of ambivalence toward voting for the Democratic nominee. But we're not going to permit this website to be used for much beyond that. If it looks like you are trying to get people to withhold their votes from Senator Obama, then we're likely to conclude that that is your intent.

No more attacks against people based on the candidate they supported during the primaries. There are no more Clinton supporters, Edwards supporters, or Kucinich supporters on Democratic Underground -- at least not in the sense of supporting their candidacy for president. We are Democrats, and our opponents are John McCain and the Republican Party. So starting threads to attack Clinton supporters or Edwards supporters or Kucinich supporters makes no sense, and it is also counter-productive. Similarly, starting threads to attack Obama supporters would be pretty foolish and nonsensical.

No gratuitous rehashing of the primary fighting. We can't possibly give specific instructions about what is permitted or what is not. The Democratic presidential primary is recent history, and still very fresh in all of our minds, so it is inevitable that there will continue to be a number of discussions on Democratic Underground about it. But if you seem to be discussing the primary in order to inflame or divide our members, we will assume that that is your intent. This goes for people on BOTH SIDES of the former Clinton-Obama divide.

Don't trash the moderators. You all should know how this works by now. If you want the moderators to consider taking action on a post, the first thing you need to do is alert on it. No alert, no action. But more importantly, take a moment right now to re-familiarize yourself with the idea that the moderators are not always going to do your bidding. They arrive at decisions by consensus, and their collaborative process will not always produce the result you desire. If you believe they have truly screwed up then the proper procedure is to send a message to an administrator to see if you can get the decision overturned. Messages that don't contain threats or long passages all in capital letters are more likely to receive a positive hearing, but I'll be honest - in most cases you shouldn't be surprised if the administrator sides with the moderators' decision. What you should absolutely NOT do is start spamming the moderators with rude alerts or private messages, or start threads to slam them publicly. We have, and always will, take a very dim view of this kind of activity.

Have realistic expectations. This is a very active discussion forum filled with passionate, opinionated people. As such, there will always be plenty of robust disagreement. If you're expecting that from now on everyone will always agree with you, or that everyone will always say nice things about Democratic public figures you like -- particularly public figures who have always been controversial here -- then your expectations are not realistic.

I think the vast majority of DUers are relieved to have the Democratic primaries behind us, and are excited about the General Election contest ahead. It's time to look forward, not backward, and we hope that everyone here will do what is necessary to help unify our community, and help win the election in the fall.

grossproffit

(5,591 posts)
13. Thanks for this. There goes another conspiracy theory of things being different back then.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:56 AM
Jun 2016
 

JTFrog

(14,274 posts)
17. No problem.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:59 AM
Jun 2016

Funny thing is, the OP and all those that chime in agreement will completely ignore that post and the facts. Been happening for almost a year around here.



jillan

(39,451 posts)
31. Thanks for this - but it is different. We were allowed to criticize Obama back then -
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:20 AM
Jun 2016
You're still allowed to criticize Democrats. And you're even allowed to criticize Barack Obama.


That's what I thought.

Okay to criticize the nominee then.
Not okay to criticize the nominee now.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
52. I suggest you seek clarification in ATA. I think the guidelines are essentially the same.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:40 AM
Jun 2016

Then, as now, you push the envelope, you take your chances.

 

JTFrog

(14,274 posts)
109. How is it different?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:21 AM
Jun 2016

This is what he said about this election season:

What criticism of Hillary Clinton will be permitted? (link)

Unfortunately, there is not going to be a hard line between "fine" and "not fine."

But basically, I think it comes down to this:

If you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to help her succeed, then you'll be fine. But if you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to tear her down, then you won't be fine.

Now, I'm not a mind reader and I can't know for certain what everyone's intentions are. But I think that if the criticism is coming from a place of "wanting her to succeed" then that will be reflected in the tone and substance of the post. If the criticism is coming from a place of "wanting to tear her down" then that will be reflected in the tone and substance of the post. If you are here on DU then you are supposed to be supporting the Democratic nominee against the Republican nominee in the general election -- it shouldn't be very hard to write a post in a way that sounds like it.

I believe that it will be possible to discuss every substantive issue that DUers might want to discuss.



I think his 2008 post about constructive criticism should be revisited as well.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tgdoyHvB-xcJ:journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/264+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

A thought about context and the constructiveness of criticism.
Posted by Skinner in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Jul 02nd 2008, 08:59 AM

Since the FISA and faith-based stories have been in the news, there has been a lot of discussion about whether (and how) members should be permitted to criticize Barack Obama, our presumptive presidential nominee. I'm not going to get into the gritty details of enforcement, or what is-or-isn't permitted, because that is not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is merely to make an observation about criticism, and the context in which it is offered.

If someone offers criticism of Barack Obama, I find that the criticism is easier to accept if the speaker has already sufficiently demonstrated their support for Senator Obama's candidacy.

Put another way: If you want to be taken seriously, it helps to prove your bona-fides.

To be clear: I'm not speaking as a DU Administrator here. My purpose is merely to offer some helpful insight to those of you who don't seem to understand why you are not showered with rose petals when you offer your special brand of constructive criticism here on DU. Allow me to explain.

If you have spent the last six-to-twelve months trashing Senator Obama here on DU, and since the primaries ended you have not given any credible indication that you are now a supporter of his campaign, then if you post a thread about how you are incredibly disappointed in him because {insert reason here}, people are likely to wonder about your motivations and conclude that you are still trying to derail his campaign.

I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying it's fair. What I am saying is that it is virtually inevitable.

So, if you want to be taken seriously -- if you want your constructive criticism to be accepted as constructive -- I humbly suggest that you put some effort into demonstrating that you actually want our guy to win this thing.



 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
150. Well done...thanks for taking the trouble to compile this.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:41 AM
Jun 2016

joshcryer

(62,287 posts)
154. That's what it comes down to.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 07:05 AM
Jun 2016

Criticism of Clinton in order to make her lose. That's the kind of shit we see here daily. And hopefully it will soon be going away.

DesertRat

(27,995 posts)
58. Thank you for posting this
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:47 AM
Jun 2016
Believing or spreading certain right-wing smears about Senator Obama or Michelle Obama could earn you an immediate tombstone. Ignorance is not an excuse -- everyone on Democratic Underground should know better on this stuff. Some examples: The suggestion that Senator Obama is a Muslim; xeonophobic use of his middle name; spreading rumors about secret videotapes with racist rants. If you're acting like a Freeper or a "concern troll," we'll assume that you are one.



 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
11. Apparently, this years Hillbots are far more fragile
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:51 AM
Jun 2016

than the Obama folks were eight years ago.

All along they've been shocked and outraged at every truthful statement that doesn't hold her up to sainthood.


JohnnyRingo

(18,672 posts)
14. The Terms of Service were in effect then.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:56 AM
Jun 2016

The attacks against Hillary on this site far exceed anything I've seen posted about another Democrat except for Joe Leiberman.

Certainly Obama was never subjected to the vile accusations and slime the Clintons have endured.

Zynx

(21,328 posts)
16. The attacks against her have, on average, been far worse than what was said about Lieberman.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:58 AM
Jun 2016
 

Lazy Daisy

(928 posts)
87. You're kidding right?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:04 AM
Jun 2016

I didn't see the little sarcasm thingy so......

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
21. I was here in 2008 and recall no gag orders issued.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:03 AM
Jun 2016

MADem

(135,425 posts)
27. You might want to refresh your memory at POST 10. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:12 AM
Jun 2016

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
181. you are correct
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 05:03 PM
Jun 2016

I was here then

 

laserhaas

(7,805 posts)
26. The rule then and now is that you cant trounce
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:11 AM
Jun 2016

The canidate.

Difference is, back then, Hillary conceded.

We are in unchartered waters, of a brokered convention. For whatever reasons, the lord of the realm is making a hardline rule.

IMO ..prematurely...but it is -after all - his realm

MADem

(135,425 posts)
29. No, we aren't in "uncharted" waters--Hillary is the presumptive nominee.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:14 AM
Jun 2016

The admins have spoken on this already. And so have the American people who voted in the Democratic primaries. It's over.

 

laserhaas

(7,805 posts)
34. Presumps..assumps..are the mother of all.....
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:22 AM
Jun 2016

And...you cant handle the truth..for we ARE

Where DU has never been

Headed to a brokered convention

And thats the ONLY truth..known..at this time

MADem

(135,425 posts)
40. She will be nominated on the first ballot. If that's what you call "brokered"
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:30 AM
Jun 2016

knock yourself out.

jcgoldie

(11,656 posts)
115. so "brokered"
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:27 AM
Jun 2016

... means that the loser refused to concede? What difference does that make besides leaving a lot of people pissed off on both sides?

TwilightZone

(25,512 posts)
165. You clearly have no idea what a brokered convention is.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:43 AM
Jun 2016

You should really do some research so you don't look silly.

joshcryer

(62,287 posts)
166. Clinton supporters are the minority here.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:50 AM
Jun 2016

We are certainly in uncharted waters when it comes to a site moderated by the community. Hopefully the drastic changes that the admins have taken are going to work (and hopefully they start expunging shitty juries, because they will still be brigaded). If anything it illustrates mob mentality and how the majority can easily oppress the minority if they wish.

2012 was actually very fucked up under the self-moderating system. With trolls like Better Believe It and Manny Goldstien, among others, allowed to trash Obama right up into the closing weeks of election day. We literally, literally had calls for Nader to run and predictions that Obama would lose. It was crazy shit man.

And the only reason the Manny's and WillyT's STFU was because trolls like Better Believe It got banned and it sent them a message. Other trolls just slinked off until Obama won, hoping and praying, while rubbing their grubby hands together, that Obama would lose to Romney so they could yell "Told you so!"

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
44. This is not
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:33 AM
Jun 2016

A brokered convention. You apparently do not know what that means. No brokers(negotiators) will be needed. Clinton will win on the first vote.

The only negotiating that will be done is how Bernie will concede. I hope he bargains hard because some of us Hillary supporters like some of his positions.

Have a nice evening.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
176. There is not going to be a brokered Democratic convention.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:46 PM
Jun 2016

There may be a brokered Republican convention, so stock up on popcorn.

underthematrix

(5,811 posts)
28. I ignore negative posts about PRESIDENT Obama
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:13 AM
Jun 2016

because that's what I expect to see here especially since POTUS endorsed HRC for President.I love him and for me there will never ever be another like him.

 

laserhaas

(7,805 posts)
35. Good for you
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:23 AM
Jun 2016

KeepItReal

(7,769 posts)
56. Obama never had anything to criticize, policy-wise, going into the nomination
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:43 AM
Jun 2016

He didn't have a record of votes, a Foundation, or foreign policy missteps to worry about.

That's the difference.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
85. That's a big difference
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:04 AM
Jun 2016

Plus Obama was clearly anti-war. And he offered hope and change.

Once the convention is over then it does make sense to not have DU be used as working to undercut the nominee.

For three months afterwards, the campaign is in full swing and then after the election it will be pretty much an open forum again with new realities to ponder.

I look forward to no more Bernie bashing allowed.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
102. +10,000 nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:17 AM
Jun 2016
 

JTFrog

(14,274 posts)
169. See post 109. n/t
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:42 AM
Jun 2016

tblue37

(65,522 posts)
64. That has always been part of the TOS here. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:51 AM
Jun 2016

Hekate

(90,972 posts)
81. It's normal, and expected.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:02 AM
Jun 2016

PatrickforO

(14,602 posts)
96. Well, I've certainly been banned (unjustly, I believe) from the Obama room.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:10 AM
Jun 2016

On balance, Obama has done far more good than not, and history will count him as a very good if not great president.

However, I was very disappointed in two things: he did not tell us that GATS was why he was taking single payer 'off the table' in 2009. Because we could HAVE single payer if he was not at heart a 'free trader.'

The proof?

Obama's eagerness to get the TPP fast tracked and then passed - sure, it took a revolt in party ranks to put a stop, at least temporarily to the vote.

I also didn't care for the fact we are still involved in so many wars and are again escalating in Afghanistan. Or the drones. Or the NSA.

Still, on balance, Obama has done more good than not, and certainly has been vastly superior to either McCain or Romney. For sure.

I should not be banned from the Obama room, and neither should you. If you want a laugh, I believe the same happy person followed me around this site and also banned me briefly from the BERNIE room! LOL. Imagine that, if you've read any of my posts at all.

pnwmom

(109,021 posts)
140. You missed it. This is what happened then. n/t
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:30 AM
Jun 2016
 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
161. Not really. There was no rule against being critical of his policies. Being critical of stated
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:22 AM
Jun 2016

positions is a tool of political progress. Note, Obama ran fuming away about his enormous Christianity being hotly opposed to equal rights for LGBT.
If I had been asked to support that crock of bigotry silently I'd have left DU. Criticism of wrongheaded policies was not forbidden. I'd go so far as to say that those of us who pushed Obama on marriage equality assisted him in obtaining a chapter in his own legacy as well as our own rights. Those who nodded along in agreement with him opposing marriage equality just look biased and wrong and late to the party.

joshcryer

(62,287 posts)
168. In 2008 most DUers had rose colored glasses.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:55 AM
Jun 2016

There was no need to implement any rules because the vast, overwhelming majority of DUers supported Obama. It wasn't until after he won did DUers take an about face over him and changed completely and utterly. I had my first locked thread ever here when he chose Warren as his inauguration pick and I snarked that at least DU was united against that one. If anything the PUMAs came out making fun of Obama supporters for thinking he was some kind of liberal savior.

2012 is a more telling example, and Better Believe It, the right wing troll who actually argued for shutting down ACA among many other troll things, was allowed to post well into the GE.

BainsBane

(53,112 posts)
153. It's in the TOS you agreed to when you joined the site
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:55 AM
Jun 2016

It isn't new. What is new is the extent of vitriol against the Democratic Party.


The web is full of RW sites where you can post all the Anti-Clinton, anti-Democratic material you want. This site is for Democrats. It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out that a site for Democrats doesn't want people posting stuff to help put the GOP in office.

As for the oft-repeated excuse about "underground," there are other sites with underground in the title, conservative underground for example, which regularly post material crititical of Clinton. They are not, however, sites organized around support for the Democratic Party, as DU is.

 

w4rma

(31,700 posts)
156. You sure do like to throw your little rule hammers around. It's my understanding that Clinton
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 07:15 AM
Jun 2016

doesn't follow rules, though. She was severely reprimanded by Obama's administration for not following the rules with her private, basement e-mail server.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
179. I don't think adhering to a system you agreed to when you joined is "throwing little rule hammers ar
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:57 PM
Jun 2016

I don't think adhering to a system you agreed to when you joined is "throwing little rule hammers around." It;s simply keeping your to your own word, regardless of what others may do.

I hope we can count on you to keep your word as you agreed to and maintain civility in this upcoming election... even if you think keeping your word is "throwing little rule hammers around"

sufrommich

(22,871 posts)
158. Maybe you don't remember it because
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 07:32 AM
Jun 2016

you were an Obama supporter.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
170. exactly. nt
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:44 AM
Jun 2016

liberal N proud

(60,351 posts)
163. What JTFrog posted
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:31 AM
Jun 2016
 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
167. Lol
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:54 AM
Jun 2016

okieinpain

(9,397 posts)
173. +100 n/t.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:04 PM
Jun 2016
 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
175. I was here. I remember Skinner's carefully worded missive that constructive criticism
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:41 PM
Jun 2016

I was here. I remember Skinner's carefully worded missive that constructive criticism of Obama would in fact, be tolerated in precisely the same way that constructive criticism of Clinton is also (and will be) both allowed and tolerated.

Response to jillan (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I was here in 2008. I sup...