General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA plea to Bernie Sanders supporters.
The purpose of this post is to caution Bernie Sanders supporters on DU to show respect to those with whom you disagree. Let me preface this by saying Im a white man, an avid supporter of Bernie and guilty of about everything I shall mention. Ive had posts hidden, and although in most cases I disagreed with the decision, there was probably some underlying hostility beneath my coldly polite posts. So, mea culpa. I am not accusing any specific individuals, but I have seen Bernie-backer posts that were, imo, arrogant, hostile and failing to attempt to see the other persons point of view. Thats why I am raising the issue.
Lets review the bidding. In election cycles, Duers back different candidates, get tribal and many get nasty. Also, President Obama has been the object of considerable controversy, since maybe 2010 and so we have the overlap of that residual controversy and a nascent presidential election cycle. In addition, our candidate comes from a rural, lily-white state:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-02-10-vermont-census_N.htm
This is reminiscent of the Howard Dean candidacy, a Vermont governor with a high score from the NRA and not much black support, at least in my experience. Other insurgent candidates with disproportionately white support were John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992, 96 and perhaps Ralph Nader in 2000. I have no data for any of this, its all based on my memories and perception.
Now here is my main point. I think we have a real shot to win the nomination. Bernie has a lot of momentum and is closing in the polls. If we get the nomination, anything is possible because historically the election after a two-term president is usually close. Bernie could end up in the White House, much crazier things have happened.
Now here is Bernies main point: winning the election is not the end of the peoples involvement. He says he cant get his program passed without, and I quote a revolution. He is calling for a million young people to march on Washington and millions more to get involved all over the country. I think of it as the Occupy movement (which was multi-racial!) on steroids. He wants the people to take back this country from the oligarchs.
So getting the nomination will be fantastic, but it will only be the beginning. Bill Clinton said in the primaries you fall in love, but in the general election you fall in line. We cannot burn bridges which will hinder people from backing Bernie when we win the nomination. We will need Hillary backers of all walks of life and especially all races.
So when gender, race, class, etc. is an issue with an adverse poster in a thread on DU, *please* be more than civil, be kind and make a real attempt to reach out. Dont be stubborn, that person is not your enemy but another 99%er with a unique story and perspective. Lest I sound preachy, I admit this advice is definitely for me as well.
Its already hot out there and its gonna get a lot hotter. Well make mistakes. Some of us (including me!) may get posts hidden, etc. Debate is necessary in this cycle. By all means let's be vigorous about it. But if we try to act out of love and remember the nobility of this cause, just maybe we can elect a transformative president.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Paladin
(28,287 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)after 8 years where anyone that did not support Hillary was branded a sexist, and where Bill Clinton did racist dog whistles that he still has not apologized for, and when DU had daily things about how anybody who supports Bernie is a racist (even though he embraced and worked with jesse Jackson and others long before it was cool to do so), then i say, ha.
SOME Clinton supporters have no problem being Uncivil. Those who oppose them are called Ratf**kers, traitors and supporters of the right wing. What makes it worse is that the people asking us to hold hands are often the very same people that tried to drive us OUT of our own party by calling us ratf**kers.
marym625
(17,997 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)calimary
(81,608 posts)Including yours.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)but that is my point. If we don't do everything we can to get Bernie elected, we might be hosed.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I welcome their hate as the man said. I'm talking about the people who are saying that Bernie can't win this. Bernie not only can but Bernie is going to win this. Why because the country is ready for a steady hand, the hand of a person who is unflappable, a person who does not check the direction but rather makes that direction that we follow. Fuck that wind monitor. I want a Leader and Bernie Sanders is that leader today. I wish he and I were younger but as long as I have fight I am up to the challenge. I feel he feels the same. Its not about me or him or you its about my 8 year old grand daughter, thats why I get up in the mornings. Thats who has my undivided attention. I want to check out of all this knowing full well I did what was right for everyone not for some other reason. I'd love to have a woman president but I'll be damned if I shoot myself in the foot to get there!
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)That to me is what this election is about. When FDR said that, he was talking about the 1%. I believe that is the real threat to your grand child and my children, not Al Qaida, but the billionaires and corporations which poison our air, water and food. The ones who are destroying the earth and believe their wealth will somehow save them. That is the insanity of so-called "civilization."
I believe it is the natural impulse of people to become more inclusive over time. But those natural impulses are countered by religions and media outlets which promote white nativism, etc. But time is short and unless we start geting real and justice, wealth distribution and the survival of this planet, we are screwed.
The filthy rich are the real enemy. The rest of us, to the extent we fight amongst ourselves, play into the hands of the enemy. We need to band together as many people as possible, take to the streets and start a revolution.
madokie
(51,076 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)republicans or other right wingers rather than fellow Democrats and liberals. Just because we have a different candidate. Welcome to ignore.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)but respectful discourse should rule the day. Despite the fact that we support opposing candidates, the debate on their merits or lack of should be conducted in an adult civilized manner.
Politics has been classified a "blood sport" as someone commented on this tread, but the drawing of blood is not required, literally or figuratively. Unfortunately, most of us hs been victim or purveyor of the snark running rampant. It's not serving any purpose.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)If one is compelled to replace valid argument with irrational insult, what's the point?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)That is what is worth fighting for.
840high
(17,196 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Without a valid argument to give HC supporters, my only reason for supporting Bernie (or a couple of others), is that I just don't like her.
Should I try hypnotism?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Hillary supporters admit it takes big money to win the GE. Of course there are no invisible strings attached to that money ...right? Do people really believe that in this world?
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)but even if these things were not true, and they may not be, and HC will enter the convent if she loses and devote her life to taking care of lepers like Mother Theresa did, I still don't like her.
I felt the same way about Nixon before Watergate.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Ron Green
(9,825 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)The need for a transformative president on climate change is the most critical issue in the last 10,000 years, literally. And the need for wealth re-distribution is the greatest since 1941, at least.
My point in OP is not that we shouldn't shout-- we should. My point is because this may be the most important election in world history, how we go about mobilizing people after we win the nomination. Because just electing Bernie will do very little, don't you agree? My point is I think in line with Bernie's main point-- we will need millions of people in the streets *after* the election in order to have a chance to pressure Congress.
That's what happened in 1933. We were close to a revolution and people were out in the streets. FDR started off very badly, letting some austerity guy cut WWI veteran disability payments. After several veteran suicides, public outrage over that and other things empowered the New Dealers in the cabinet to start re-distributing wealth in the proper direction.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and worse. There's been quite a bit of that. And these posters know his stellar record and his history of civil rights activism. In fact, you ignore the attacks on Bernie and his supporters altogether, despite GD showcasing them prominently, particularly over the past couple of days.
In any case, since I have no intention of halting my criticism of Clinton's record and rhetoric, I'm fine with countering the attacks launched by HRC supporters.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)And after that, he'll make the plea to O'Malley supporters.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)The PoC slur is nasty but easily rebutted. And of course there are all kinds of attacks here on Bernie and his supporters. That's the kind of stuff that gets me pissed off and before you know it I'm in a thread where everybody is raising alerts.
I'm trying to distinguish between vigorous debate and unnecessarily alienating people who may well be allies after the nomination. Of course there are tribalists who cannot be made to see sense. In that case, all we can do is state the facts.
I would also point out that Bernie is deliberately avoiding going negative because the facts are on his side. Hillary has a heavily-checkered record and he does not. More importantly, she can't speak very effectively extemporaneously about populist themes because she doesn't believe it.
Hell yes, let's debate. The facts are overwhelmingly on our side. But let's try to transcend some of the infantile tribalism and alligator-brain responses that are self-defeating for our larger purpose. We can't keep the HRC side of the street clean, only they can do that. But given that we are facing the end of history without a president like Bernie, we have a moral imperative to keep our side of the street clean.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Personally I get the feeling she doesn't want to make any promises to progressives. We get a lot of rhetoric and prose out of her camp but not a lot of policy specifics. Whenever I press anyone for specifics here, her supporters seem to struggle a bit to present something other than platitudes and glittering generalities.
I try to keep my anger and frustration in check but there are some of her supporters that seem to be on here JUST to redirect any conversation to "optics" or whatever nonsense other than policy.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Don't get me started on Hillary, that will defeat the purpose of my post! I think the issues are definitely on our side when you compare their records, so we do experience some defensiveness about her record. But sometimes I can engage a Hillary supporter in such a way that an appeal to reason works. E.g. I have one daughter who supported Hillary in 2008, but I think she's coming around!
What I have found useful is to start with points of agreement. For example, I can think of many nice things to say about Hillary, which makes it more palatable when I turn to the IWR, fracking in Eastern Europe, her hawkishness, her relationship with Wall Street, etc. I think this has helped my daughter to see her with more complexity.
marym625
(17,997 posts)He is, however, calling them out on policy and silence and rhetoric.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)eom
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)n/t
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)don't you think? Much of it in the Eye of the Beholder. For example, coming on a political board extolling everyone to fall in line within a very narrow scope of behavior/conversation would seem to be somewhat of an irrational request.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Actually I think I was advocating for additional modes of discourse over the limbic stuff occurring in many of these tribal threads.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I think that word (phrase) does not mean what you think it means. (OK, someone I need that graphic.)
You're wanting to limit the modes of discourse, and, not surprisingly, you did not get the results you expected. If you do not like the discourse here, wouldn't it be more logical to go to a site that offers the type of discourse for which you are seeking instead of going to a site with it's own history and culture and style of discourse, and trying to change everyone's style to fit your liking?
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)is falsely re-characterizing someone else's argument so that it is easily defeated. My argument was that by surrendering to ego and shouting past a Hillary supporter, some Bernie supporters are being counter-productive in two ways:
1) alienating those whose support we will need when we win the nomination (a traditional need); and
2) alienating those whose support we will need in the streets after we win the election (an extraordinary need).
I went on to suggest that instead of engaging in the endless bickering since about 2004, we should try to be more civil. I think those are ways to broaden the debates and make them more productive. Nowhere did I suggest not debating- we need that. It's just that most of it is snark, puerile or personal. Look at all the crap on this thread for example. Most of the responses are mindless snark. The sad thing is that many of these people are above average in education and intelligence. Doesn't speak well for critical thinking in this country. If we don't evolve soon much of this country is literally going to be under water.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)You're the one who started an OP suggesting that we, (and only Bernie supporters, mind you) should be more "civil" which pre-supposed several things not in evidence. Then you claim that you are really advocating expanding our discourse style when in reality you are advocating exactly the opposite.
Now you are again mischaracterizing your point saying you were advocating that "we" should try to be more civil when your OP was clearly directed at Bernie supporters.
As you point out, many people here ARE, indeed, above average in education and intelligence and, therefore, can discern complete puerile bullshit when they see it.
Again, if you find it so distasteful here, perhaps finding another site more to your liking would be in everyone's best interests.
Now, unless you have some new "insights" to add to your diabribe, I'm done here.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)I suggested that people expand their behavioral repertoire past the traditional snark some display. It certainly wasn't aimed at everybody in the "Bernie" tribe. It was aimed at those who might need it. The reason it was aimed at the Bernie tribe is because I want us to win in the larger sense, i.e. get his program through Congress.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)so damn predictable.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Go figure.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It is like I took a stroll back to 2008.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)n/t
calimary
(81,608 posts)Similarities to here and now. Establishment candidate versus more progressive upstart. The McCarthy people were utterly on fire for their guy. Hubert Humphrey was unfortunately tied too closely, as Vice President, to LBJ and therefore also to Vietnam. Humphrey prevailed in the contest for the nomination. But the McCarthy people REFUSED to unite. They turned their backs and went home to pout. And they stayed in that position on Election Day.
And we got Richard republi-CON NIXON in the White House the following January.
Wonder if anybody asked the McCarthy people - "happy NOW??????"
Hey, I understand sticking by principles. But when you have to be practical, sometimes you have to adjust - in order to gain the greater good.
It's very clear that Bernie Sanders people are fired up for the sake of the greater good. That's what his campaign is all about. That's what the progressive vision is all about. That's why we as Democrats believe in using government as a force for the GREATER GOOD. For the collective. But then, what happens when we find ourselves looking at the OVER-ARCHING greater good? What happens if Hillary Clinton DOES prevail and win the nomination? The over-arching greater good at that point would seem to be - HOW DO WE KEEP THE WHITE HOUSE?
I guess my biggest issue stems not just from being a Hillary supporter and trying to show respect, and getting beaten up by some of the snark and snide comments and insults from the other side - COMBINED WITH assertions that it's "Bernie or Bust" - if he doesn't get the nomination then they're gonna go Gene McCarthy on us and stay home and pout. Thankfully, not all Bernie people are like that. But I feel compelled to point out that I have yet to see ANY Hillary people, myself included, who are threatening to do the same thing. I've yet to see ANY Hillary people saying it's "Hillary or Bust" and screw the rest of you if we don't get it OUR way. If Bernie beats her to the nomination, I am SO there in the Bernie camp. With bells on! I will advocate and help and have his back and vote for him with eagerness and enthusiasm. No staying home and pouting for me! And you can take that to the bank. With some Bernie people, I would hope to see that same commitment coming back this way, and I don't. And that worries me - that we're headed to another Nixon-type result. One side is rigid and one side is more flexible. Therein lies the most troubling rub. I've seen this happen before. I DO NOT want to see it happen again! Believe me, everybody, YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN AGAIN EITHER!!!! The very fact that Bernie Sanders supporters stand so staunchly with him proves that they certainly don't want to see another GOP-controlled White House, either. But where will they be if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination? Can we count on THEIR support? Dear Admiral, you already have repeated vows from me that you WILL be able to count on MY support if it's Bernie over Hillary. I just feel great trepidation that there will not be a corresponding effort to unite from too many of our brothers and sisters if it's Hillary over Bernie.
I find that the sting I still feel from the recent barbs and brickbats thrown at me tempt me to say "well screw you AND the candidate YOU rode in on." And I CANNOT allow myself to go there. NONE OF US CAN AFFORD TO DO THAT!!! WE CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER CON IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!! Bernie people, that means YOU, TOO!!! Because the REAL prize, FOR THE GREATER GOOD, is to keep the republi-CONS OUT of the White House. At least until we have a change to replace some of the scalias or thomases on the Supreme Court.
And btw, I'm no "concern troll." Which is what I see to explain away other efforts like mine, to try to remind our friends in the other camp of the possible reality of the conundrum we may ALL face. If nothing else, my post count should prove that.
PLEASE remember - we face a common enemy. We all share a common enemy. Both we Hillary supporters and we Bernie supporters - are up against the SAME ENEMY. And we share the SAME overriding objective: TO KEEP THE WHITE HOUSE IN DEMOCRATIC HANDS. Let's NOT forget that!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)calimary
(81,608 posts)But our side didn't have to help - at convention time or afterwards.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 17, 2015, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)
At beating Humphrey for the nomination. It was gene McCarthy who enabled RFKs run. Bobby would have reunified the Democratic Party and beaten Nixon.
Paladin
(28,287 posts)Our adherence to ideological purity delivered the White House to the Republicans on a silver platter, back then. Do I like a lot of what Bernie is proclaiming? Of course I do. Do I think he's the strongest candidate we have? Not by a long shot. Nothing matters more than keeping the Presidency away from the Republicans, and keeping SCOTUS secure from any further conservative influence. Putting forth a self-proclaimed independent socialist as our candidate would be an absolute disaster. If it happens, I'll vote for him...but then, I voted for George McGovern, as well.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The "ideological purists" on the Republican side learned their lesson. Only thing is, the lesson they learned was to organize, organize, organize, to keep putting their candidates up wherever and whenever possible, to not give up and run away. 16 years later we got Reagan and the Right Wing Raw Deal, and the Democratic Party has been selling its soul and selling out ever since.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)your point was lost on the most fervid of them.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'insurgent'. Perot, Nader, Anderson, none of them were Democrats. They all ran against Democrats. Bernie is running as a Democrat.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)I never even considered voting for any of those persons I listed (other than Dean). My point was about the "whiteness" of their support and the need for a big tent for Bernie.
Response to Admiral Loinpresser (Original post)
Post removed
frylock
(34,825 posts)the arrogance and dismissive attitude of Clinton's most ardent supporters are what fuels these battles. Add in bullshit like 'Sanders doesn't like immigrants' or 'Sanders is a gun nut', and it turns into a full blown conflagration.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Amazing how OP asks people to be civil while slipping straight into how Vermont is too white.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)I simply said Vermont is lily-white and it is. That's not a value judgement, it's a fact. I would be glad to live in Vermont because it's got a much better social safety net than the red state I live in and is much more enlightened.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)This.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)It cuts both ways.
840high
(17,196 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)We all have most of the Bernie supporters on ignore. There are still some who are civil that we like to post with but other than those few, we no longer do much responding.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)So yes, we are on different sides during primary season and we've been through this before...it always gets a little nutty. I wish we could express our reasons why we do or do not support a candidate and question their policy actions without it offending others. Personal attacks on the candidate and/or the DUers who support them is unnecessary.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)apparently many of those who would benefit from reading your comment will never see it.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)since you're apparently not interacting with most Bernie supporters.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)But it does make you wonder doesn't it since they are all within the last month.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)That's one away from a forced vacation.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)supporters. It could not POSSIBLY have anything to do with the hidden posts.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)that when one gets a hide or even a string a hides that it would give pause to reflect on ones behavior as opposed to blaming everyone else and bemoaning alert stalkers and packed juries.
But I would be wrong.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Why is it possible for me to say both were snarky? Not horrible but snarky.
Like Skinner says "You take your chances."
It ain't some grand conspiracy.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)I freely admit that.
I constantly roll my eyes at what I described here.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Very good!
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)I took my chances and the jury did the right thing, I deserved both of my hidden posts .
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)And Skinner gave us Hillary Mojo which is awesome.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I haven't had a hidden post since I threw one away at a banned troll a couple years ago - I had 2 in the last two weeks for fairly innocuous posts. That is, compared to the viscious attacks that are allowed to stand these days.
You have a target on your back, and they'll be looking to get you to 5 at the next opportunity. Mark my word.
Apparently, someone has already checked you out in that regard. That should tell you something.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Was good advice from TPTB
Jumpin Jack Flash
(242 posts)That's just proof that you're still in a bubble, and there is a very rude awakening for you.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)I don't need anyone telling me how to behave here, thank you very much.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)The second word in title is "plea."
All these failed-reading-comprehension and chest-pounding machismo posts simply make my point.
Iggo
(47,597 posts)That ain't straw.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)"I don't need anyone telling me how to behave here."
I'm pretty sure I didn't tell anyone how to behave. I made a request to consider an alternative path to snark and hubris, which I sometimes unfortunately see amongst my own "tribe." So I renew the claim of straw man. I will give you the last word and let the audience draw its own conclusions. Over and out.
Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)woodsprite
(11,941 posts)For example, the other day I posted in reply to an original post in the Sanders group in a favorable manner and was immediately pounced on by someone in my DU email essentially saying I was wrong, wasn't truthful, didn't know what I was talking about, Sanders can't win. After researching where that person usually posts and figuring out why they didn't post those replies to my post in the Sanders group, that person is now on ignore (I've only done that 3 times in 10 years and currently had no one on ignore).
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)that all the problems are not in the Bernie tribe. My point is analogous to what Chomsky sometimes says: of course the North Korean regime is horrible, but our main moral responsibility is to affect the bad actions of the American regime.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)To watch people make dumb statements.
woodsprite
(11,941 posts)how Bernie is the wrong choice, can't win, wasting our vote, etc. I didn't put them on full ignore, just so they can't clutter my email inbox anymore. I wouldn't presume to keep emailing someone I disagreed with outside the forum venue. It's like someone from the Atheist Agnostics forum needling a person through email who is a member of and posted in the Religious forum about their beliefs.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)When they're put on ignore - like a return to sender rejection notice.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)To watch people laugh about dumb statements, who seem to believe that they don't fall into that category themselves on occasion.
Funny stuff...
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Response to Admiral Loinpresser (Original post)
ellisonz This message was self-deleted by its author.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 17, 2015, 01:09 PM - Edit history (2)
If a person's candidate's history being sighted constitutes disrespect, I plead guilty. I won't be bullied into pledging my support for someone who is less than believable, offering up Johnny-come-lately platitudes just to grab my vote. Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt to prove it. I don't forget getting played.
Nor will I be shamed into silence, there is too much at stake, nothing short of the future of my grandchildren. We MUST take control of OUR government back from the corrupt corporate oligarchy that has stolen it. To that end, there can be no compromise.
If the price of speaking the truth that there is only candidate addressing the ACTUAL issues with the PROVEN history of fighting for us, the 99%, is faux offending some, I guess I'll pay it.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)I'll debate an issue with anyone. I Probably will not change their mind, but maybe we can at least gain a little knowledge.
I will also call out BS posts when I see them.
What I really hate is when someone accuses someone else of sexism when they have legitimate gripes over policy.
Someone attempted to bait me other day but it backfired.
krawhitham
(4,651 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Iggo
(47,597 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)If I admit it and try to change and encourage the kettle to do likewise- isn't that a good thing?
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)each in his/her own way. Hostility to some is passion for others so let's just let everyone be who they are without unhealthy repression or trying to adhere to what other people think we should be, say or do.
That's my proposal.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)We victimize so many innocent people
Tarheel_Dem
(31,257 posts)there's not a snowball's chance in hell that I could ever support the man, a favorite co-worker of mine is really jazzed about him. We still respect one another, but we differ in our opinions re: the nation's top office holder. She's originally from Iowa, maybe that explains it.
Iggo
(47,597 posts)I live with a couple of 'em.
Quite pleasant.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)That's what this election will be. How did you make your billion$ and was it legal? Then we'll be mired in financial paperwork, instead of issues of working people/income inequality, Medicare/Medicaid/improving the ACA, environment, chemical contaminants, oil vs. green energy, etc.
Iggo
(47,597 posts)Good stuff!
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)"The purpose of this post is to caution Bernie Sanders supporters on DU..." Caution us? Jesus, get a grip. You're way out of line. No one here needs these kind of patronizing posts. Let that serve as a "caution" to you.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)I went out of my way to say that I have succumbed more than once to the temptation to bait people or attack unnecessarily. My point is to to try to make us, collectively, as Bernie supporters more effective. This might be the most important election in American history. We may not get another chance for a candidate of this quality before it's too late to save civilization. Most Bernie supporters are high quality people, imo. But some have devolved into that same old crap I have observed for decades. I'm appealing to people to suppress their egos and try to do the right thing by being an active, compassionate listener.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)They are just as anti-Hillary as pro-Bernie, maybe even more so.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I'm really looking forward to next week's installment of Bernie Sanders: Gun Nut.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)NRA-sponsored legislation just because he voted for it. Not sure what that's about, but, yeah, clear-headedness seems to be lacking sometimes.
frylock
(34,825 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's both sad and funny to see Berniephiles stoop to this level. Bernie rails on about corporations and their abuses. Except, of course, for the poor gun companies, whose products kill 30,000 Americans every year. They need to be protected from those ravenous gun violence victims and their annoying lawsuits.
Because, obviously, holding gun companies to exactly the same legal standard as every other industry just isn't good enough. They need a special law because they're just so special.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Let's try again, shall we?
If someone were to bust up my knee with a baseball bat, should I be able to sue Louisville Slugger?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You'd lose, and you're also going to end up having to pay all of Louisville Slugger's legal expenses because the already laws against frivolous lawsuits. But, in principle, you should be able to file such a lawsuit, even though you're in the wrong. Access to the legal system is a basic right -- the courts are who decides.
The gun law is nothing like that, of course. People were suing gun manufacturers for negligent and misleading business practices that resulted in guns getting into the hands of criminals. And the reason that the NRA wanted this law so bad is that, unlike your hypothetical example, some of these lawsuits were actually successful. They didn't want the gun manufacturers to play by the same rules that you and I have to. So they got congress to make a special rule that protects one industry only.
Which gets me back to my original point. Any Bernie Sanders supporter who pretends to be against increasing corporate power but supports this law is the worst form of hypocrite. And the fact that so many are lining up to defend this tells me a lot about where their heads are at vis-a-vis their asses.
frylock
(34,825 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)The bill was put in place because people were suing gun companies and the NRA didn't like it.
If you were already a gun nut prior to this Bernie thing, then I get it. Gun nuts gonna nut, and I don't really feel like trying to reason with them any more than with creationists or global warming deniers. But the interesting thing is to watch normal non-gun-nut supposed progressives fall over themselves to defend a horrific corporate giveaway to, of all people, the gun industry.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Yes, I own firearms.
Yes, I support common-sense gun laws, such as universal background checks, limitations on magazine capacity, and mandatory waiting periods. I also support mandatory training and licensing for owners of firearms, as well as liability insurance for gun owners. Does that sound like a gun nut to you, Dan? Or is anyone that has ever owned, fired, or even looked at a gun considered a gun nut in your narrow-minded little world?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)more bizarre. How hard would it be to just say, look, I like Sanders, but when he voted against the Brady Bill, or when he voted to give the gun industry special immunity from civil lawsuits that no other industry enjoys, he was simply wrong. Do you feel like you have to defend every position the guy has ever taken?
Another thing, the rhetoric about frivolous lawsuits that you hinted at with the Louisville Slugger example is straight out of the right-wing playbook. Guns aren't the only issue where the right has been working hard, both at the state and national levels, to prevent people from suing corporations for damages. There's an excellent documentary about this topic, called "Hot Coffee", a reference to the lawsuit a woman brought against McDonalds because she burned herself with their coffee.
http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp
Like you did with the Louisville Slugger, it's easy to laugh at this woman ("she bought a hot coffee and then sued because it was hot" , and this incident became a poster child for supposedly frivolous lawsuits, which the right used in its propaganda offensive for tort reform. The film does a very good job explaining what actually happened, versus what people think happened. For one, the woman didn't just "get a little burned", she ended up with third degree burns which required skin grafting and a week-long hospitalization. The pictures are pretty unsettling. She also didn't immediately jump to sue, she first asked McD's to cover her medical expenses, and it was only after they refused that it ended up in court.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I am not as disappointed with his vote on PLCAA, because there was a concerted and organized effort to sue gun manufacturers out of business.
I have not seen the documentary, but am fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the hot coffee lawsuit against McDonald's, and have always sided with the woman who was injured. I will definitely take time to check it out.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)guns, and I also don't think there's much chance of reasonable gun policy in this country for several decades at least, regardless of who is president. Which is really too bad, because we're the only first-world nation that hasn't figured out the gun violence problem, but it is what it is.
And, yeah, check out the movie, it's good.
As far as gun companies being sued out of existence, my basic take is that if a company's products are so detrimental to society that they aren't financially viable without special legal protection against civil suits, those companies should either change their corporate policies or else cease to exist. And this does not just relate to guns. If, for example, high-frequency trading firms somehow were found liable for causing financial instability and congress then decided to prohibit civil lawsuits against them because they claimed they couldn't continue providing society with the benefits of high-frequency trading activities if they also had to pay for the damages that they caused, I would be equally against it.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)I have yet to commit to a candidate, but I do see a big difference in the supporters on this site. Many are here to debate/posit the issues. Many others, otoh, seem to be actively seeking confrontation - like the "don't mess with us, you'll be sorry" posts from over the weekend.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)for income inequality, affordable health care, etc. HRC is a known recipient of Wall St. largesse, never mind the foreign and corporate donations to the Clinton Foundation.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,257 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)a long time and helps the little people, FDR had wealth but it did not stop him from getting good programs.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Hillary is a self-made elitist. I think her financial supporter list indicates she is not a class traitor.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)yet se is still advocating for issues important to people with low wages. You can be a follower of the financial supporters or for the candidate who advocated for working people issues. Of course, the RW cheers on this talking point.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)But maybe there is good reason for the frustration behind that desire. Do you feel that America is on the wrong path?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If I had to pick either "yes" or "no", I'd go with "yes". But we are on a much better path than we were when Obama took office.
I understand the frustration, what I don't understand is why it's directed at Hillary, as opposed to the GOP, which is so obviously to blame for most if not all of the major problems we are facing.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)but let me give you my overview and a few details. I am trying to listen to you and I feel like you are listening to me, so this is already perhaps one of the most rewarding conversations I have had today. Perhaps neither of us will change any perspectives but perhaps we can at least learn from each other.
Overview of my take: yes, we are on the wrong track. Did Obama change things for the better? Yes on social/inclusion issues, mainly no on economic and foreign policy issues.
HRC vs. the GOP. Of course Hillary is better than any Republican. I believe her SCOTUS appointments would probably be good liberals. I also think HRC has strong liberal instincts on social and economic policies in general, but that her "Potomac fever" has over-ridden those instincts.
My biggest concern other than Potomac fever, is her DLC status. She has been there since the inception and it has made it easier for her to be extremely cozy with Wall Street. I can't see her fighting to re-instate Glass-Steagall, for example, and we desperately need that. SO I don't see her breaking up those too-big-to-fail banks or getting the minimum wage where we need it, or having an aggressive anti-trust program in general.
On foreign policy I think she is way too hawkish and I don't think she is focused on the greatest threat in the history of humanity: climate change. We will need a very committed president on this issue if humanity is to survive, imo. Obama did not walk the talk, e.g. Copenhagen in 2009.
So my perspective is whether HRC or a GOP moron is elected, we are still that much closer to the end of civilization, whereas if Bernie is elected, I think we stand a fighting chance of starting a Marshall program worldwide to combat climat change.
I hope this gives you some insight into how I feel and I'm keen to hear more of your ideas.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)First of all, I see Clinton as not that different from Obama. Conventional wisdom-wise, she is a bit to his left economically, a bit to his right on foreign policy, and about the same on social issues. I think that's about right, but regardless, I think they stand for a lot of the same things, and I think you probably agree, as do most Bernie supporters here who are frustrated with the status quo due to things like inequality, TPP, etc.
I take issue with your opinion that Obama hasn't changed things for the better on the economic front. For one, there's Obamacare. There's Dodd Frank. There was the auto bailout and the stimulus. Rolling back of the Bush tax cuts at the top. And, in part due to Bernanke and Yellen, but also the Obama administration, we've recovered from the crisis better than most other countries.
Arguably, preventing a second great depression, or the collapse of the auto industry, isn't "improving" but rather preventing them from getting worse. But I don't think that's fair either to Obama or to the depth of the problems we were facing when he took office.
I still agree we aren't where we should be, but this has nothing to do with Obama, and everything to do with the GOP. Obama's first two years were the most productive in many decades. This is because he had a Democratic congress. Since then, progress has stalled, but on all fronts, this is due to GOP obstruction. Obama has repeatedly called for things like greater investment in infrastructure and jobs, higher minimum wage, immigration reform, etc. but it goes nowhere. It's not about Obama: we could have had Nelson Mandela as president, and the results would have been the same.
Your next point, will Hillary govern as far left as Bernie? No. Will she push for the same level of financial regulations, anti-trust, etc.? No. I don't think this is because of her DLC connections (her record on economic issues, despite the Goldman Sachs speeches, is actually pretty strong), but simply that Bernie is more consistently progressive than her. Though on some issues, like climate, I don't see the gap between Bernie and Hillary as being very large at all.
But more important, I don't think that pushing for policies to the left of Hillary's is going to make the slightest bit of difference unless the Dems have large majorities in both houses. Even with 60 in the Senate, we barely got Obamacare thanks to centrist Dems like Lieberman in the Senate. Realistically, only a small fraction of all the good stuff Bernie talks about will actually become law, in the same way that only a small fraction of the good stuff Obama talks about actually makes it through congress.
Which brings me to my main concern: winning the 2016 election. Because if the GOP wins, really bad things happen. And I see Hillary as much better suited to win a national presidential election than Bernie. Part of this is him being a self-described socialist, which doesn't matter me at all, but is definitely a vulnerability in the current political environment. Part is that she can raise huge amounts of money which is unfortunately necessary. Part of it is the polls, which are admittedly early, but still.
Finally, the kind of rhetoric which I find totally counterproductive are the claims that there's no difference, or at least not much difference between Hillary and the GOP. For example, here's a recent OP making exactly that point (see the last paragraph), which is now up to 200+ recs. I understand frustration with the status quo, but the "no difference" argument just seems absurd to me, no matter what the level of frustration.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6844968
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Although I am sympathetic to his skepticism based on her donors, a lot of his blanket statements are not researched or supported by documentation. I have never understood Pitt's popularity. His folksy style doesn't amuse me and to be frank, I think he's a lightweight. I don't think he does demonstrate that she is no better than the GOP and I agree that he can't because her ADA rating, the justices she would appoint, etc. disprove that.
Give me some time to get back to you on the economic stuff. Frankly it may take a day or two, but I think this discussion is helpful to me by challenging me to provide documentation for my points and reading the things you cite is helpful as well.
Let me close for now with one of my strongest reservations about HRC-- the environment. If this MJ article is true, how can Hillary be trusted on climate change or other serious environmental issues? This is one of the most disturbing points for me.
But like I say, maybe we should take a day or two. I would love to continue this if you are willing, but want to do more research. Take care.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron?page=2
DanTex
(20,709 posts)First, there are a few areas where a Bernie presidency would be different, and likely better, than a Clinton one. Foreign policy is one. There would be less warmongering. Having said that, I don't find Obama's foreign policy to be all that warmongering -- he did, for the most part, get us out of Iraq, and he hasn't started any big new wars. It is true that things haven't turned out as well as anyone hoped, but the problem with complaining about how he and his administration have dealt with Syria, Libya, ISIS, etc. is that there basically aren't any good solutions. It's not like the Middle East is going to suddenly turn peaceful and prosperous if the US stops bombings and drone strikes. And, while advocating non-intervention seems easy, there are risks there too, for example Rwanda.
Interesting that environment, climate change in particular, is one of your big issues with HRC. That's one place where I see the least difference between the two. That article you posted is pretty troubling, but I'd point out two things. First, a substantial part of the natural gas push -- as the article points out -- is an effort to fight climate change, basically because coal power plants are much worse emissions-wise that natural gas ones. The environmental risks of fracking are mainly local -- that doesn't mean they're not problematic, but this doesn't make me question her commitment to climate change.
Second, global action on climate change is going to require more than just will. It's going to require diplomacy and geopolitics, etc. Hillary seems to me better suited, or at least more experience with this kind of thing than Bernie.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)That's what I am thinking ....
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)"I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."
- Harry Truman
kentuck
(111,111 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)the only thing I'm seeing from Sanders supporters at DU is attacking Clinton on issues and record.
That's not disrespect. That's a campaign. I'm sorry that some Clinton supporters perceive all criticism, including fully legitimate criticism, as "disrespect."
I have to respectfully point out, though: that's their problem. Not mine. And, quite frankly, the complaints and scoldings seem a bit disingenuous to me.
I admit that I don't read every thread, but still...if it were that pervasive I'm sure I would have seen it.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)except I have seen a few Bernie supporters be counter-productive, imo. Not a majority by any means. But especially where race is involved I have seen some people talking past each other. I'm trying to encourage Bernie supporters, for example, when social justice vs. economic justice is involved, to try to be respectful and listen actively. Some people want to hear Bernie talk more about social justice, I don't know enough about his record to discuss it intelligently. My only data point is the Katie Couric interview, where I thought he did a pretty good job of talking about social justice issues. But if someone disagrees or has a different point of view, I think the most productive thing I can do is keep a dialog open, not reactively try to rebut or dismiss the other person's position.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)are linked; you don't get one without the other. And, of course, whether it's in his campaign speeches or not, Sanders has been fighting for social justice for decades now.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)For example, some of the people in that Charleston church may well have had some measure of economic justice, but they had no social justice. Middle class black people, some doing very well, are routinely humiliated, beaten or killed by American police. See my point?
As to your second point, about Sanders fight for social justice, I am still researching this, but almost everything I am seeing is positive. By the way he speaks about social justice, my gut tells me he is the creme de la creme on this issue.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)The bottom line, though, is that it's difficult to make progress on one without the other.
AND that Sanders has been a champion of both. Complaining that he's not talking enough about something that he's spent decades fighting for, to me, is saying that words don't have to be backed by actions. That talking is better than walking.
I think the reverse is true.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)I believe you are right. As I say, most of what I know about him and racial issues, I have learned in about the last two weeks and I am still on a learning curve. My gut tells me that what you are saying is correct, because as I gather more data points they are all pretty much positive. Certainly his words and actions today cut in that direction very strongly.
One motivation in my post is that black polling support for Hillary is currently very high. I suspect that the intensity of that support is not great, yet the numbers are currently big in the wrong direction. Without black primary voters, I think Bernie's chances to win the nomination are significantly reduced. So we (Bernie backers), have some evangelical work to do, so to speak, and so does Bernie.
Reaching out with love and respect, we have a chance to get our message out. When we jump on people who are disagreeing with us, we can easily make matters worse, see my point? I wasn't saying everybody is doing that, but I have seen some talking past people and shouting at people. Those behaviors take us farther from, rather than closer to, our goal of winning hearts and minds. You may disagree with my assessment of whether some of that is going on, but I hope you can appreciate my bona fides intent.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Jumpin Jack Flash
(242 posts)You just can't take the criticism of your candidate, and decide to put everyone who disparage Clinton because of her shortcomings (which she has a lot) on ignore. That's called living in a bubble, and you're in for a real awakening. Again. 2008 redux.
Been there, done that, got the goddamn T-shirt. What else is new?
Response to Jumpin Jack Flash (Reply #150)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You just got here and you presume to know a lot about me.
Let me you tell you that you know nothing about me.
I can stand honest criticism.
TM99
(8,352 posts)All I see day after day here are supposed Sanders supported admonishing only Sanders supporters to be perfect.
Don't be mean.
Don't divide the party.
Don't be disrespectful.
Don't be anything less than saint-like.
Because you know, that is what Sanders said we should all be.
What utter and complete bullshit these posts are. They are manipulative, passive aggressive, and condescending.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)n/t
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)I think we have a good shot to win this thing, if we can build the coalition. To build that coalition will require not alienating black and female primary voters, imo. And my larger point was about "the revolution." The subtext is that Bernie is much more charismatic than he is given credit for in the mainstream media. So if Bernie backers bring in some HRC supporters, great. But even if they don't, as long as they don't alienate these people, Bernie may eventually scoop them up himself. And when Bernie calls for the revolution, i.e. for millions of people to descend on Washington, that larger coalition of bodies will be available for the ground game. That was my overall point.
Back in 1968, college kids volunteering for Gene McCarthy, an anti-war candidate, were asked to get haircuts and put on ties when campaigning for him. It was a sort of double standard promulgated for a noble idea. So kids got "clean for Gene."