2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTo my Clinton supporter friends
If you are still going on about "Sanders supporters are (fill-in-the-blank) and therefore I am supporting Clinton, you need to check yourself. I mean really, really, really give it a hard think and try to get a hold of yourself.
Why?
Because it is simply fucking crazy to base your choice of who to support as POTUS based on some run-ins on the internet and some deluded assumptions of what Sanders is based on that.
It is pretty close to crazy land. Too close for comfort anyway. So check yo self.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)They have drawings of Sanders with drool coming out of his mouth, making fun of his age for fuck's sake.
If we had a separate site dedicated to photos showing pantsuits and cankles, we would justifiably be called disgusting.
What on earth makes them think that is okay?
PatrickforO
(14,516 posts)a wind sock, she's so poll-driven. Look at the Keystone Pipeline. She JUST came out against that, probably because a focus group told her campaign it would be a good idea...
See, they don't have anything to do but accuse us of being negative and out-of-hand, and our candidate of being somehow evil.
Our site is positive, on the other hand, because we are focused on the issues we've all cared about for years and years, and FINALLY now we have this great candidate that is actually going out there and TALKING about them. He won't take super PAC money, he flies coach and he's got 40 years of doing what he says he'll do. The guy's great. He's a great candidate and he'll make a great president, especially when he uses the bully pulpit to get us to shame these Republicans and Third Way assholes into doing the right thing, the moral thing for a change.
Bernie is our guy!
The 'fringe' candidate!
Beartracks
(12,761 posts)Nice.
=====================
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)BMUS is short for "beam me up scottie".
IMO, everybody in that thread should be given a serious look by admins. All but one are easily identifiable.
Edit: Sorry. Nevermind, I see. I thought the reference was to this thread:
http://hillaryclintonsupporters.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=831&sid=c8077864f2a7e537059f5dd77ce7ab04
The bigoted stuff on that site, already, would need a catalog.
NealK
(1,791 posts)(I am not familiar with AgingAmerican but I'm sure that what they say is pure bullshit)
And there's this gem:
Talk about cognitive dissonance and projection. They continually say that they're sick of DU and DUers, that they're glad to be away from DU but all they obsessively talk about all the time is DU and some of them keep popping up here. How sad.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)A new one, just started by Bravenak:
http://hillaryclintonsupporters.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=833
The main gripe against SMC is that he/she doesn't buy the letter fiction. I don't either, but I got my only hidden post in 4 years for saying so. (It was worth it! and I decided that ahead of time.)
This one's interesting too, where Bravenak admits she's the source of that Froma Harrop garbage, prompting others to post it for her while she's suspended from DU:
http://hillaryclintonsupporters.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=615
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I don't think anyone should be accusing Bravenak of faking it --and the "backwards B" reference is going too far.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)she didn't need to give it to one of her followers to put on DU; since she did choose to have it posted, my opinion on it is fair game, and that's my opinion. There is nothing in the "facts" that specifically precludes a backwards B. And until I see that, it's the most likely scenario, given what I have observed myself first-hand about that person.
The immediate point though, is the 3 hit-threads about DUers which are currently posted on that site as of this moment... The admins are very patient guys, but I know what I'd be doing if this were my site. I saw all I needed to see from that group some time ago, this is just the cherry on the sundae. This is the whole picture in full bloom.
So yes, I'm glad they formed their little site, so that they could really be themselves and people could get to see just what that looks like.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)she faked this? That says quite a bit, and none of it good.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)is beyond the pale. Anyone thinking that needs their head checked.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)But we will never know for sure who 'sent' it.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)For me, I gave him the big middle finger years ago for the way he has dissed Obama. He's not fit to criticize Obama. He has accomplished NOTHING in 25 years of being on a government salary as an elected official.
This is the sort of ignorance folks are wrapping themselves up in?
The guy who's passed more amendments to bills than anyone else in the Senate has 'accomplished NOTHING'. The guy who was 100% responsible for billions of dollars being allotted to community clinics in the ACA has 'accomplished NOTHING'.
Truly astonishing levels of willful stupidity. When you have to lie to yourself and those around you to libel somebody, that's just pathetic.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)that you somehow missed all the posts about the Froma Harrop article(s)? The one posted several times under several titles in several threads which were all flamebait (from Bravenak as the 2nd link in my post shows) and as expected, resulted in a huge food fight for several days here?
Is that the story? You're trying to pretend that you just didn't see all that, and all that's at issue is that block quote excerpt in your post? Well if so, then all I can say is, I don't see everything that goes on around here, but you must miss a lot more than me.
And I see you ignored the first link which goes to the hit-thread on a DUer, one of 3 that are current now, who knows how many have already come and gone.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)So I can't even see the vast majority of idiocy that's being posted.
So no, I'm not 'pretending' I didn't see them, I actually am NOT seeing them, thanks to the way the 'ignore' function works.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)I have every one of those posters on ignore - each one for posting specious, unfounded, fallacious stories or assertions against my preferred candidate ...
As far as I am concerned; if you are willing to issue posts that are demonstrably untrue, time after time, in order to degrade or debase the 'other candidate', then I don't want you in my world ...
I am pondering emptying my ignore list after the Primaries are over, in the spirit of reconciliation ... We shall see ...
merrily
(45,251 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)EBA had people on ignore, whereas I don't, so his view of things was much different from mine.
merrily
(45,251 posts)because one could always claim he's not being truthful about who he has on ignore. He would not lie , period. He's just not like that--and I have no off board relationship with the man. I just respect the heck out of his posts.
Lancero
(2,984 posts)Unless they think calling for a hit job on DU members is critical for Hillary to win the Primaries, I don't really see why they'd be in that forum.
Still though, it's sad to see that many hit threads on a Democratic forum. Seeing the number of hit-threads, I coulda swore I took a wrong turn and landed in CU, CC, or Freep.
Edit - The more I look, the harder it is to believe that I'm not at one of the above. According to them, DU is filled with Bernie supporters, and that his supporters are misogynistic right-wing pieces of shit. Ergo, guess what DU is filled with?
The attacks between camps last election went straight downhill, anyone around 08 can remember just how civil things were between the Clinton and Obama camps. That things have gotten this bad so quickly is very saddening - We're Democrats, aren't we supposed to be better then the infighting Republicans? - but at the same time it shows just how afraid they are of the competition.
Haven't bothered checking yet, but I'd bet the above three sites are having a field day over DU splitting at the seems.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The inhabitants of the Cave hate me because of who I am too.
When bigots hate you you know you're doing something right.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)euphemistically speaking, "a true reflection on whoever drew it and posted it". I.e., disgusting squared,
Given that HRC is no spring chicken either, it's an odd point to be making anyway.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and multiplied to the twentieth power.
That site is a sewer filled with zoo filth, and that is an insult to sewers. And zoo filth.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)"Yeah, if we are SO bad, why don't WE have a site dedicated to bad-mouthing people."
You already got one. And one with plenty of name recognition. Why would you need another?
TexasBushwhacker
(20,044 posts)It's all pretty ridiculous. I'm for Bernie. I don't feel the need to bash HRC.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)DU
MindfulOne
(227 posts)It's a place to go to kvetch about DU members who don't adore Secretary Clinton.
They want a place where they can mock us without getting posts hidden.
Just look at the topics, most are about Sanders supporters or DU members or DU.
jfern
(5,204 posts)I went to John Kerry's site. It was all about John Kerry.
I went to George Bush's site. It was also all about John Kerry.
When the economy is in the shitter and there's some war started for bogus reasons that turned into a quagmire, you don't run on your record. You run on destroying your opponent. Same deal here.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)That's pretty bad! Thanks for going there so we don't have to! Ugh!
polly7
(20,582 posts)For real.
Here's another:
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
polly7
(20,582 posts)I had to make it bigger to see, I'm not so good at that.
reddread
(6,896 posts)to think my estimation of these posters could actually fall off a cliff.
wow.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)mccallen
(24 posts)... I am a Clinton supporter, and this is the first I'm seeing of it.
frylock
(34,825 posts)and these shitbags have the audacity to call out "Hillary haters". Cognitive dissonance reigns supreme over there.
"It's full of unstable people." Just wow.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Scrubbing the site, FINALLY opening up the "Issues" forum, posting an OP here saying how warm and fuzzy it is over there and posting more friendly posts in the visible area while keeping the smut hidden in private forums.
Low class all the way.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Jesus Christ.
They're the ones obsessing over us 24/7 like the inhabitants of the Cave.
frylock
(34,825 posts)what a sad little world it is over there.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, vicious attacks and stalking of people who can't fight back, it's hard to tell them apart, honestly.
Lancero
(2,984 posts)Given their ranting about how DU is made up entirely of his supporters, it's not to hard to see what they think of this site and its staff.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Really? "our jury"??!!??!!
See, they have tactics to stack the juries. There was an OP about how to do it in the Hillary group once upon a time. I saw it but could never find it again. They must have self-deleted it.
Odd. I thought it was Sanders supporters who alert stalked. That coupled with the post that is up in another thread that shows George II bragging about alert stalking cali to get a fifth hide proves yet again, that whatever they accuse Bernie supporters of doing is exactly what they themselves are doing.
And I think it's pretty funny that Cha(e) is the one posting that considering the way she trashed Hillary with toons, calling her a LIAR and posting some really sexist toons about her when she ran against Obama. At least she's consistent with her hypocrisy.
I didn't even notice that.
Yes, I think everything they complain about comes from their own first-hand knowledge .... because they've done it. That bragging about the hide and the dancing over it is absolutely pathetic, and from two MIRT members, no less.
I don't know of the previous Hillary toons, but that's pretty hypocritical, all right. Actually ............ all of it is. Don't think I've ever seen a bigger group of 'victims' who are being proven to be the ones who've actually done it all.
"Our jury" - Ha.
NealK
(1,791 posts)7. Yeah, her negative shit came back to bite her in the ass and
Obama soared. Thanks hilary for being such a lying, pandering fighter for yourself when you didn't fight against bush one fucking iota.
We wouldn't be in Iraq if hilary and the Dems fought against bush like hilary LIED against Obama. All these people wouldn't be DEAD.
This is mind boggling. And we're the haters.
that's quite the loyalty switcharoo. Why would she be so angry at people who still have some of those same concerns? Doesn't even make sense.
jfern
(5,204 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)What's hide worthy about that?
I guess they really do have their own jury.
jfern
(5,204 posts)I've seen a lot of bogus alerts of Bernie supporters. It seems we are the ones being alert stalked and conspired against. Not them.
dsc
(52,130 posts)or at least we are supposed to. That was a righteous hide on those grounds. I realize that many Bernie supporters would post articles by Goebbels if they were sufficiently anti Hillary in perspective but that isn't supposed to be done here. Also you can't conspire to hide posts it doesn't work that way.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Supporters of a man whose father's family was wiped out in the Holocaust?
It doesn't get more oot than that folks.
Especially considering it's HC supporters who are claiming Bernie is funded by israel - an anti-Semitic slur.
dsc
(52,130 posts)but we have seen articles posted by editorial writers for the Scaife paper out of Pittsburgh. We have seen articles by Bush's AG. We have seen the virulently anti gay and anti woman Daily Caller. We have seen the anti woman and anti gay Examiner. But maybe you guys are better about making sure Jews aren't offended but who knows at this point.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Another posted an anti-Semitic op using racial slurs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251506371
Still another claimed blacks, lgbt people and women are "owned" by the Clintons.
And we're the ones who are offensive?
dsc
(52,130 posts)but I have yet to see any sanction at all for Sanders supporters bringing the stuff I highlighted. And I would be willing to bet a huge some of money you had not one negative word to say about those sources being used. And to be blunt the Daily Caller is as bad in regards to gays as Stormfront is to race.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I didn't see the article in question and the DC is a right-wing source but it's not a racist hate group.
dsc
(52,130 posts)Tucker Carlon, who literally bragged about beating up a gay man. And yes, they don't hate races just gays, and the fact you don't see hating and beating up gays as being as bad as doing the same to other races speaks volumes.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You're the one using Nazi references about the supporters of a Jewish candidate.
That speaks volumes about you.
dsc
(52,130 posts)well the Daily Caller routinely posts anti gay and anti transgender articles, and was founded by a man who bragged about beating up a gay man. You say that isn't as bad as Stormfront which does the same in regards to race. So why in your own words is Stormfront worse?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Created by former Alabama Klan boss and long-time white supremacist Don Black in 1995, Stormfront was the first major hate site on the Internet. Claiming more than 300,000 registered members as of May 2015 (though far fewer remain active), the site has been a very popular online forum for white nationalists and other racial extremists. But a series of reverses the 2008 assertion by Blacks wife that she was not a racist, a similar declaration by his son in 2010, and the Southern Poverty Law Centers exposure of the identity of many Stormfront funders and the fact its registered users have been behind almost 100 murders have caused a series of problems for the Web forum. Today, Black struggles with a continuing decline in site visitors, chronic financial problems and his own health issues.
Founded: 1995
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Profiled Leadership: Don Black
Ideology: White Nationalist
Created by former Alabama Klan boss and long-time white supremacist Don Black in 1995, Stormfront was the first major hate site on the Internet. Claiming more than 300,000 registered members as of May 2015 (though far fewer remain active), the site has been a very popular online forum for white nationalists and other racial extremists. But a series of reverses the 2008 assertion by Blacks wife that she was not a racist, a similar declaration by his son in 2010, and the Southern Poverty Law Centers exposure of the identity of many Stormfront funders and the fact its registered users have been behind almost 100 murders have caused a series of problems for the Web forum. Today, Black struggles with a continuing decline in site visitors, chronic financial problems and his own health issues.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/stormfront
So no, as horrific as the Daily Caller is, its registered users haven't murdered over 100 people for the cause.
dsc
(52,130 posts)making them more effective. I have no idea how many of the people who murdered transgender women in the past year read the Daily Caller but I bet a few of them did.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)As well as an op about anti-Semitism yesterday:
Dog Whistles- an Anti-Semitism Primer (a timely repost)
I abhor all bigotry and violence against minorities.
So the implication that I don't care about lgbt people who are affected by hate is bullshit.
dsc
(52,130 posts)and point out something you said within it. You laid the blame, correctly it should be said, at the anti gay pastors who preach hate. Why is the Daily Caller different?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Have you read any of my screeds against religious leaders who preach hate towards lgbt people?
Because I'm kind of famous for them in some circles.
Here's two about transgender hatred:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=42797
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=42799
dsc
(52,130 posts)which is my point and they have no business at all being sited as sources here for the truth of what they posted.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And I never claimed that they should be cited as sources here.
marym625
(17,997 posts)It's like my grandmother always said, suspicion haunts the guilty mind.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Born in County Cork, Ireland in 1890. Came to the U.S.,alone, in 1910 and lived until 1987. She was remarkable.
Loved Led Zeppelin too
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The Environment section? One thread.
Priorities, I guess.
polly7
(20,582 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)They have their priorities straight. Shit slinging and hatred comes first, doncha know?
jfern
(5,204 posts)It's just a tool to attack Sanders with.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)That is grade-school. Or maybe pre-school.
"Their" juries?
Seriously, it's time to hand out some tombstones, Skinner.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Could be.
hey look there's most of my ignore list.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)It isn't about Hillary, it's about how much they hate Sanders.
That really says something.
Plus, I hope they stay there.They're as bad as tea partiers with all their anger filled comments.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)He dared to challenge Her Royal Inevitability. It's THEIR TURN, dammit!!! And they are gonna kick and scream and hold their breath until that nasty Bernie goes away.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Idiotic and childish.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the issues, so some 'brilliant' intern at one of those expensive Think Tanks came up with 'let's go after his supporters' which will 'trickle down' to HIM'.
Being all over Social Media I can say that neither Bernie or Hillary supporters are engaged in attacking each other. I rarely even see a mention of Hillary from Bernie supporters other than maybe a comparison of where they stand on the issues.
You KNOW it's a talking point when it gets gets repeated over and over and over again and from the 'sources'.
They're wasting their money, it isn't 'catching on' like the rest of the smears they've tried.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Quite seriously.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)The more they hang there the less bullshit we'll have to refute here. I must say, I recall VERY FEW actual discussions of ISSUES with HRC supporters. They seek only to tear down Sanders and his supporters, and almost never debate issues. The reason of course, is that they CANNOT WIN ON THE ISSUES.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And only AFTER it was pointed out several times on here that it was still "uder construction" or whatever it said. WTF.... all the hate filled forums were up and running and getting filled up immediately, but there was no will to get someone to make the 2-3 clicks it took to make a forum available for posting?!?!
But yeah, it's all about supporting Hillary and being warm and fuzzy over there... at least that's what they keep trying to convince us.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)or won't tell you what she thinks until "after she's POTUS" you don't have much of a basis for argument.
JI7
(89,184 posts)in which case anything not directly relating to the candidate themselves could make them vote in different ways.
it wont make a difference to those who feel strongly towards a candidate.
but most voters don't feel that way.
aidbo
(2,328 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... but since the proffering against her is mainly a purity test that Sanders doesn't pass (he can throw no stones and I'm not going to go for slightly better) there's no good reason to cross her out right now
murielm99
(30,657 posts)with Sanders or his supporters.
The fact that I have been attacked by Sanders supporters on every level is something I find problematic. I have a right to support anyone I please.
I don't have a problem with Sanders. He is not my choice for a candidate. I DO have a problem with his supporters, here, and elsewhere on the Internet. Others have commented on the rude behavior of Sanders supporters. Articles have been written about it.
The fact that many DUers have chosen to go to another site to speak up about Sanders' supporters is their own business. The fact that all of you are so sensitive about it, that there have been so many threads about it, is your problem. I guess they struck a nerve.
Those people have left because they have been bullied and silenced on DU. I guess you are frustrated that you can't get at them over there. LMAO.
I hear you. I like Sanders better than Clinton but am not sure he can win a national election. I cant stand people attacking anyone with smears and innuendo whether its Clinton or Sanders. It just seems like every day I log into my favorite democratic site I see more and more smears against one candidate and hardly none against the other. Then I get the "but they did this" as a response to me calling them out or its "satire" when said poster said it was exactly like they stated. Shoot, when I post about one candidates pro's I get comments about the other that have nothing whatsoever to do with the post and then have to engage in a lengthy discussion defending the other candidate against smears and accusations. I can post pros about Sanders and another on Clinton and get called out as a troll on the Clinton posts tenfold compared to the Sanders threads. People have been bullied and silenced, its gotten to the point that I would vote for Sander's in the primaries but would not want to talk to any supporters. But of course I'm a DINO, or a troll, or some other bs and am lying. I even got called out for saying how long I have been here when all anyone has to do is click on my name. Crazy.
bl968
(360 posts)Yes they had 3 articles saying basically the same exact thing appear on 3 different publications simultaneously LOL. The Clinton Machine is alive and well. One of them tried saying a clearly right wing person was a Bernie supporter. Once I looked at their tweets it was clearly a hard core libertarian, and a gamersgate supporter. Not even remotely a Bernie Sanders supporter.
The Corporate media is trying to hard to give Clinton supporters a workable weapon against Bernie Sanders supporters to shut them up, because thanks to them he beat the media blackout they tried to impose.
They think that if they can tar his supporters they can tar him, but it's not going to work, because Bernie Sanders can stand all on his own.
The only people who seem to have problems with Sanders supporters are Clinton supporters, who started out saying that Sanders had no chance at all, we see where that's going. It appears that Hillary Clinton will be losing Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
Then you have those on the Right, who are scared so shitless that they will have to face Bernie's policies in the general election; that even Matt Drudge was posting on his site asking Biden to step in because they can read the cards just as well as I can and see that Sanders will win the nomination.
Disagreement is not an attack.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Look carefully at the screen captures in this thread. Spend a half hour skimming the threads at hrs. If you still think that Sanders supporters are the ones being mean, you're living in an alternate reality.
From what is posted on that site they all live in an alternate reality. Some kind of Bizarro World.
cloudbase
(5,487 posts)On Sun Sep 27, 2015, 11:58 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
time for some self assessment dear
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=626820
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Belittling and sexist to call her "dear" this is over the top, and clearly illustrates the differences between Sanders supporters who are real liberals, this one isn't fooling anyone.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 27, 2015, 12:11 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Having been guilty of this type of snark myself, I can't in good conscience hide this. As a Hillary supporter, I disagree of course. If I Wanted to spend time getting screen shots at DU vs a very small HRC site, Sanders supporters would not come out looking well. Ismnotwasm
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster is responding to another undocumented attack on Sanders supporters. Anyone can claim to be a Sanders supporter or a Clinton supporter just to stir up hate. Under ordinary circumstances I would hide; these are not ordinary circumstances with continual vicious attacks by each camp against the other.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The petty bickering is getting very, very old, and we still have a year to go.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Perhaps the alerter is a tad too thin-skinned for the political arena. A self-assessment my just be what the Doctor ordered.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)They are a curious bunch.
And meanwhile the hillarians call bernistas "slave owners"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=623651
treestar
(82,383 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Your first claim was she literally did it herself. You then moved your thoughts to say she had him beat up. Seriously. That is the level of your political discussion and you can post this with a straight face. Love it.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I never claimed Hillary beat up an old man.
But people at hillarysupporters.com sure are posting pictures of Bernie with drool coming out of his mouth, making fun of his age.
I hope you like your new hangout, Durham.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You let it stand for days before self deleting it. It's very well known around these parts. Nice try.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Are you ACTUALLY saying that I said that Hillary beat up an old man??? That's the weirdest, stupidest accusation I ever heard!
I posted the video of her continuing to speak and smile as an old man was beaten up by security at her speech.
Is THAT what set off your hallucinatory gibberish here?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)With your original claim. It is a thing of beauty.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)In your fevered imagination, you think I actually claimed that Hillary herself committed violence on a person, huh.
I'm sorry but if you think that happened, you are literally delusional.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You knew what you said couldn't be fully covered by editing it. You let it stand for days. Now, since your an issue kind of person, can make a couple of more insinuations as to my mental stability. Lol You're fun and have a lot of spunk.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Please keep going.
In fact, let me recap:
I posted a video that shows Hillary giving a speech. During the speech, a protestor is beaten up by security.
Unlike in many of Obama's speeches where there is a protestor, Hillary does NOT ask the security to leave the person alone. What she DOES do, is ignore that it is happening and keeps talking.
My OP was titled something like "Hillary keeps smiling and talking while an old man gets beaten up"
People got very upset but the only thing that could really be denied was that she was smiling when he was beaten. I think the video showed she was.
But did I ever say that SHE herself beat up an old man??? Hell no, that would be INSANE. But seriously the fact that you remember it that way is seriously worrisome.
I'm sure many, many people remember the OP. But I don't think anyone else will have your delusional memory of it.
That's the honest to god truth.
BUT YOU SAID that I said that Hillary herself physically beat an old man. Weird. I will repost your claims here in one second on edit just so you don't make them disappear.
You accused Clinton of beating up an old man.
NCTraveler (8,172 posts)
29. You accused Clinton of beating up an old man.
Your first claim was she literally did it herself. You then moved your thoughts to say she had him beat up. Seriously. That is the level of your political discussion and you can post this with a straight face. Love it.
NealK
(1,791 posts)As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday about the failures of foreign leaders to respect people's freedoms, a 71-year-old U.S. veteran Army officer, a man who spent 27 years in the CIA and delivered presidential daily briefs, a peace activist and proponent of nonviolence, the man who famously confronted Donald Rumsfeld for his war lies, the man who drafted our letter to Spain and delivered it to the Spanish Embassy on Monday, our friend Ray McGovern turned his back in silence. As Clinton continued to speak about respecting the rights of protesters, her guards -- including a uniformed policeman and an unidentified plain-clothed official -- grabbed Ray, dragged him off violently, brutalized him, double-cuffed him with metal handcuffs, and left him bleeding in jail. As he was hauled away (see video), Ray shouted "So this is America?" Clinton went right on mouthing her hypocrisies without a pause.
http://warisacrime.org/content/hillary-talks-about-tolerating-free-expression-police-front-her-brutalize-ray-mcgovern-turni
She's really a charming lady. And that's exactly what Bonobo is talking about.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Lol, thanks for posting, but how the hell did she ever think I would have posted that video and then claimed that Hillary herself physically attacked!?
See what we're dealing with here?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Nice article. Lol
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)If I were you, I would probably not show my face in this thread.
Don't worry, it will blow over.
NealK
(1,791 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Truprogressive85
(900 posts)I love the Ice cube reference
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,706 posts)There are people that are street smart and people that are book smart. I prefer the company of the former. As my buddy says he would rather hang out with five ex-convicts than five intellectuals. When it comes to street smarts and book smarts some folks have a paucity of the former and abundance of the latter or vice versa.
Some life's lessons they don't teach you in school:
-When someone tells you it's not personal it's always personal.
-When someone says it's not about the money it's always about the money.
-When someone prefaces his or her remarks with "no disrespect intended" , someone is about to be disrespected, hard!
-When someone refers to an amorphous group as "friends" the person making the reference considers them anything but.
No need to thank me for my impromptu discussion on life's lessons. In lieu of thanks hug a gangsta, lol.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,706 posts)There are people that are street smart and people that are book smart... When it comes to street smarts and book smarts some folks have a paucity of the former and abundance of the latter or vice versa, and some folks have a marked deficit in both areas, present company notwithstanding.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I see no particular improvement.
Speaking of paucity, though, it would only be right to point out that sanctimonious pedantry rarely goes hand in hand with a good sense of humor, present company included.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,706 posts)Sir, you surrendered all credibility from the jump, ergo:
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,706 posts)Classy is in the eyes of the beholder.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,706 posts)eom
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Something like this, for example.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,706 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,706 posts)On rare occasions I like to smoke a cigar but ,imho, the whole point of smoking a cigar is to do it in company. However since smoking has been consigned to a cultural ghetto it really is no fun.
I did go to a cigar bar while traveling about five years ago. It was in Coconut Grove. There were a group of Cuban men, probably in their sixties, playing Dominoes, and two Cubans just talking at another table. Super friendly, they gave me tips on cigar smoking and left their bottle of Bacardi with me when they left.
I know the whole cigar smoking thing was very much in vogue a few years back. I don't know about now.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I don't particularly appreciate them, but I can see that good cigars ARE way better than bad ones.
It's a culture about savoring things. And I DO like that, whether it be coffee, cigars, or a nice cross-bred sativa.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Why?
That's... strange.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Very bizarre opinion, but that's okay. Everyone is entitled.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)No one votes for a candidate because of an opponents supporters. That's just the excuse they use because they want Hillary and can't explain why - because Bernie is the TRUE PROGRESSIVE /LIBERAL in this race. He's just a better candidate and they know it, so it's his supporters fault they will vote for Hillary. There's other reasons behind some Hillary votes, but I'll keep those to myself - though one reason was exposed on that "other" site.
dsc
(52,130 posts)One reason even so called moderate Republicans have to be looked at with skepticism is that their most fervent supporters are anything but moderate. If Sanders base cares only about economic issues and call people racist for daring to bring up issues of civil rights then that should give one pause as to what Sanders might do in the White House if they care about issues of civil rights. Politicians tend to do or at least try to do what their most fervent supporters what them to do. Given the behavior of some of his most fervent supporters both here and elsewhere it seems to be a fair question as to the extent to which issues regarding civil rights would be a priority of a Sanders administration.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)from inexpert, fumbling generalizations of the supporters (a block FAR too large to make ANY generalizations about), then you really have no business voting for anyone.
dsc
(52,130 posts)yes he voted the right way on issues of Civil Rights but pretty much never took the lead on any of them. His lead has always been economic issues, and if that is the thing you find most important then he is your candidate, I concede that. But if you think Civil Rights is as important as economics as I do, then he probably isn't.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You may think that if Civil Rights is important than he is not your candidate. I disagree very strongly, but concede that is a judgment that is fair to make if it is something based on his record or lack therof as the case may be.
But concluding that he is not the candidate for Civil Rights by counting the number of black people at a rally would not be the way to go about the process IMO, nor would it be wisdom to infer too much from the overly vehement defensiveness on the parts of some Sanders supporters to the BLM intrusion at his speech, for example.
dsc
(52,130 posts)the answer is no where. It is what his supporters, his fervent supporters, find important. And that in many cases isn't Civil Rights. And yes, the over defensiveness is a problem. It shows his base doesn't get it at all and that is an immense problem if he does want to lead on those issues.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You are inferring from a very small and vocal group what "Sanders" supporters are like when it is clear that the obnoxious and vocal ones are what you are using as your example while ignoring the larger but more quiet and polite group (which by definition are difficult to notice).
IOW, you are drawing inaccurate conclusions based on faulty data.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Yeah I'm sure you will get some switches from Hillary to Bernie due to that post.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... is that DU's loudest and angriest Sanders supporters tend to be the same folks who have been wrong over and over again during the Obama Presidency.
Every week their hair would burst into flames because of some evil thing that Obama was about to do. They freak out, go crazy, and then then when the evil event doesn't happen, they move on to the next outrage DU jour.
They also tend to be the ones lecturing everyone else on what it means to be a liberal, or telling us who the real liberals are. As if that's something only they can decide.
When it comes to sanctimonious BS, they have absolutely nothing on the Baptist ministers I encountered as a kid. And I did not take them seriously either.
brooklynite
(93,880 posts)...and I have no problem with any of his issues. I simply can't see a way he wins a national election against the Republicans.
MindfulOne
(227 posts)And he nails it with Democrats in states where he's spent any time.
I don't see how he can lose.
Nobody cares about the socialist handle and people are hurting out there.
Poverty, loss of benefits, high costs, these things affect Ds and Rs in equal measure.
He will win in the GE.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)We have a discussion forum right here where we are discussing the primary elections and candidates. Apparently, some DUers who are currently on time-outs have started yet another discussion forum. Both Clinton fans and Sanders fans have some members who are on time-outs from DU and some who have even been banned here. So, as often happens, they take their discussions elsewhere. I don't know about anyone else, but I avoid such websites. They are rarely interesting on their own.
In the meantime, there is DU, where people who can discuss things civilly have a forum read by many, many people. The discussion goes on daily here. Bringing other Internet places into the discussion does nothing to promote anything, other than to talk about DUers, some of whom can't post here for some time period.
I'm afraid I don't see the utility of this, nor do I see how it applies to our discussions on DU. Over time, there have been any number of Internet forums set up by former DUers. None have thrived, because the discussion at those sites is all about DU, rather than about real topics that are worthy of discussion.
I suggest we discuss candidates and issues, rather than DUers who cannot currently post here.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and refrain from commenting in threads that are about other sites. Then there will be fewer posts in said thread, and you won't be kicking it, thus increasing its visibility.
Just a thought.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)That's what I've always done, anyhow. Sometimes it turns out well, and sometimes not. That's life.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that's what most of us do. Including those who are participating in this thread about other DUers who have gone to another site in order to trash Bernie's supporters here. Whether you approve or not, many of us find it of interest.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Very much like right wingers. Intolerant of dissension of opinion.
Look how full of hate they are at the people who question whether Bernie can win. Going and looking for you old posts on unrelated topics to stir up intra-personal issued. Making fun of people for supporting Hillary now if they didn't in 08, as if that's impossible. Bitter and ugly as they have been throughout Obama's term.
Resentful of anyone who attained any accomplishment in any field, whether it be in politics or anything else. Resentful hatred toward people who worked to lead the party and therefore respond to the whole party, not just them.
Bernie isn't anyone really to be supported or cared about. He is just a useful tool to latch onto to promote their hatred and bitterness.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Now that's the world record in projection. Ever thought of going to the Olympic games as a hammer thrower? With such a talent in projecting you would win all the gold medals.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)I have read the most vile attacks against DUers and absolutely abhorrent crap about Hillary and Bernie over there. I also remember the DU admins (who created the site) admonishing a poster for bringing that vile crap over here and complaining about it...
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I signed up there when it opened, but after reading the crap that is posted there, I quite going to that site.
I just don't have time for more than one political discussion forum. I'm still working, and the Internet is a distraction. So, I visit DU off and on during the day and sometimes in the evening. I read and reply, and post a new thread about once a day, on average.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)and have openly discussed goading members here into hide-worthy posts.
This is of some significance.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)MIRT members serve at the pleasure of the DU admins. Discussions of that are pure meta and nothing will come of them. Write Skinner an email or something. Discussing this in GDP is a dead end, at best.
Frankly, any DUer that can be goaded into posting something that will be hidden isn't paying attention. It's easy to avoid hidden posts, while still saying what you think. So easy that getting a time-out for having five of them in 90 days is ridiculous for anyone familiar with DU and how it operates.
Occasionally, a post is hidden that shouldn't have been, but that's not the norm. I have a hidden post right now. One. I don't think it should have been hidden, but there it is. I know how to prevent any further such thing happening, though, and will take those steps. I do look at transparency pages for people who get time-outs, when I know about them. I could describe in every case why every one of the hidden posts was hidden by a jury. I know why my one hidden post was hidden, too.
What a lot of DUers don't realize is that many, if not most, jurors are not among the most active posters on DU. In fact, the make-up of most juries is people whose screen names you wouldn't even recognize. That's how the numbers shake out, really. Attempting to stack a jury on DU, even in the middle of the night, is a waste of time. Lurkers vote in juries in large numbers, and often have no idea what they're supposed to be doing. The most important part of an alert is the description the alerter writes. That is what determines whether the post is hidden or not in most cases.
It's ridiculously easy to avoid a time-out. The vast bulk of active DUers will never have a time-out. Others, sadly, seem to have them more frequently, and there's a reason for that. It's not what or who they support. It's what they write. It's simple.
So, now, I've contributed to the essential meta-ness of this thread. Oh, well.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I will take your advice.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)there, and often skip rants.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Creating it, nursing it, reacting to it and perpetually iterating it into new levels. The account names change, the particulars change, over the years, but ...there sure seems to be a common thread if folks are paying attention.
And at the core of it seems to be - has always been- folks who are altogether far too wrapped up in this place, even when they're gathering elsewhere to talk about how much it sucks.
Hey, everyone needs hobbies, I guess.
But no, mistaking whatever fight you had with whatever person who rubs you the wrong way on an internet message board with some grand indication of nationwide political dynamics or whatnot-- is a massive misinterpretation of scales, of relative size, of relevance. It is the very definition of being inside a bubble.
I'm suporting Sanders- as of now- in the primaries because i like (most of) what the guy is saying and i am glad he is pulling the discussion in the directions he is. I am not "anti-Clinton", but I do think so far her campaign has been even more disappointing than I feared it would be. It is, of course, still early. I have operated on the assumtion for a while that she would be the nominee, although i feel she is a whole bunch less "inevitable" than she was a couple months ago. That said, if she's the nominee, great, i will support her in the general. And i will listen to what she has to say in the debates, etc, although like i said right now i am supporting Sen. Sanders.
Anyone who is so wrapped up in DU drama- either real or, even more likely, solely in the heads of them and their pals- that they would let it affect who they vote for in the primary, really needs to get out more.
LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Tafffy?
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)By the way, I looked in a mirror.
I think I'll shave today.
Maybe.
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)Shaving sooooooo over rated! You probably look hotter with whiskers.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I'll be 50 next year and my moustache and beard still don't connect.
Well, actually a few months ago, I think I developed ONE new hair that sort of connects them when it gets long, but only on ONE side...
So I don't know. I know beards are in, and I've kind of waited for that. But now my beard has got so much gray.. and it's not like that cool Doctor Strange streak of gray down the middle thing either...
Getting old, Ronny. Getting old.
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)55 in 2016 ....... I can handle the grey but I just wish the rest didn't fall out!
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)Sanders is appealing to a very narrow segment of the party base and is doing well into states with 90+% white voting populations. I like Sanders personally and his positions are closer to my positions according to that online quiz but I do not think that Sanders is viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will be spending another billion dollars. Many good democrats are not supporting Sanders for a host of reasons. That is how the primary process works.
I do admit that I was taken back when a Sanders supporter told me that I was a bad parent because my two daughters were supporting Hillary Clinton and that I was excited by this. I am also turned off by some of the conduct of the Sanders supporters on other threads but my lack of support for Sanders is not based on this conduct. Attacking other Democrats and calling other democrats names such as "corporate democrats" and "third way" democrats is not a smart way to change peoples minds. I doubt that the Sanders supporters are winning any converts to their cause with their attacks but that is not my problem.
I look forward to the Super Tuesday primary and conventions. I will be curious to see if Sanders can do well in states other than Iowa and New Hampshire. I have plenty to do in the real world including trying to turn Texas blue. We are hoping for the 5th Circuit to rule on the en banc review of the Voter Id decision and a ruling on the Texas redistricting case in the next couple of weeks and both of these matters are far more important to me right now than some of the stuff I see posted on this internet.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sat Sep 26, 2015, 11:19 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
To my Clinton supporter friends
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251626478
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Wow, not even pretending anymore. This is pure flamebait. "check you self" "close to crazyland", "fucking crazy", "deluded assumptions"... incredibly rude and offensive, not to mention insensitive and inappropriate.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Sep 26, 2015, 11:34 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Straw man argument
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I had to read the post several times thinking I had missed something offensive. I couldn't find it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.