in praise of Bernie Sanders

[Cary]

I have listened to Bernie Sanders for many years, and have admired him and have agreed with him generally. I like Thom Hartmann too.

I am trying to recall any time when Bernie has ever trash talked Hillary Clinton or Democrats, with whom he caucuses, the way Democrats are trash talked here.

Funny, I have never heard him even come close. And I think he would find it as repulsive as I do, for the same reasons I am repulsed.

[daleanime]

1. It kind of cuts off discussion....

when facts are labeled 'trash'.

Then again, that might be the goal. Have a lovely day.

[Cary]

4. What facts are you referring to?

None of the trash talk I refer to is factual. I have no problem with actual facts.

[NCTraveler]

2. Neither Clinton, Sanders, or O'Malley would approve of a lot of the verbiage used...

here to attack democrats. But they aren't here posting.

[Cary]

5. if you think this is about them posting here you miss my point

I don't expect people who do the trash talking to be anything but reactionary and defensive.

[NCTraveler]

6. I don't think I missed your point at all.

Pretty simple. All three would be pretty disgusted as much of the verbiage used here in attacking democrats. That isn't your point?

"the way Democrats are trash talked here."

[Cary]

8. Not quite.

My point is that the conflict here is stupid.

[NCTraveler]

9. Much of the conflict here is.

That follows the line of thought I presented. Not one of out candidates would respect a Conaway investigation that went no where being used to attack democrats as has been done here. Along with a whole litany of other absurd attacks on democrats. Fully agree.

[mmonk]

3. Bernie doesn't trash talk candidates.

He might respond to trash talking by Trump, but that's about it.

[Cary]

7. So why would his supporters try to do it for him?

The goal is for Democrats to enact Democratic policies, not to elect any particular person.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Same reason candidate Obama with his positive rhetorical style had supporters here attacking others

for such things as advocating marriage equality, which Obama did not support yet. Many people who take up a candidate or interest in an entertainer or author do so for good reasons but others are just out to have a banner, a group, a set and setting for their abuse of others. They exploit the object of their 'support' as an excuse to behave badly toward others. Every candidate has such 'supporters'. They are often the most energetic and usually expend great efforts to define themselves as THE supporter of that candidate so that if questioned they say 'you just hate Obama' or 'Bernie' or 'Hillary'. They exploit the candidates as facades from which to lob their personal fire bombs.
Same thing happens in 'fandom' around non political persons and things. That sort of supporter is very safely ignored. Each candidate needs them in a way, all that manic dedication can be very useful, and that sort never really influences anything because they exist to echo and attack. They are not rivals in the making of policy, ie Obama and marriage equality, his 'supporters' opposed and parsed and defended a position he was in fact shedding and adapting and preparing for his newly stated support for equality. Who assisted him in getting to that place? His critics and those who advocated for equality over and above loyalty to a candidate or politician. Who in essence did nothing but cheer for a policy he was in the process of rejecting? His 'main supporters'.
The yap and yammer and lash out, but that's all they do, it is why they are here. They came for the fight, not for the future.

[Cary]

16. So you approve.

Sorry. Not good enough.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. First, you don't get to bark at me. What the fuck gave you the idea that I approve?

It's as if you did not even read what I said. Now basically I count you as one of those pernicious types, out to hurl insult no matter how much thought others put into the discussion. Jesus, I though you were expressing good will, not aiming for more potshots.

[Cary]

19. How did I insult you?

I read your post as apologetic. If I am in error you are free to correct me without making it personal.

That's how adults discuss things.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Adults don't respond to a complex statement with a snappy 'not good enough'.

If you want to wail at the wind and the tides do so. They will not stop for you. It's the same with crappy behavior out of some in politics or other areas of interest, disapproval will not stop them. They are bullies, making use of candidates as weapons. Politically what they are doing is useless to them, it is all reactive so they are not in fact actual policy players. Thus to me, as a person with policy objectives, they are either inconsequential or useful as examples of that which is wrong in the process.

It seems like what you want might to blame a candidate for their supporters. I won't do that. Because to do so is daft.

What is your objective with this post?

[Cary]

35. Really? Adults don't say a response isn't good enough?

My objective is to communicate with other adults who don't play stupid games with me. That doesn't mean they have to agree with me. Disagreeing respectfully is just as good, maybe better.

Since I have never blamed Bernie Sanders for anything, I find our "it seems" to be kind of incredulous.

What's your objective here?

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. It certainly is not helpful. But we do have to differentiate between

Last edited Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)

explaining and posting examples of where they disagree with a certain candidate as opposed to just nasty sniping.

Even though I am a Bernie supporter - It is fair game to point out that he did vote against the Brady Bill. It is not fair game to try to portray him as a gun nut or misrepresent his position as fundamentally different than the general Democratic Party consensus.

It is fair to point out Secretary Clinton's closeness to Wall Street and the financial industry. It is not fair to go on about Benghazi or the E-mails or portray her in an objectified form that is unfair.

So, it is quite okay to point out reasons for anyone's concern about another candidates positions. That is not trash talking. Nasty comments and looking for every little thing that can possibly be turned into a negative - that is trash talking.

[Cary]

11. How about talking about what the candidates' policies will be going forward?

I always gristled at the very notion of a self-loathing liberal. To my horror I find exactly that running wild here at DU.

I am proud to be a Democrat. I have a superior education, and a superior grasp of the facts. I also have a lot of rea world experience. I have no room for self-loathing or anyone who will try to denigrate me for it.

I am not always correct but that isn't relevant. No one is always correct. No one gets to be 55 without making mistakes and having regrets. But that does not define me. Nor does it define a candidate.

We need a big victory in November, badly. We have way too much at stake. Stop the trash talk. Just stop. I

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. of course we should talk about their policies going forward

That and their record is what is important. Neither their record and their proposed agenda are trash talk and both are fair for all candidates including the ones I support. I do agree that it is reasonable to expect that even the candidate with the finest of character have made some mistakes. The question is not a single bad call - but their over all record.

[Cary]

13. Too much spin. Too much b.s.

And then it invariably breaks down into some truly stupid personal ad hominem made by some emotionally retarded moron.

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have fine characters and in any event someone who will resort to that ideotic logical fallacy isn't fit to judge.

Too often when I try to discuss something my opinion is hijacked by a blathering idiot who thinks they can make me feel badly. Screw that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. I agree that happens too much

I suppose some people get so emotionally invested in their candidate that they lose their own sense of civility. If we can just keep the discussion to the agenda and their record and have at least an attempt at a rational discussion. I do it all the time in real life with Democrats who are a bit more conservative than me. It just seems harder for many people to do on the Internet, sometimes.

[Cary]

20. Yes yes and yes. You got it.

[Cary]

30. But the record in a constructive way, without spin

That is an art that I don't think a lot of people possess.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. well, certainly using emotionally charged trigger words is not helpful at all

Debating in a civil manner interpretations of an overall picture of a candidates record is not only fair - it is essential to democracy itself.

[Cary]

33. It's more than that

You do seem to be very reasonable to me so let me ask you something.

I was banned in the Bernie forum. I have never said a negative thing about Bernie. I do support Hillary but only because I feel she has a better chance in the general election. To me their policies are pretty much the same. I would be happy with either. Yet as soon I responded to a post in the Bernie forum I was banned.

I then, of course, went to the Hillary forum where I was not just not banned, but embraced because I am a Democrat. I have also had alleged Bernie supporters following me around and trying to make everything I say into some kind of personal defect. On the other side, not one Hillary supporter has done this to me. We have disagreed in pretty much the way you and I have disagreed. It is respectful.

Now tell me what I'm supposed to make of that? I don't make you guilty by association. I am happy to have this discussion with you. But what do I make of people who will try to knock me down for just having a positive self image?

[Douglas Carpenter]

38. well both sides seemed convinced that they otherside it doing it more

or worse or whatever. I admit that I am not emotionally neutral on this subject - therefore I have to have be honest and admit at least to myself that I have bias. But in my mind and in the mind of many others - many Hillary supporters are just as bad or perhaps even worse. I don't know for a certainty who is worse. Because, I acknowledge the limitations of my bias.

Yeah, but all that aside - I do know there are some people on the left just as there are in the center and in the right who are so emotionally wound up about their candidate or their issues that they just are not reasonable. I have been accused on a few occasions of being a conservative-Democrat even though anyone who took the slightest look at my overall postings or at my journal will see that I am actually quite left-wing but still support the Democratic Party. Because there is at this time and for the foreseeable future no viable alternative except to be ruled by crazies of the extreme right.

[Cary]

41. Come on Douglas...

Do you really think talking about "sides" is productive?

Can you make the distinction between disagreeing with someone's conclusions, and attacking them personally? Of course you can. Honest disagreement should never in and of itself be a justification for attacking someone personally.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. I agree. But, unfortunately we do see people across the political spectrum

and supporters of different candidates do that. Personal attacks are not justified. Unfortunately some people get themselves worked up and some people seem highly defensive almost to the point of paranoia. It just seems that on the Internet and here on DU specifically it has always happened a lot - or at least since I started posting here about ten years ago. And it happens across the whole spectrum of opinion on almost everything. Some of the most emotional and angry posting I have seen involved issues that had nothing to do with candidates or specific political positions.

In normal life I don't even do it with Ted Cruz or Donald Trump supporting right-wing extremist. Even less reason to do it with other Democrats.

I don't know why some people are that way. I suppose I have had brief moments when I lost my decorum as well. In fact, I'm sure I have.

[Douglas Carpenter]

51. would you consider a post like this to be just a bit impolite?

I found this without even trying. They are all over this forum:

Yes and Mr. Eskow is actually with the campaign so he'd know!

And an article right on the berni website. The desperation it palpable.

I think he's mistaking Wall Street's shaking. That's not fear, that's laughter. A mess of promises that the office of the President doesn't even have the power to deliver.

That speech was the biggest joke of the campaign season yet. What's his promise tomorrow? Immortality for all? World peace? Free housing on Mars

[Cary]

52. It seems to me the author is talking about Bernie

If I don't like Bernie or something he said or did, do you take offense? Is that a personal comment on you?

My biggest problem here is the gaslighting. Someone will say something about me personally and then no matter how I respond they will claim I am crazy or that it's somehow my fault that they are abusing me. I have had people do that simply because I refuse to repeat something about Hillary Clinton that I feel is a "conservative" smear. And the other thing I get abused for is my passionate opinion that we must defeat Republicans. I'm told that I am fear mongering, because I say that if Republicans gain control we will suffer.

And this happens to come from Bernie Sanders supporters who seem to think that I have to vote for Bernie or nothing. I don't get that from Hillary supporters.

So I really don't know what you're trying to tell me. Is it impolite to not like Bernie Sanders?

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. well, if your point is that people should disagree in a civil manner then

the point is that it can't only be one side that is expected to be civil. All sides have to be civil.

Should both Hillary and Bernie supporters restrain themselves from disagreeing in a disrespectful and/or mocking tone?

[Cary]

56. I never said it was one sided

That's just what people here want to tell me that I said.

As I said, I speak from my own experience.

[Kentonio]

47. I had the opposite experience.

A single post in the Hillary forum, which didn't denigrate or critisize Mrs Clinton in any way and I was instantly banned. Many others have had the same experience, along with being alert stalked and the rest of it.

Perhaps the lesson here is that people on both sides are taking it all far too personally and seeing enemies in a place where in reality the mass majority share most of their ideals.

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. agree 10000000000000000000%

[Cary]

53. Then you agree with me?

I can only speak from my own experience. I have said it before, if anyone is doing this stuff to you as they have done to me, it's wrong.

But you can't blame me for it. I assure you it wasn't me.

[Kentonio]

54. Agree with you on which point?

I certainly agree it happens, but I see it happening on both sides, and deplore it equally on both. We should be better than that.

[Cary]

57. That is the point

We should be better.

I bet you and I don't disagree on policy. Isn't that what matters?

[Kentonio]

59. In that case, yes I do agree with you. And yes that is what should matter.

[Cary]

60. I've pointed that out to people who attack me and they pretty much tell me it's my fault they attack

Has anyone done exactly that to you? You try to tell them that you agree on the policies, and they change the subject to something they think about you personally?

If that's not happening to you then it isn't really a "both sides do it" scenario.

[Kentonio]

61. I don't see any point in making the effort to point it out to people.

Months ago perhaps it still penetrated a bit, but we're deep into primary season and the divide between the camps has become so big that people just don't really listen to each other any more if they have the 'wrong' campaign badge. Even when people agree on something its usually followed by some kind of recrimination or snide attack. I just try to not get caught up in the mud slinging if I can help it, although sometimes I slip too in all honesty.

[Cary]

62. This is the same as it was in 2008 to 2010.

If they can attack me then I can complain about them attacking me.

[Kentonio]

64. I wasn't here then, but I hear a lot of people saying it's worse this time.

As for you complaining, sure I'm not passing judgement. I just choose not to myself, because I don't think it'll accomplish anything.

[Cary]

65. Have you seen this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=110730422&alert=39#post39

Cha, by the way, is the sweetest person on earth.

Both sides haven't done this. Sorry.

[Kentonio]

66. The exact same thing happened at the Hillary supporter site, so yes both sides have done this.

And Cha incidentally was the one who banned me, and then when I brought it up in GDP told me to basically deal with it. Perhaps I just haven't seen her sweet side.

[Cary]

68. I'll ask her for her side of that.

Did you do nothing to provoke her?

What Hillary site are you referring to? I really have not been active here at DU until a few weeks ago. I was sort of shocked to see the breakdown here, but then I'm not because I was here in 2008 to 2010.

[Kentonio]

69. Depends on what you call provoke I suppose.

She said that anyone who worried about a Clinton dynasty effect was indulging in sexist demagoguery (I believe that was the phrase she used). I had a 'whoah wait a minute!' moment, and she banned me. She then proceeded to reply to my post having already removed my ability to respond, which still irritates me now. At no point did I criticize Hillary or any of her supporters, I just questioned one statement I found to be unreasonable.

As for the Clinton site, I saw screenshots but I don't remember the exact site name. I'm sure someone else here can provide it.

[beam me up scottie]

70. Here:

*note to jury: poster asked for a screenshot, it's not against the tos to post one since it's from another site.

[Kentonio]

71. Thanks for that.

[Cary]

72. I am not the arbiter of anything. I am merely stating my opinion based on my own experience.

And I said this in the Hillary forum so I'm not trying to hide anything. I think this site will be utterly meaningless in terms of the election. I think healthy people will have nothing to do with this place, and yes my fascination here is akin to slowing down to gawk at a car wreck.

Nevertheless I heard Norman Goldman say last night that it would be a shame to cancel out the civil war that we see the stupid Republicans in right now with a stupid civil war of our own. We have them on the ropes.

And basically, Kentonio, whoever wins they will be constrained by as much obstruction as the Republicans can deliver, just as President Obama has been constrained. So to me it isn't a matter of who is better. We will not know.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Yes your side has done that, repeatedly.

We have proof they alert stalked us here.

[JonLeibowitz]

18. How could i possibly disagree with your post ?

It is in every way 'superior', as are you.

[Cary]

21. Does that insult make you feel better?

Is your sarcasm necessary or appropriate?

Yes I feel very good about myself. I like the man I see in the mirror and you will never ever change that.

[JonLeibowitz]

24. I have not insulted you. I am commenting on the nature of your response

[Cary]

27. Oh please.

You mocked me for having a positive self image. That's inexcusable and you are trying to bully the wrong guy.

You need to be ashamed of yourself for this.

[JonLeibowitz]

37. You are incorrect.

One can have a positive self-image without declaring that one is superior multiple times.

I will never be ashamed for that comment.

[Cary]

42. Except I never said I was superior to you

You read that in all by yourself.

My education and experience are superior. I worked hard for both and I will say it as many times as I want to. You have nothing to say in response. It has absolutely nothing to do with you. And you don't have to like it either but you are over the line, and I will push you out of my personal space every time.

[JonLeibowitz]

48. Superior to what then? Superior is a comparison, implicitly if not explicitly.

And on the internet you don't know my education nor my experience.

[Cary]

49. I told you it's not about you

Yet you still claim it was.

[randome]

22. While some whine about your specific wordage, I applaud your intent.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Cary]

25. Thanks

I re-read my opening post and I would write it exactly the same way.

If people don't like the wordage that's fine. It is not my intent to denigrate anyone, quite the contrary. But when someone attacks me for liking myself and being proud of who and what I am here at Democratic Underground--that is pathological. Why would anyone do that? For what reason?

They will never succeed, of course. That goes without saying. But the fact that someone would do this and have the nerve to call themselves a decent human being is quite disturbing.

And I want to be on record that if I see anyone doing this to anyone else, I am going to call that abuse out. Every decent human being here should do the same. Bullying sucks. I hate bullies, especially ones that claim to be Democrats.

[morningfog]

26. So, what's your point? Bernie is his own person as each poster here is.

[Cary]

28. I've made a simple point.

You should understand it.

What do you think I'm saying? I'll let you know if you're correct.

[morningfog]

29. I asked because I fail to see your point.

You are complaining about Bernie supporters, but it isn't exactly clear why.

[Cary]

32. Okay, I will try because you seem to me to be asking in good faith.

Keep it very, very simple. Talk about policies. Talk about Democrats winning: do I need to tell you why that is important? If you don't think that's critical, then I don't know what to tell you. You want another Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Do I need to further down the list?

I don't see how you fail to see that point. You don't see that point. I don't see how you fail to see that point.

I don't give a rat's butt whether it's Bernie or Hillary. To me their policies are virtually identical. But it isn't Hillary supporters who are attacking me, quite the contrary, so what am I to make of that?

[morningfog]

39. You call out one candidate's supporters and wonder

why you aren't being challenged by the other side? Really? I don't believe that you don't get that.

The vitriol is not one way. Far from it.

As for your apparent point, which is still muddled, it is not only about policies. It is also about trust, ability to win the general, ability to govern, ability to enact their policies and who we would rather see as President. And there are differences in policies.

Is the personal rudeness on DU necessary? Of course not and it distracts from the issues that matter. But criticisms of the candidates is entirely appropriate and necessary even. It is our duty to speak out and challenge and criticize, especially during the primary.

Supporters of candidates are silly to take criticisms of the candidate personal. That is what is stupid.

[Cary]

43. My point is not muddled

[brooklynite]

34. His supporters don't meet that standard...

Corrupt, shrill, "blood dripping from her hands", "bawled her way to victory" among others...

[Cary]

36. Too broad...

But there are those. I agree.

[Bernin4U]

40. They are both "fine", and "virtually identical", because you deem them so?

Sorry, but that's plenty sarcasm-worthy.

That Bernie chooses not to say anything negative about other Dems is simply his choice. For stylistic and/or strategic reasons. It does NOT mean he has no problems with them.

Just as you might go to a relative's for dinner. You already know them to be fairly poor at cooking, and once again they serve an expectedly bad meal. Are you going to stand up and declare how terrible they are? I should hope not. You're going to be as diplomatic as possible. Exactly as Bernie is doing on a national stage.

But to say that very same behavior should extend to a discussion forum? Sorry, that's pretty absurd. The point of a forum is open discussion. Of course there will and should be limits as to what is allowed, as far as topics, language, conduct, etc, and every forum is different. But to say that only positive discussion on a forum is appropriate? I'm pretty sure we're all adults here.

[Cary]

44. I don't expect everyone to understand decency

Apparently you can't understand. So be it.

But I'm not going to stop calling for it just because of you, or anyone else.

[Cary]

45. When I was in college on the first leg of my superior education,

I lived in a fraternity. It was a big mistake but the guys were from the same place as I was and I had a bunch of friends, and was under the mistaken impression that I ought not live in the dorms.

After my first semester, when I was a pledge and not privy to anything, pretty much all of my friends moved out. They had some kind of a fight with the people who stayed. To this day I'm not sure what it was. However some really bad stuff was being done by my remaining fraternity brothers. I'm not going to mention it here. The statute of limitations is up, for sure, but suffice it to say that now that I am a lawyer some of these guys could have had some big legal problems. It was all just plain old mean.

I tried to tell these people to be nice. One evening we were sitting around and they acted like they were really curious about what I was saying and they were trying to understand. As I said, the things they were doing were serious felonies and just plain old mean. In fact the basketball team went from number 1 in the nation to losing every single game and not even making the NIT, because the players were friends with the people in my fraternity. I'm not exaggerating. Yet these people called me "the philosopher" for telling them to simply be nice.

I can tell one story, far far from the worst example. One of the guys was kind of not as strong as the average. My fraternity brothers came up with the idea of putting him at one end of the hall and letting him try to run away while they had a contest to see who could lasso and hog tie him the quickest. Fortunately I was not the only decent person in the house and a bunch of us said this would not happen, over our dead bodies. And fortunately they weren't malicious enough to kill us.

After not understanding me, some time later, one of these guys who couldn't understand me stood up at a house meeting and started to lament the fact that our house was unpopular on campus. While he didn't say this in these words, exactly, what he was in effect saying was that our house members were doing all of these mean things and of course we cannot stop doing those mean things. No, we can't be nice. Remember I was trying to tell them to be nice just for the sake of being nice. But no, this member said we cannot be nice so what we had to do was to pretend to be nice and not let people know that we were doing all of these other things.

I sat there and just shook my head, as I sit here now. I moved out of that house after that. I found people who understood the point: just be nice to people for no reason.

Wow, I'm such a "philosopher."

[thereismore]

58. You are right. Bernie is so much better than the rest of us,

and I mean it. He is a class act.

[Cary]

63. Thanks.

Pretty clear. Right? Nothing muddy.