The real reason Bernie's supporters are being attacked is because they are very effective

[Bjorn Against]

Over the past few months there has been an aggressive effort to smear Bernie Sanders supporters. Many broadbrush attacks have been made, sometimes even going so far as to suggest that his supporters are white supremecists. The attacks are often not even consistent, sometimes his supporters are portrayed as the far left fringe, other times they are compared with right-wing Ron Paul or Donald Trump supporters.

Anyone who actually knows any Bernie supporters in real life however knows that these attacks against them are nothing more than smears. The vast majority of Bernie supporters are not white supremecists, they are people who are passionate about civil rights issues and want a candidate who has spent his career fighting for equality. The vast majority of Bernie supporters do not hold fringe political beliefs, they are people who believe in universal access to health care, better schools, environmental protection, ending wars, and raising the wages of workers. These are not "far left" fringe views, these are positions that are held by tens of millions of Americans.

Most of the smears that have been made against Sanders supporters have been absolutely false, yet there is a small group that continues to make broadbrush attacks. But why target Bernie's supporters and not the candidate?

The answer seems obvious to me. The Bernie campaign is about more than a candidate, it is about building a movement to shake up the status quo and bring about real change. Bernie did not achieve the level of success he has had in this campaign on his own, he achieved it because tens of thousands of people got involved in his campaign. Bernie has been clear from day one that this campaign is not about him, it is about starting a political revolution to challenge the billionaire class.

This terrifies those who want to maintain the status quo, they do not just need to stop Bernie but they also need to bring down his supporters as well because they don't want to see a political movement grow which challenges their power.

Already Bernie's supporters have shown how effective they are at organizing for change. Bernie's campaign has far more volunteers than any other, he has more small donors than any other candidate, his supporters turn up by the thousands and even tens of thousands for his events, no other candidate has a group of supporters that are as organized and motivated as Bernie's.

Bernie's supporters are just as much a threat to the status quo as Bernie himself is because they view this campaign as being about something much bigger than their candidate, they view it as a real opportunity to change the political system as we know it and eventually that is going to spill off into downticket races as well. I have no doubt that Bernie is going to inspire many new people to run for Congress, it will inspire them to run for local offices and judicial seats, it will inspire them to organize community groups to advocate for change, it will inspire a major change within the Democratic Party and across the political system.

Those who want to protect the status quo are desperately trying to stop this from happening so you can expect more attacks on Bernie supporters in the future. It is going to get nasty, but the people who are engaging in these smears will be shown to be on the wrong side of history and they are going to be the ones who end up looking very bad in the end.

[cheapdate]

1. Some Bernie supporters

are so petty and annoying that I'm almost reluctant to publicly count myself as one of them. Same goes for some Hillary Clinton supporters.

Other than that, your post is on point.

[Bjorn Against]

5. All serious candidates are going to have a few bad apples among their supporters

You don't build up a coalition of millions without getting a few assholes among those millions, but those assholes are usually not representative of the group as a whole. There are a few who have tried to act as if a few bad apples were representative of all Bernie supporters and this is absolutely false, the large majority of Bernie supporters are good people.

[jfern]

7. For some reason the behavior of Hillary supporters doesn't seem to matter

[Nothingcleverjustray]

29. Because there's not that many of them.

[roguevalley]

38. of course there are. you missed the post where instead of listing it as the Hillary group

They put normal people group

[HooptieWagon]

104. Maybe we missed them because 90% of DU is banned from the group...

..or has put them on ignore. I compare them to a Justin Bieber fan club...lightweights.

[JackInGreen]

139. Hooptie

Whoever named the pos car after you, they were wrong.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

166. The last DU poll was around 80%-20% Bernie.

Hillary support is dwindling...

[Skwmom]

142. This board is loaded with Hillary supporters. n/t

[cheapdate]

16. And all serious candidates

are going to have everything, including the kitchen sink, thrown at them by people who don't want them to succeed. When Bernie Sanders begins to see "bestseller" books about him published and put into mass-distribution -- books that ruthlessly and scurrilously slander him from cover to cover; accusing him of every black-hearted deception and crime under the sun -- as they have for Hillary Clinton for decades now, then Bernie will know he's made it to the top.

[marble falls]

131. All those nasty Hillary Clinton books aren't the reason I won't vote for her in the primary .....

its her pro stance on fracking, Keystone, capital punishment, IWR, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, the Afghan War, three strikes law, mandatory minimum sentencing, TPP, the private prison industry, 'black' money, banksters and Wall Street.......

Screw those books, she tends to support policies that those "authors" also support, they just don't like her.

[cheapdate]

170. Solid reasons to support Sanders over Clinton. n/t.

[hifiguy]

171. Her history, her associations and her positions are the reasons I can NOT

support her. Anyone who buddies up to monsters like Blankfein, War Criminal Kissinger and Murdoch is by definition utterly untrustworthy.

And she has been running for president non-stop even longer than Richard Nixon did. Anyone who wants the office that badly should never come within a parsec of it.

[Ed Suspicious]

17. Insofar as I am an asshole it's wholly a defense mechanism in response to unfounded allegations that

I am one. I am perfectly happy discussing issues, until the shit starts to be slung. When that happens my hypocrisy meter pegs and I come armed and ready to pick up the shit and monkey toss it back at the instigators. We don't need to sit there and subserviently take it. Sling shit my way, expect to get a faceful back when you fuck up. Nature of my inner beast. Go back to behaving like adults and I'm elated to join you at the grownup's table.

[cheapdate]

25. In a strange way,

your words have an excellent rhythm and flow, but the meaning is cryptic. Give me a face full, if that's what you're saying.

Some Bernie supporters are so petty and annoying that I'm almost reluctant to publicly count myself as one of them. Same goes for some Hillary Clinton supporters.

I said it, and I meant it. It was a dickish, childish, and petty thing to say, but that's about how I'm feeling.

[valerief]

53. Petty and annoying. Name-calling is not presenting facts. Name-calling is petty and annoying. nt

[cheapdate]

87. I obviously wasn't making a factual argument.

Opinion comprised the whole of the post. While that might seem strange to you, I think you'll find if you browse through some threads, that opinions make up a significant part of what gets posted here.

Furthermore, I think if you read maybe 5 or 10 threads in the Sanders group, and then read 5 or 10 threads in the HRC group, it's likely that you'll get a glimpse of what I'm talking about.

[virtualobserver]

8. Dr. West speaks the truth, just as Bernie does....some people can't handle the truth

[rhett o rick]

33. Another low post count Clinton supporter. Yikes. nm

[hifiguy]

46. LOTS of that type lately.

I wonder what their pay-per-post rate is.

[L0oniX]

81. Flag'd for review.

Just avoided MIRT by post count.

[rhett o rick]

95. Can someone be "flagged for review" after they get the 100 post milestone? nm

[L0oniX]

153. Looks like it. Maybe how long they've been a member is part of it.

[yardwork]

129. Are you serious?

The people posting such praise for Cornel West in this thread would ban him instantly if he showed up on DU and said anything against Bernie Sanders. The language!!!! Horrors! Pearl clutch.

You're ready to ban a poster for defending President Obama?

This is just silly. The hypocrisy doesn't deserve any more serious a term than that - just silly.

P.S. Chitown Kev may be new to DU, but a poster by that name has posted for a long time on another political blog. I don't think he's a troll sent by Hillary, as this sub thread seems to suggest.

[Bobbie Jo]

132. Yet another AA poster shut down.

Chitown Kev is related to another long-time AA DU'er.

This has gone past the point of ridiculous. I'll just leave it at that for now.

[hueymahl]

146. One of the great things about an internet forum like this

Is that unless you investigate or have prior knowledge, you truly do no know whether the poster is male, female, TG, black, white, hispanic, etc.

Idealistically, this gives you the opportunity engage the ideas without any of the implicit or explicit filters and prejudices that are inherent in the "real world."

For example, based on the words of Chitown Kev's (now hidden) post, I was left with the impression that he is improperly racially motivated in his outlook. In the RW, if he was not black, his statements could easily be taken as offensive. With the added knowledge that he is AA, it does put them in context and makes them more "acceptable" but only because he is AA.

Hence the very interesting dichotomy. The same words, spoken by a person of color are ok, but when spoken by anyone else, they result in a justifiable hide. Depending on your point of view, it is either race-based alert stalking or an innocuous every-day alert (perhaps an overly politically correct alert, but that is another topic).

Lots of sides to this one.

[yardwork]

150. I see nothing wrong with his post.

[L0oniX]

152. +1

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

167. Seems like most of them bring it on themselves.

[Capt. Obvious]

143. That hide is proof positive of the alert stalking going on here

[druidity33]

172. Oh please... "black-face billy club"?

Isn't that exactly the type of language that makes Dr Cornel West unacceptable to the HRC supporters here?

[AgingAmerican]

179. It's proof you can't get away with calling people filthy names

Even if you support Hillary.

[L0oniX]

154. The complaint department is on the 13th floor.

I had nothing to do with this. Anyone can look up a members profile and see the flagged for review. Try it sometime.

[MrScorpio]

160. A low count poster who just happens to be my COUSIN in real life

And no, Kev, is not a Clinton Supporter.

I would know.

[rhett o rick]

162. Well then give him my apology. I've just noticed a fair number of low

post count posters that are attacking Sen Sanders in the Sanders Group.

[MrScorpio]

163. Trust me... Kev has no intention on going into the Sanders Group

And neither would I, for that matter.

I don't go into ANY of the candidate forums.

[jfern]

9. Wait

So white supremacists like black African American professors who say that Fox News strongly opposes BLM because of their "white fear grounded in white privilege"?

[Bjorn Against]

10. Did you really just refer to a prominent black academic as a "black face billy club"?

I never browbeat black people, but if you are going to refer to a prominent black man as a "black face billy club" then it is quite clear to me that you are the one with the problem.

[malokvale77]

13. That one kinda proved your point. nt

[frylock]

14. It's the exact kind of language that Dr. West would use..

the exact kind of language that the poster takes exception with, when used to criticize President Obama.

[cheapdate]

18. Yup.

Think it was a bulls%$t hide, though. I would have voted to Leave It.

[jfern]

22. Agreed, over the top, but I would have kept it too

[rhett o rick]

34. Doesn't make sense. You are justifying wanting to leave the post because YOU THINK that

Dr. West MIGHT say something like that? What the poster said was rude. I think it's situational ethics. It's ok if your side is rude.

[cheapdate]

42. Whoa...you're reading too much into it.

I think the poster's argument is a really bad one for multiple reasons.

It's a rehash of the very same argument that raged here on DU for several days after the disruption in Seattle -- with some people defending the activists who disrupted the event, and others (like myself) proposing that the behavior of the activists was utterly indefensible. Furthermore, I think it's undeniable that these same arguments still simmer under the surface among some people here.

There are several reasons I wouldn't have hidden it. It was general and wasn't explicitly directed toward anyone in particular. It was (presumably) an honestly held view (even if it was confused and arguably internally inconsistent.) Rude? To who?

No way I would have hidden that post. My perspective on "beyond the pale" is much farther than that.

[rhett o rick]

73. Here is what he said, "maybe they shouldn't act like white supremacists by browbeating black people

and, as of late, using Dr. Cornel West as their black-face billy club."

Saying that Sen Sanders supporters "act like white supremacists by browbeating black people ". That's inflammatory and violates the Community Standards.

"and, as of late, using Dr. Cornel West as their black-face billy club." Really? You can't see how that is inflammatory, rude and possibly racist? Dr. West is being used as a black-faced billy club?

But I'm guessing you think it's cool as long as it's directed at Sen Sanders. Situational ethics.

[Ed Suspicious]

78. I think Dr. West is far to smart to be used for anything he doesn't

want to be used for.

[cheapdate]

86. Hey...pump your brakes, man.

Or not. For a second time now, you're throwing out hasty conclusions, which at this point, I could almost conclude is deliberate.

It has nothing to do with "situational ethics" or what "side" I'm on. My ethics are consistent in this matter, which I made pretty clear in my last reply. But as you seem to have either deliberately or unintentionally ignored my point, I'll make it again. But not the whole damn thing, you can reread if you want

The poster made a deliberate point of limiting his claim to "SOME (all caps by poster)" Sanders supporters. This is a HUGE distinction in my book and one that many, if not most, posters fail to do (and one that you seem to have sort-of left out in your recounting). The poster gets huge props from me for making a qualified statement as opposed to an unqualified one.

So who are the "some" supporters? DU members? Someone he met on the street? Who knows? Let's ask him...oh yeah, we can't.

If you had bothered to read my last reply, I was very clear, and went into some detail, about my opinion of the soundness of his argument. I believe it's unsound..."indefensible"...was how I described it earlier.

But, what it seems that you object to mostly, besides your false understanding of my ethics and principles, is the poster's "black-faced billy club" metaphor. Obviously, he's proposing that he believes "some" people are using Dr. Cornell West as a defensive tool, furthermore, that these unnamed "some" are doing so inappropriately and disingenuously to deflect attention from their own implied hidden racism, or some such bullshit.

It's insulting to Dr. West -- who is an unwitting tool in the metaphor -- and it's insulting to the unnamed "some", who are portrayed as unprincipled and dishonest. It's a crappy, yet familiar argument all around, as I made PERFECTLY CLEAR in my last reply. But is the metaphor by itself so egregious that we eject the entire post? You say it is and I say it isn't. It's a bad metaphor but it makes what he's arguing pretty clear.

Go ahead and impugn my ethics, and make hasty unsupported guesses about my "side". I don't care any more. I've said all I wanted to say.

[mythology]

52. I don't think Cornel West would say something like that. West has said that

"but we end up with a Republican, a Rockefeller Republican in blackface, with Barack Obama"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/12/cornel_west_obama_a_republican_in_blackface_msnbc_hosts_selling_their_souls.html

That said, using the phrase without at least expressly establishing why you are using the term "blackface" is a recipe for being hidden. Personally I wouldn't have used it because I find the phrase offensive in that it presumes there is a singular authentic black identity and anybody who doesn't fit whatever the speaker's definition isn't. It's basically a no true scotsman argument.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike West for his own words. I don't like to lower myself to his level of invective.

[pnwmom]

64. Which is the point, frylock. He knows it and was alluding to it.

West has been calling President Obama names like this for years -- and some people here applaud him for it.

So why can't this African American poster turn it back on West?

If it is offensive when this poster calls West a name, why are people here excusing West's years of calling Obama similar names and worse?

[uponit7771]

20. West is an asshole more than some academic... he's Trump without the money and much more petulance

[pnwmom]

43. Why is it okay for Cornel West to call Obama a "black puppet" and a "black mascot"

and a "n***ized President"?

Are you unaware of the slurs that West has used against Obama or do you just think the poster wasn't?

To anyone who is familiar with what West said about Obama, the poster's reaction is understandable.

[Bjorn Against]

47. This thread is not about Cornel West

Cornel West did not make those statements as part of the Bernie campaign and it is not my job to defend every statement a Sanders supporter has ever made. What I can tell you is that if it is wrong for West to make statements like that then it is wrong for people you agree with to make them as well.

[pnwmom]

49. This subthread IS. Because the person whose post was hidden

was alluding to West's language in his post.

[Bjorn Against]

54. Yes someone tried to derail this thread and make it about Cornel West

That does not mean I am going to allow you to derail further. It is not my job to defend every statement a Sanders supporter has ever made, I am concerned about what is said in this thread and this thread was not about Cornel West until someone had to come in and accuse him of wearing black face.

[pnwmom]

57. You are not going to allow me? What is that supposed to mean? Do you own the thread? n/t

[Bjorn Against]

60. It means that I am not going to get baited into changing the subject to Cornel West

I can't stop you from derailing, but I will note that you are derailing when you try to make the topic about Cornel West rather than the OP.

[pnwmom]

62. You asked an African American man why he used that slur against Cornel West

and he can't answer you because somebody got his post hidden.

So I'm answering based on what I know about the situation:

He used the same kind of slur against West that he knows West has seen fit to use repeatedly against President Obama.

[AgingAmerican]

180. He speaks the language of AA studies and BLM

Context is everything

[frylock]

12. browbeating black people

mm-hmmm mm-hmmm mm-hmmm

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Hillary 'splained to them how the real world works

they should be thankful for the lesson.

Regards,

TWM

[Bjorn Against]

26. Watch it Manny or I am going to show up at your house in my raccoon suit again

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

168. Yeah, how the real white privileged world works.

[pnwmom]

44. Browbeating? It looks like she's calmly listening to him and taking him seriously. n/t

[dionysus]

119. i take it you didn't watch the video. she finger-wagged him and said "well then maybe i'll just talk

to only white people about this problem".

[arlington.mass]

48. Classic HRC

classic video of a career politician pretending to listen to the "average americans"

never mind, she's dropped that term as it's not currently polling well

[Ed Suspicious]

80. I think term was "everyday American."

[Juicy_Bellows]

3. Very well said!

Every Sanders supporter I have met in real life seems like a wonderful, kindhearted person. I also think that carriers over to most of the Sanders supporters on DU - you all seem like lovely people! Their smears carry no weight because they are based without merit - light, fluffy, playful snowballs.

Cheers.

[840high]

4. The real reson is

we love truth from the heart.

[beam me up scottie]

6. And they're using guilt by association to attack all of us.

I'm still up for whatever they're going to throw at us, it's going to take more than that to drive me off.

[Bubzer]

59. +1

About what I'd expect from anyone sporting a hello-kitty/Cthulhu mash up in their sig-line

[malokvale77]

11. So very well stated.

I suspect they're mud slinging at their own reflections.

[roguevalley]

41. we all lived through the same times. some just remember it differently

[GitRDun]

15. This OP for me sums up what bothers me about Sanders supporters

Your perception:

Over the past few months there has been an aggressive effort to smear Bernie Sanders supporters. Many broad brush attacks have been made, sometimes even going so far as to suggest that his supporters are white supremacists.

There may be an occasional post that truly insinuates white supremacy, but there is a massive gap between your perception and reality. Most of what I see is folks trying to discuss what was clearly a misstep or two by Sanders with BLM, a tin ear as to what is important to minority communities, and an observation that a relationship with Cornell West might be bad strategy due to West's history. Those aren't smears. They're just different opinions.

There are so few Bernie Sanders critics left on this site, it strikes me as odd that you would still feel persecuted.

More misperceptions:

This terrifies those who want to maintain the status quo

Bernie's supporters are just as much a threat to the status quo as Bernie himself

Those who want to protect the status quo are desperately trying to stop this from happening

I have not seen a single post that indicated a DU member was satisfied with the status quo. It seems to me that everyone knows what the problems are, their are just some who think HRC or MOM would do a better job solving those problems.

I've been accused of being a HRC supporter, a BS supporter, the works. The truth is I don't have a candidate yet. I'm still doing my research and looking forward to the debates.

I will tell you one thing I do know. If Bernie Sanders isn't a better listener. more tolerant, gracious, and less paranoid candidate than some of his supporters here on DU are, he won't stand a chance.

[TheFarS1de]

21. A few posts inferring white supremacy ?

The first few posts are exactly that with multiple posts prior to that , basically after BLM it has been a racial mudslinging contest . I find the constant distraction of identity politics versus actual policy is to the detriment of good discourse but all we seem to see is serve after serve of divisive tactics utilised combined with a feigned outrage after the ban hammer comes down . This site imo is suffering from huge racial divides and the process only seems to be getting uglier by the day .

No one likes being called a label , yet if you have a certain skin colour it can apparently affect even one's ability to think according to some . I will treat everyone as an equal IF it is reciprocated . At the moment it is nothing more than a cesspool . Just check how many titles in THIS forum relate to skin colour . It is vile and shows how little some have to contribute to the discussion , short of snark .

[GitRDun]

27. You are entitled to your opinion, I just don't see it the way you do.

What I see is people projecting they are being smeared, called racist..when really what's happening is others are pointing out Sanders campaign missteps, a tin ear in some speeches, etc.

I've learned a lot by listening, reading links given by people who know the topic, etc. What I'm seeing from some (not a plurality) BS supporters is a rush to "correct the record" as quickly as possible, deny what seem like obvious BS tactical, campaign mistakes, and pile on opinions that are different than their own.

The whole notion of this OP is that people who want the status quo are smearing Sanders supporters because they are envious of Sanders campaign organizing capabilities. Really?

I haven't seen HRC supporters or others arguing for the status quo, have you?
Bernie is just starting in SC, Hillary is already national. Why would there be envy?

Lastly, disagreeing is not smearing. It's OK to say he needs to build bridges with minority communities. That does not equate to saying he's a racist or any of his supporters are...it's just a fact.

[Marty McGraw]

31. ?

BS = not a (subtle) smear tactic?

[GitRDun]

35. Lol I don't think that way.

I like Bernie. I like his economic justice message. I have my concerns about him that I'll keep to myself until I've done enough research to have an opinion.

I feel the same about Hillary. She's clearly built more constituencies in Washington and with voters than Bernie has which, absent other factors, would make her a more effective leader. There are multiple negatives as well that I'm currently researching, including two things I've posted comments on; corporate ties and overt hawkishness, particularly as relates to Israel.

I am just beginning my look at MOM. From what I see, he should get more play from the media. He seems like a good candidate.

Your insinuation strikes me as just what my earlier comments described. It seems you are projecting some motive onto me that just isn't there.

Perhaps you were joking but it doesn't seem like it.

[Marty McGraw]

37. Then I aplologise

For my jumping impulsively and will take this as a lesson before posting so quickly the next time.

Some of us are a little raw from the current rabble, and I don't need to add to that.

[GitRDun]

51. No worries eom

[Andy823]

32. I couldn't have said it better!

Thank you very much for pointing out the facts. Those who disagree with Bernie on certain issues do not love the status quo. As you pointed out they simply think that another candidate is the better choice. I prefer O'Malley, but if Bernie is the nominee, I will gladly vote for him, as I will with Hlllary.

What I see is a handful of posters who "claim" to be supporting Bernie that have been playing the "victim" card by coming up all kinds of things that just aren't happening, but they claim they are. The vast majority of Bernie supporters are great people who I have a lot of respect for, just like I have respect for Hillary supporters, or any of the other candidates.

I decided on supporting O'Malley because of his past recored on getting things done, and his in detail white papers on how he will accomplish that task. I have never attacked Bernie or Hillary.

[TheFarS1de]

56. of course some topics are relevant

However one cannot misinterpret "white supremacist" or it's inference . It is utilized for the exact purpose of discrediting a person based on their skin colour , irrespective of the point being argued to throw that out there is a conversation killer . As for the point about his campaign making mistakes that is one of personal opinion .

[GitRDun]

63. Misinterpreting posts regarding race and Bernie Sanders is like breathing around here.

People are fallible.

The written word does not always translate the author's sentiment perfectly. That's the nature of writing, reading, interpretation. I've spent hours in English class talking over different messages in literature and here you are saying it's impossible to misinterpret an amateur writer's intent on the internet. Look at some of the responses to my posts in this thread.

This certainty, the projection of a motive on the author is exactly what I'm talking about.

The mere assertion that ANYONE can be certain of an author's intent 100% of the time is ludicrous to me.

The reason there are so few non-Sanders supporters on the site is exactly because too many are making the same mistaken assumption that you are...they know exactly what the author means without need for further probing.

Certainty leads to ignorance. We should have learned that with W and Cheney. DU should be better.

[pnwmom]

45. Good post. Thanks!

[TheProgressive]

19. People attack Bernie supporters because...

...there is nothing to attack Senator Sanders with.

[MisterP]

23. each Sandernista, even Pubs, is being educated on how the system is not only failing them,

but being MADE to fail: they're gonna see how the political class operates hand-in-glove with the corporatists; both parties have yapped about "sellouts" and "crony capitalism" for years, but Sanders's campaign shows why it's wrong and how to recognize it when it happens, whether when a Pub points to Mexicans (for economics) or the pink menace or when the Dems use party structure to separate votes from policies passed

[cantbeserious]

28. Stand Firm - No Citizen Need Settle For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[book_worm]

30. On DU I find equal numbers of Hillary & Bernie supporters annoying

[Thor_MN]

40. Out of curiosity, what do you think about Clinton and Sanders Attackers?

I draw a difference between those that support a candidate (more power to them) and those that attack the other candidate (those that make this place kind of shitty).

I'm as yet undecided, I see pros and cons to all the candidates.

I see the candidates not going negative on each other. I see the true Supporters saying positive things and I see those that choose not to follow their candidates standards and go negative on the other candidate. There should be a word for a person that has nothing but negative comments about the other candidate.

[passiveporcupine]

96. Just out of curiousity

If all anyone talked about on this forum were the positives of their candidate, how would anyone learn about the negatives that we all NEED to know to make a wise choice?

How can pointing out factual and historical negative policy choices, be considered "negative" campaigning?

If we don't talk about the things Hillary has done that scare us, how will anyone else new to the game find out about it? And if you don't talk about the things Bernie wants to do that scare you (or from his history) then how will anyone new know to research those issues?

Attacking a candidate is playing dirty...swiftboating...going after things that are not fair game (like Benghazi, e-mail problems, marital problems, etc, a story written when in college, etc.).

Going after real policy decisions and stances is not attacking. It is informing. How can anyone make a fair choice if they are not honestly informed?

[Thor_MN]

134. Good points, but you totally ignore the the voluminous, baseless right wing talking points.

Sorry, you seem to have confused me for a Clinton supporter. I haven't made me mind up yet. I'm just looking for a level playing field, free of snide, condescending comments against each other (us, not the candidates). I've had my fill of "Your concern is noted."

Do me a favor. Go through the titles of OPs on this forum. Count the obvious attacks against the two main candidates. Compare the totals. If you find one attack against Sanders, let me know because I am not seeing any.

[passiveporcupine]

173. I apologize...I did not mean to identify you as a clinton supporter

I just boxed myself in and should have worded it better.

I just looked at the first page of primaries and saw one thread that said
Hillary sign the big red arrow pointing the right.
I consider that a foolish topic and therefor an "attack" ad.

Then I saw "Why do Hillary Bashers continually ignore policy
To me that is an attack on Bernie supporters, not Bernie

Then there is one about Hillary fans changing their meme as Bernie becomes more popular.
I consider that a silly attack against Hillary supporters.

Then there is one that is disgusted that Bernie associates with Cornel West
I am not that familiar with Bernie's association with West, but this may be a legitimate complaint and I won't call it an "attack"

There is one that is saying Hillary is making a huge mistake by taking the same tactic with Bernie that she did with Obama. Boasting her superior experience and ability to get things done.
To me that is a fair discussion and not an unwarranted attack

Another Cornel West post...again a fair discussion, not an unwarranted attack on Bernie. Some people think he is too racist. Others think that he speaks the truth.

I could keep going...I'm only half way through the page, but is it necessary?

So far I see
one attack on Hillary
one attack on Bernie supporters
one on Hillary supporters

So I see equal attacks on supporters, but one attack on Hillary and none on Bernie. Could that be that Hillary leaves herself open to a lot more attack material than Bernie does? I have seen some attacks on Bernie, but I admit I see a lot more on Hillary. Part of that may also be the demographics of this board. There are a lot more Bernie supporters than Hillary supporters.

I agree with you, the attacks are getting old, whether on the candidates or their supporters. I still think we need to remain open to discussing legitimate issues. Not all discussions are "attacks".

[rhett o rick]

36. Very well said. Sen Sanders is helping us with the movement. The movement will continue

even if the Oligarchy steals the nomination. They need to worry because their comfortable status quo is on it's way out.

The revolution is here and Sen Sanders is only a part. An important part but just a part.

Those here that fear change and want their comfortable corporate run status quo need to look around the world. Peoples all around the world are starting to speak out against the oligarchs like Goldman-Sachs-O-Gold.

Those that support H. Clinton support fracking with oil profits being more important than drinking water for the 99%.

[arlington.mass]

50. Agreed, Bernie is merely one soldier in the fight

The internet will be their downfall, and they will try very hard to control it

[Eko]

65. Was that not an attack on Clinton supporters?

"Those that support H. Clinton support fracking with oil profits being more important than drinking water for the 99%."

[rhett o rick]

68. No it's the truth. H. Clinton favors fracking. She was trying to sell it to European

governments as Sec of State at the same time as the peoples in those countries were protesting to save their water.

H. Clinton by supporting fracking over people's (the 99%) drinking water, is putting oil companies profits over drinking water. That's true and not an attack.

Do you support fracking with the 1% or do you side with the humans trying to save our drinking water?

Give me some argument in favor of fracking.

[Eko]

71. Can you show me where

She thinks fracking with oil profits are more important than drinking water for the 99%? Show me that reason. Where she said that. It could be another reason so show me that reason.

[rhett o rick]

98. I will admit that the only reason I can think of for her supporting fracking is to enrich oil

companies at the expense of the poor common people that just want clean drinking water. If there is another explanation I can't think of it. Maybe you can enlighten me. To bad we can't ask her but she seems to be hiding somewhere. Maybe DWS's guest house.

[Eko]

100. I gave you the State Depts. reasons.

Somehow they are not valid reasons?

[markpkessinger]

123. See my response at #120 n/t

[markpkessinger]

122. Here . . .

From Mother Jones: How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World

[Eko]

75. It wasnt for any of these reasons.

"The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of Clinton's diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel." http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron Nope, it was she thought oil companies profits were more important than drinking water,,,,, something you have yet to show any evidence for.

[questionseverything]

83. fracking ruins drinking water

we KNOW that

any1 that advocates for fracking cares more about something than clean water....since we all need water it doesn't really matter what the something is

but since oil companies profit from fracking it is safe to say they and their supporters care more about fracking and oil profits than clean water

[Eko]

89. We agree on the "something"

How you get from "something" to supports oil companies profits over clean drinking water with conjecture is a big stretch especially since the state departments reasons are "to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia". It couldn't be those, it has to be a position never taken by her, namely she supports oils profits over clean drinking water. So if Sanders votes against the assault ban he supports gun companies profits over the 99%? That is outrageous, just as the Clinton fracking reason is.

[Eko]

93. We know what?

"we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.
This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources," http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf
Now the epa could be wrong, have been before. But, what you are claiming has not been supported by a majority of scientists yet, so you, we (since I agree with you) could be wrong.

[questionseverything]

155. i do not need the epa to figure out

groundwater is poisoned when you shoot poisonous chemicals into the ground

[Eko]

182. No,

You dont need the epa except for when you do, like with climate change and emissions, then I am sure you will use them to boost your argument.

[markpkessinger]

120. If the State Department actually believes frackingis a way to address climate change . . .

. . . then they're smoking some serious shit. Sure, methane is cleaner than coal, in that it emits 50% less carbon dioxide when burned than coal does. The problem, however, is that methane unburned is 70 times more effective than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. At least one study found that if as little as 3% of extracted methane leaks into the atmosphere at any point along the way -- and fracking infrastructure leeks quite a bit -- then you might as well be burning coal from a climate perspective.

The notion that we can address climate change by simply moving to a different fossil fuel is a fiction gas and oil companies want us to believe. A serious approach to climate change means SERIOUS R&D funding into the development of truly renewable energy sources, with an eye towards moving us away entirely from all exhaustible fossil fuels. But that wouldn't sit well with Hillary's biggest campaign bundlers, nearly all of whom have extensive experience lobbying on behalf of the oil and natural gas industry.

Meanwhile, fresh water accounts for only 3% of the earth's water, and major aquifers across the globe are being drained to dangerously low levels. We can develop alternative energy; but there is NO alternative to fresh water for human existence. So we had better start paying some serious attention to ANYTHING that poses threats to the small amount of fresh water we have!

Here's the thing: despite Hillary's assurances, both as Secretary of State and as a presidential candidate, about the "high priority" she places on addressing climate change, her actions have pandered to gas and oil interests, who have been busy snapping up fracking licenses across the globe. And her supporters wonder why she has such a trust problem among many voters!

[Eko]

126. Without a doubt great points,

and I agree with you on principle, except for the part where you say she supports fracking because, and here is the kicker using your words, she supports oil companies profits over clean water for the 99%. She doesn't support fracking because it may lead to energy independence, no, She doesn't support fracking because it is a cleaner source of energy, I agree its not, but it could be given time, She doesn't support fracking because it will help countries escape the dependence of Russian energy, those are all valid reasons and ones actually given. I may not agree with them but that wont make me ascribe a position she has most definantly has never taken to score political points as your have. She could be wrong on all those points, as I believe she is. But I would never, ever, stoop as low as you have to ascribe a position not expressed by her at any point. You wont understand this, but when someone does the same to sanders you will raise the hue and cry and not feel a bit of hypocrisy. You dont even get the argument we are having, you want to show how fracking is bad, I never argued that at all, then you want me to defend it! too laughable,,,,,you have framed a debate in a very dishonest way, that is my argument and for the most part you have not even addressed that. You have no evidence to support what you said and even admitted that you did not know her motives when you posted what her motives were. You are wrong, period. You are free to say she is wrong also, but, you can not give supposed motives just like I cant towards you, else I could say you are a troll republican stirring up trouble, and we know that isnt true, right?

[markpkessinger]

157. You attributed to me something I have not said . . .

and I agree with you on principle, except for the part where you say she supports fracking because, and here is the kicker using your words, she supports oil companies profits over clean water for the 99%.

I didn't say this in any of my posts. But then, if misattributing something to me, the lambasting me for it, weren't enough, you then call me a "troll Republican?" Goggle my username -- markpkessinger -- not just on DU but across the net (my political posts are all under my real name, as a matter of principle(, and then tell me again that I am a "troll Republican." You will find thousands of posts, all of them solidly progressive. Does that mean I never criticize Democrats? Of course not. And if anybody can be accused of "trolling" here, it is you, in carelessly applying labels like "Republican troll" around not because there is any basis in fact for doing so, but rather to try to gain a cheap advantage in a discussion over someone who has the temerity to express a viewpoint you disagree with!

My point wasn't to show that "fracking is bad" -- I would hope everybody here already knows that. My point was to show how utterly disingenuous it is of the State Department to try to pass off its global promotion of fracking a part of a serious desire to combat climate change.;

[Eko]

183. I did speak out of turn

and attribute something someone else said to you, I apologize, I thought you were a different poster. But, even doing that, I never said anyone was a troll republican, my exact quote was "else I could say you are a troll republican stirring up trouble, and we know that isnt true, right?" so, I corrected my mistake and I apologize.

[rhett o rick]

159. Great post. I hope you don't mind if I use some of it like, " We can develop alternative energy; but

BUT there is NO alternative to fresh water for human existence. (Emphasis mine)

Addressing DU in general:

Which side of the Fricking Fracking issue are you on?

Are you on the side with H. Clinton, the oil companies, the Republicons, or

are you on the side of Sen Sanders and the people that are fighting to keep their drinking water uncontaminated?

[markpkessinger]

165. Not at all . . .

. . . and thanks!

[yardwork]

130. Sure, but that's fine around here. Majority rules.

Quite a number of long-time DUers are on 90 day suspension for saying rather mild things about Bernie supporters, but its fine to say that Hillary supporters kill puppies and your thread will get 185 likes. Check out the thread titles in GD-P.

[davidpdx]

135. Actually Skinner has said that it is not true that DUers from one group or another are on "vacation"

That there are an equal number of supporters of each group and he also stated that many of them are repeat offenders who have been on vacation in the past.

[yardwork]

151. Actually, the data don't show that at all.

The data released by Skinner and EarlG don't say anything about supporters.

[davidpdx]

174. I'm not sure what data you are referring to

I'm referring to an answer to a question by someone in the ASA forum.

I'm only going to address this part of the post since it doesn't talk about any one person:

But let me be clear: The people with multiple suspensions (and even people with just one suspension) are EXTREME outliers. They represent a fraction of a fraction of DU members. The vast majority of DU members are able to participate here without ever coming close to that 5-hide threshold. And the reason they never come close to being suspended is because they are making an effort to be civil, non-disruptive, even positive members of the community. It really isn't hard to do, but you have to actually try.

[yardwork]

175. I read that too. Where does it say anything about supporters?

I'm disagreeing with your earlier statement.

[davidpdx]

178. Here is the other paragraph with one user name that was mentioned by Skinner that is redacted

There are currently a very small number of people who are on suspension for five hides. Two thirds of them (including redacted) are people who have been previously suspended for five hides and know exactly how the system works. They are people of all different races, genders, and sexual orientations. They are supporters of Sanders and Clinton, and people who don't support any candidate. The one thing these people with multiple suspensions have in common is that they did not appear to make any effort to change their behavior. That is their choice.

[yardwork]

181. Nothing about equal numbers of supporters.

Be careful not to read more into that data than is there.

[Eko]

66. First of all

you are going to have to show where Clinton supports fracking because she thinks oil profits are more important than drinking water for the 99 percent, you cant show that she supported fracking and think that is the end all, you have to show that motive, where that is her motive for doing that. Otherwise you are attributing a position she does not take and then superimposing it upon Clinton supporters.

[rhett o rick]

70. Let me get this clear. Are you saying that she doesn't support fracking? I can show where she

clearly does, can you show that she doesn't? By the way, do you think oil company profits are more important than drinking water for the 99%?

[Eko]

76. Nope

She supports fracking. The reason why is the question. You put words into her mouth and hence anyone supporting her without any evidence whatsoever. You framed it in a dishonest way. Let me do a hypothetical test, since Sanders didn't vote for the assault weapons ban does that mean that he supports weapons manufactures profits against the 99% that don't want to get shot by one? To be very clear, I do not think this at all. It is an exercise in framing to show you what you did.

[rhett o rick]

97. Apples and toothpicks. Sec of State, acting on our dime was using the full power of the

US of Fracking A, to strong arm foreign governments into using fracking. I think it was Chevron that was side by side with her during those "negotiations". I think one country was Bulgaria, and the people, the ordinary people were protesting to save their drinking water. Now I don't know for sure what her motives were but HER ACTIONS made the oil companies happy and the poor people mad to lose their drinking water upset.

I am guessing that you can somehow minimize the need of simple people of the world to get clean drinking water. I think that putting profits above people is despicable and I doubt you aren't doing that, but please go ahead and give me an explanation to show that I am wrong in my rationalizations. Why does she choose Chevron over the common people??

[Eko]

101. That is right.

You dont know what her motivations were, but you attributed it to something negative. You just proved my point.

[Eko]

102. So please

edit your post to reflect this.

[rhett o rick]

106. I agree I don't know what her motivation is but it sure looks like

she favors oil company profits over people's water. I may be wrong, but you have nothing to refute my explanation. You seem to want to ignore the damage that fracking will cause and justify it because you don't know. You are siding with oil companies over people but justifying it because you don't know the facts.

I ask that you open your eyes to what the corporations have done in the last 40 years and are going to continue to do unless we put a stop to it. The status quo is killing our children, our troops and our seniors. Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street is stealing our wealth and you don't seem to care.

[Eko]

109. I am not siding with anybody except for truth

you have presented something as truth that is not proven. It just so happens to fit your preconceived narrative that clinton is bad. It is a lie, pure and simple. You have no idea what my personal opinions are, yours shapes your opinion, mine is for evidence and logic. I know what the corporations have done, that is not the argument, quit making it so. The argument is that you attributed a position and their reasons to someone while you admittedly don't know it at all. You know they did something, you dont know why, and yet you gave the reason why.

[rhett o rick]

110. But you haven't refuted what I said. She championed the Chevron cause. That's a fact. People

were protesting what she was trying to do. That's a fact. You have nothing. You want to pretend that everything is ok but it isn't.

You are afraid of the truth. Fracking is ruining people's water supplies. That is the truth. H. Clinton has close ties with large corporations. That's a fact.

[Eko]

112. And sanders

championed the cause of arms companies when he voted against the assault guns ban, right? using your logic I mean.

[Eko]

111. Oh well it looks like it

so that must be it. That is your evidence, your proof. That is enough to smear her and all of her supporters, really? It looks like it in your opinion? nothing factual, just your opinion. Wow. You have nothing wrong to back up your explanation, no evidence and plenty to go against it such as the reasons the state dept gave. But those dont count, what you think looks like it does. That is your argument. Add to that you dont know the reason she has as per your words but yet you are sure of her reasons and I think you have seriously lost this discussion.

[Eko]

103. And the people won by the way.

Another point where you are wrong. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

[rhett o rick]

107. I said she was trying to encourage foreign companies to use fracking. That was correct per the

article. Not sure what I was wrong about, but more importantly, do you side with the protesting people or Clinton and Chevron?

[Eko]

113. No,

you said strong arm. Big difference.

[rhett o rick]

161. LOL. She was the Sec of State of the USofA, the biggest bully on the planet.

And she was working in conjunction with (read "for&quot Chevron.

So tell me again which side of the fracking issue you stand on.

The Clinton, Republicon, oil company side? Or the Sanders and people that want uncontaminated drinking water side?

[Eko]

115. "Now I don't know for sure what her motives were"

and yet you gave the motive, dishonest. Fix your post.

[Eko]

116. You admitted you dont know what her motives were

and yet you posted what they are. Fix the post.

[MoveIt]

138. Hey now calm down

and enjoy some of that sweet fracking money, er I mean free speech.

[jtuck004]

39. Lol. You think he has been attacked, wait until President Sanders gets the nomination.

As bad as you might think it is, they are just being annoyed right now.

When you feel the shotgun pellets go by, you know you are touching the spot.

[cantbeserious]

55. Wait For It - The Republican Congress Will Introduce Legislation Outlawing Grass Roots Activism

eom

[sadoldgirl]

67. No, it does not need the Repug Congress.

It has already been done by the establishment
when you look back at OWS. Until then I had never
seen the police looking and acting like storm troopers
in my city.

[in_cog_ni_to]

74. And outlaw the Internet - somehow.

After this election, the Internet will be a HUGE issue they'll need to "fix."

[cpompilo]

58. This is EXACTLY what is happening. Well said. Thank you.

[redstateblues]

61. Same Old Victim Mentality

it's exhausting

[Uncle Joe]

69. I believe Bernie will have long and strong coat tails for downticket races.

Thanks for the thread, Bjorn Against.

[SoapBox]

72. Total K & R!

[ancianita]

77. When people slam Cornel West, they slam Bernie Sanders, his supporters, history, judgment and

work with those who understand the plight of black America every bit as well, if not better, than Obama does.

[Eko]

79. Maybe some of the Sanders supporter are being attacked

for things like saying Clinton supports oil companies profits over drinking water for the 99%, or that she has a fondness for kids playing with cluster bombs. Things that are just not true and when confronted with these falsehoods have no clue why they are being confronted and think it is a attack instead of realizing they are using republican methods of attributing a position someone doesn't take.

[L0oniX]

82. Well ...I'm a hater.

All the Hillary supporters tell me so. I love it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

84. nobody will attack you unless you are a threat

[Bjorn Against]

85. Yes, that sums up what I was trying to say perfectly

[Bjorn Against]

88. I just thought people might be interested to know that I received harrassing messages over this post

Vanilla Rhapsody who is currently on a time out chose to send me not just one, but nine personal messages tonight because she did not like this post. I responded very clearly to each of the PMs that I wanted her to leave me alone and yet she continues to harrass me. I have alerted on her last three personal messages so hopefully it will stop soon, but for now I will just keep making it as clear as I can possibly make it that I want the harrassment to end. What I will not do is ignore it, it is much better to stand up to someone who is engaging in harrassment than it is to ignore them.

On edit: Make that ten harrassing personal messages.

[Eko]

90. Thats not cool.

We can disagree, we don't have to go overboard.

[morningfog]

92. You should post them here for all to see.

That poster is unhinged and should be exposed.

[Bjorn Against]

94. That could very likely happen in the near future

Right now I am giving the admins a chance to act, I have alerted a few times tonight but I don't know if they are online so I will give them a bit longer to act before I take the next step. I do assure you that if the harrassment continues I will expose it, but I would prefer see the admins deal with it.

[Eko]

105. It can take a bit if time

for admins to respond, be patient.

[davidpdx]

136. You aren't the only person I've heard this has happened to

Apparently being on "vacation" just isn't enough.

[Ichingcarpenter]

121. She sent PMs to me too until I blocked her mail

and others have reported that fact too.

[beam me up scottie]

124. 10 pms? Everybody has been harassed by that one, just block her.

I think every Bernie supporter should just do it now before they get any of her nasty pms.

[stillwaiting]

127. Why in the HELL is that poster allowed to harass DU'ers so often?

It's unhinged and disruptive.

I'm sorry that you have had to deal with that, and I know that you are far from being the only one having to deal with that behavior from that particular poster.

Admins. should do something. It's ridiculous.

[Cali_Democrat]

186. There's a block mail feature on DU

You can block people from sending you emails if you feel you're being harassed.

[gregcrawford]

91. NAILED IT!

I've met and spoken with Bernie more than once. He's one on my senators. I've followed him for more than 30 years. He's the real deal, and anyone who bad-mouths him to my face is taking his life in his hands. And mo'fo', I can and will back that up.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

99. Bernie has always been Bernie,

But I'm reminded of the Establishment questions posed to Occupy Wall Street; So What? So Whats next?, Why don't you get behind X candidate, Why not get involved in the political debate.

Bernie has always been Bernie, but I truly believe his time has come, in part as a natural progression of what people were loudly saying in the autumn of 2011. Though the crowds have dispersed, a champion for their ideas is ascending.

[Live and Learn]

108. +1 nt

[steve2470]

117. some of the supporters truly need to get a grip...the rest are just fine...IMHO...good day nt

[Aerows]

118. This campaign season is fascinating.

It isn't the fault of the politician and said politician's views that is the problem, it's the supporters who like a different politician's views that is the real problem.

If I was a Jeb Bush supporter, and I denounced Trump supporters because they like Trump more than Bush, whose fault would it be? (Okay, mine for supporting either of the idiots, but I digress).

If you aren't an appealing candidate, you just flat aren't an appealing candidate and lashing out at supporters of other candidates that in your mind should support you isn't a winning strategy.

They don't support you because they don't like what you have done in the past. They don't support you because they disagree with your views. They don't support you because they would support damn near anybody on the Democratic ticket in the primaries than you because ... they don't support you.

Correct me if I'm wrong - it's is the CANDIDATE'S job to get people to like them and vote for them. Attacking the people that don't like your candidate as though they are somehow defective is stupid.

They aren't defective because they don't like your candidate, it is your candidate that is defective.

[Maedhros]

164. The Democratic Party has functioned as a top-down ideological hierarchy for some time.

The party leaders decide what is acceptable and the rank-and-file are expected to modify their beliefs accordingly. For example, bombing Libya into the stone age - the military action was justified by Party leaders with outright lies and misinformation, and the Party's good little soldiers accepted it without question and attacked those who didn't. The same mindset applies to elections: the Party picks the next President, and the rank-and-file are obligated to rubber-stamp their decision.

Sanders supporters are not appreciative of this arrangement, and thus are being targeted.

[Betty Karlson]

125. That would explain the aggressive Mails I have received on DU

And then only because their author assumed me to be totally Sanders-minded.

[davidpdx]

137. Sorry you have to go through that

You can totally block the person if you wish so they can't even send you mail. It appears several people are receiving these types of messages.

[Betty Karlson]

140. You are very kind. And I'm sorry for my fellow addressees.

Just learned that the author of those mails has been "flagged for review". Let's hope that will steer the individual back to a more constructive way of discussing matters.

It seems better to never block anyone. When someone throws the door into my face, I prefer leaving mine just cracked open, in case the other person comes to a better judgement. Having a thick skin (normally) I may choose to stop responding to and delete those mails, after sending a polite "Please consider this my last response to your mails".

That way the apology may still reach me. I'd like that.

Have a great day.
Love,

B

[Bluenorthwest]

144. I had a rash of nasty PM's from a person using the personna 'Hillary supporter' who refused to stop

sending them and I had to block her. I now see she's on time out and flagged for review. A bully of the fist division.

[Betty Karlson]

148. I assume you mean "first division"?

Otherwise, please tell me what the "fist division" means. Is that when bullies start knuckle-dragging?

[Babel_17]

133. Coming up next: "Dangerous violent radicals"

That will be the next smear as support for the campaign broadens and deepens. There will be talk of class warfare, and of how all the money and companies will leave the US if a Communist is elected.

Lol, like anyone wants to abandon the safest market in the world, and one that is one of the safest places to be extremely wealthy. Well, there are those smaller countries that tax the rich to a greater degree. It might be even safer to be uber-rich there, it's just not as easy to glom onto lots of money.

[Skwmom]

141. Why would ANY white supremacist support a man that has stood up for Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, etc.

You write the majority of Bernie supporters are not WS, inferring that a minority are.

Really, somehow I'm just not seeing how a white supremacist would would a man like Bernie Sanders.

[raouldukelives]

145. K&R nt

[Bluenorthwest]

147. White Supremactists want all the Jews in the grave, not in the White House. This is a universal

among supremacist groups, including those known as separatists which are non white. They all want to eliminate the Jewish people. Then they want death for groups they call 'race traitors' and 'mongrels'. There is no such thing as white supremacists who like Jews. Note the recent trial of a white supremacist who went to a Jewish center to kill Jews. He's what they are.
So people who want to claim Bernie is part of a group that wants him dead are irrational . They have to be entirely ignorant of reality or utterly without regard for decency. It is a foul and reprehensible trope that serves the actual supremacists. Those who do this are bringing poison to the table and they must not be taken seriously.
Sorry if this is harsh but evil white supremacists are not some theoretical group, it is a real thing and the proper action is to know them and to defeat them, not to exploit their extremism as some rhetorical fodder for attacking politicians from groups those supremacists hate. This is not fun time. Those shits will murder people. It's not cute nor funny to exploit that reality to stain good people. It's disgusting.

[Stellar]

149. OK, if you say so...but,

Everybody knows about Bernies supporters. They've made a name for themselves.

Most of the smears that have been made against Sanders supporters have been absolutely false, yet there is a small group that continues to make broadbrush attacks. But why target Bernie's supporters and not the candidate?

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/joy-reid-likens-bernie-sanders-current-campaign-to-obamas-in-08/55f06d82fe344487d100009a

[azureblue]

156. Or

It's because Sanders is talking about the issues that matter and offering viable solutions, while avoiding making personal attacks. So his detractors, who do not address the issues, who do not have viable solutions, make personal attacks to distract from their shortcomings. And when a person makes personal attacks, it reveals them as being crazy, because they are not addressing reality, but weak ideology.

[d_legendary1]

158. I didn't know Bernie Supporters were running for office

Learn something new everyday in DU.

[olddots]

169. what is the intent of some of these so called " Bernie Supporters " ?

or any of our intentions on a message board ?????

[GoneFishin]

176. Kick.

[liberal N proud]

177. This is like saying sand paper is effective

And it is if you are trying to be abrasive.

My experience with Bernie supporters is that they are aggressive and can be very abrasive and in your face if you don't think like they do. Where have we seen that before? Think Right Wing Fundamentalist, that is where I have experienced that behavior in the past and to tell you the truth, I ran from that behavior and I am doing the same thing from the Bernie supporters.

You can be enthused, by a candidate, but I don't have to be! And if you are in my face about it, I will never be, so if you truly think Bernie is right for America, you need to find a better strategy than attacking my point of view!

[McCamy Taylor]

184. "Why target Bernie's supporters and not the candidate?" From Sesame Street:

"Which of these things is not like the other? Which of these things does not belong?"

Maybe if the people claiming to be Sanders supporters were more like Sanders, they would not annoy so many folks.

[McCamy Taylor]

185. Oh wait. Now I understand. You are saying some self styled Sanders folks WANT to be attacked

and therefore they do exactly what it takes to make other people angry. So they can then write smug OPs about how oppressed and misunderstood they are. Boo hoo. It is so sad and lonely being a Sanders supporter...

Yes, I guess you are right. A handful of Sander's supporters are very effective---at getting themselves attacked. Because negative attention is better than no attention.