General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFellow Hillary supporters - PLEASE don't adopt the behaviors you criticized
It is one thing to criticize someone who is outright attacking the Democratic party, or otherwise putting forth the narrative that Democrats and/or Democratic leaders are somehow "corrupt" or "only working for corporations" and other pap.
It is quite another to bash someone simply because of a tribal identity.
Now here's the thing. I'm not telling you this because I think we should "move forward", ignoring the history of people who, for various reasons good and bad, ended up contributing to Trump being in office. I am certainly not telling you that bygones should be bygones, and we shouldn't care who stabbed who in the back.
Rather, I'm telling you this because you're supposed to be the grownups in this conversation. And you are better than that yourself.
So, unless there is some FRESH NEW ATTACK that needs to be rebutted, please don't go out of your way to attack any Democratic ally. Specifically, this means people who supported Senator Sanders in the primary (which they had absolutely every right to do) but then went on to vote for Hillary, and Senator Sanders himself, who endorsed the Democratic nominee and campaigned for her.
There are still differences, of course. Mostly about political strategy and a huge amount of misunderstanding about how hard it is to get something done when the nation is filled to the brim with racists and sexists. But making it personal, making ethical attacks, is the original sin of the Sanders campaign (since mostly walked back). So don't do that yourself.
nocoincidences
(2,237 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)As for Jane Sanders' egregious accusations about President Obama and the Democratic Party, this cynical ploy to blame her legal problems from her job in Vermont on President Obama and the Democratic Party is nothing new.
But you should be outraged, Steven, assuming you are a genuine supporter. How dare she lie to you and ruthlessly betray the trust of all those who believe in her and her husband?
Steven Maurer
(476 posts)Hoo boy.
Does it ever occur to you that attacking Senator Sanders over what his wife did is the same thing as holding Hillary Clinton responsible for every decision that Bill Clinton made as President ?
When Hillary was held responsible for something that Bill did as President (regardless of whether it was really not just something he had to do given the political situation he was in), did you think that criticism was fair? Or did you think that imagining that Hillary was not her own person independent from Bill was sexist?
And yet here, you're attacking Bernie over Jane.
People can be married and disagree.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)with Republican lies about a former first lady. After all, she is using the Repugs standard method of blaming all their sins and crimes on the Democratic Party.
And btw, Hillary was NEVER "held responsible" for her husband's actions, she was swiftboated by enemies who simply dusted off their twists and lies about him and dumped them on her. Quite a difference, and it's very much not okay to post those right-wing smears here on DU. A 2-fer whacking Hillary and Bill, and how clever of you.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)I think it finished just about how it started.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)After that, it followed the formula that we have all seen many times.
Steven Maurer
(476 posts)It is a message intended specifically for Democrats who still are angry at being betrayed.
You are perfectly welcome to trash the message if you so desire.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Not that the summary was needed. And while I believe that you believe what you posted, it does not break any new ground.
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)Go away.
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)Squinch
(51,090 posts)blinking big eyes.
nocoincidences
(2,237 posts)if you want them to leave.
obamanut2012
(26,188 posts)lamp_shade
(14,853 posts)nevermind
OnDoutside
(19,987 posts)the purity brigade will overpower the Democratic Party, as the Tea Party have done to the Republicans. 2018 is so important, the last thing that's needed is an ideological war within the Democratic party.
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)and russian social media campaigns.
Attack the Democratic Party and make putin laugh.
OnDoutside
(19,987 posts)yes that too is a real fear.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)Listen a little.
It will come to you.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)Do I need to recreate the transcripts of a dozen Rachel Meadow shows? How about the pages of the New York times? Just how many sources do you require? There is little point in my posting a single story or three about the work of russian social media disinformation programs. If you only get your news from posts on DU, then even there you will find references to how this has occurred.
So your feigned ignorance of facts not in dispute (not even by congressional republicans) will not taunt me into spending my time referring you to information you already know but want to ignore for some festering reason.
If you refuse to read and understand, I cannot help. You may accept this, but I question your understanding.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Allegation is one thing, but the reason that we have a Court system is to decide on the truth of allegations.
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)You are of the opinion that russians did not spread stories detrimental to Hillary Clinton at all? Or just that they never spread them among liberals?
You use the same defense that many in this administration use. Your position is that all of the "allegations" on Rachel Maddow are to be ignored because Trump hasn't gone to court yet? Is that the upshot of your deep belief? That neither you nor any "pure" liberal could possibly be a dupe or victim of false social media propaganda spread by russia or the rw.
Then we are condemned to lose the next election also.
From a story in the New Yorker:
In the weeks after WikiLeaks released the D.N.C. e-mails, John Mattes, a Bernie Sanders organizer who ran a Facebook page for supporters in San Diego, noticed a surge of new adherents with false profiles. One Oliver Mitov had almost no friends or photographs but belonged to sixteen pro-Sanders groups. On September 25th, Mitov posted to several pro-Sanders pages: new leak: Here Is Who Ordered Hillary To Leave The 4 Men In Benghazi!USAPoliticsNow. It was a baseless story alleging that Clinton had received millions of dollars from Saudi royals. Mattes said, The fake news depressed and discouraged some percentage of Bernie voters. When I realized it, I said, We are being played.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But I am also aware of the difference between allegation and proof.
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)What do you think makes you likely to believe that the russians had nothing to do with the primaries and the elections?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But ultimately, the Court will decide if the matter gets that far.
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)I do not think that word means what you think it means.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But that is fine with me.
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)I believe you have lost the thread of the conversation. You knee-jerked into a thread about russian influence in the election to proclaim that nothing has been "proven" (my guess it that you took the suggestion that the russians were trying to influence Democrats as a swipe at Bernie, but you never said why you don't believe any of these things).
You say the question of russian influence is mere allegation. If that is not an indication that you believe that the russians messed with our elections, just why did you even bother to pipe up in the first place. The post you leapt upon was just my statement involving the news stories about the evidence of russian interference. Why was it so irksome to you that I referred to stories in the Times, the WP, Rachel Maddow, and Joy Reid, that you felt compelled to deny that they were accurate and needed a jury decision before we should consider them? You won't say.
But that is fine.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Proof is a higher bar. Yes there are many allegations, but Robert Mueller is looking to prove what others allege. And that is my point.
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)His point was that the fake news media needs to get off of trump's back and let him fix the country.
What is your point?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And if Mueller announces the results of his investigation, and the results implicate Trump, your neighbor will probably denounce Mueller as a secret Democrat.
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)are you babbling about.
What point? Are you trying to say that we shouldn't think about russian involvement because it might get Mueller in trouble? My neighbor already thinks Mueller is a Democrat? Are you saying you do too? You're leaps away from trying to explain a point that began with your unfortunate post are getting more and more bizarre.
Tell you what. Try ducking again. If you can't explain yourself, you either don't know what you are saying or you know your screwed up and are just pissed that you got called out.
Just as an exercise, try putting one coherent idea into the mix instead of just more "nyah nyah nyah". See if you can do it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)apparently think you see. Perhaps if you worked more on listening/reading and less on attempts at sarcasm we could have an actual dialogue.
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)Perhaps if you worked more at accepting criticism of silly postings and less on denying what you wrote, we could have an actual dialogue.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Now we must work on the rest.
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)I erred. Understanding (or accepting responsibility for your own words) seems to elude your ability.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'd request a complete replay of one of the largest, most obvious conversations of 2017 as well were my bias telling me to.
I'd also inaccurately infer proof when none was mentioned as such, and pretend the entire discussion revolves around it... much easier to trivialize others that way.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Proof does not come from the court of public opinion.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,150 posts)a Rhodes Scholar nuclear scientist with extremely liberal views with an R after its name.
Guess which one gets my vote.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)And what the hell is "tribal identity?"
Squinch
(51,090 posts)Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Justice
(7,188 posts)That's the thing.
obamanut2012
(26,188 posts)Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Fellow Hillary supporters - PLEASE don't adopt the behaviors you criticized
It is one thing to criticize someone who is outright attacking the Democratic party, or otherwise putting forth the narrative that Democrats and/or Democratic leaders are somehow "corrupt" or "only working for corporations" and other pap.
It is quite another to bash someone simply because of a tribal identity.
Now here's the thing. I'm not telling you this because I think we should "move forward", ignoring the history of people who, for various reasons good and bad, ended up contributing to Trump being in office. I am certainly not telling you that bygones should be bygones, and we shouldn't care who stabbed who in the back.
Rather, I'm telling you this because you're supposed to be the grownups in this conversation. And you are better than that yourself.
So, unless there is some FRESH NEW ATTACK that needs to be rebutted, please don't go out of your way to attack any Democratic ally. Specifically, this means people who supported Senator Sanders in the primary (which they had absolutely every right to do) but then went on to vote for Hillary, and Senator Sanders himself, who endorsed the Democratic nominee and campaigned for her.
There are still differences, of course. Mostly about political strategy and a huge amount of misunderstanding about how hard it is to get something done when the nation is filled to the brim with racists and sexists. But making it personal, making ethical attacks, is the original sin of the Sanders campaign (since mostly walked back). So don't do that yourself.
2
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)It's almost like you didn't apply your own advice about Democratic allies to yourself.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Demsrule86
(68,825 posts)Oneironaut
(5,547 posts)(Yes, in posting about Bernie. Obvious hypocrisy, but whatever). Bernie is not important now. I'd argue that even Hillary isn't important now, unless if we're analyzing why she lost and how not to repeat those mistakes.
We need a new superstar in the party, rather than ruminating over the previous Democratic primary of all things. Time to let it all go, and think of the future. We need viable candidates that unite the party.
womanofthehills
(8,818 posts)so I think that makes him important
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Which implies that Sander's primary supporters are NOT grownups.
You might want to cut bait and just delete the whole shebang..
Steven Maurer
(476 posts)Please don't tell me that it is a requirement to shit all over the party to support Sanders. I know plenty of Sanders supporters who didn't do that.
p.s. This message was not intended for people like you anyway.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I honestly am not sure what you mean?
Maybe I am missing something.. It has happened before..
Steven Maurer
(476 posts)You're now bashing Democratic allies, just because they refuse to have that (D) next to their name?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,126 posts)Response to Steven Maurer (Reply #33)
InAbLuEsTaTe This message was self-deleted by its author.
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)She is no longer running for office. I will not be defining myself according to the 2016 primary for time immemorial. Your post is flawed in that you assume that people who supported Clinton are as focused on her as those who define themselves according to Bernie Sanders. While people like and admire her, you don't see them calling themselves "Clintoncrats" or "Hillarycrats."
1) There are fresh attacks every day. 2) I'm done with the bullshit attitude that I owe deference to someone just because they are rich and powerful. I don't give even half a fuck who someone supported in a long-ago settled primary. I care what they do and say NOW. That means I fully intend to exercise my right to free speech, and that includes responding to those who insult me, seek to undermine my equal rights, and reduce me and others who weren't born into the white middle to upper-middle class, or even millionaires, held as superior to the rest of humanity, precisely because of the tribal identity that is all some care about.
I don't know what prompted your attack, but I suggest you focus on your own speech rather than trying to censure the speech and minds of others. I will not be following your orders.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... thank you very much!
LexVegas
(6,121 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,150 posts)possible since she is a defacto leader or one of them of the party this site CELEBRATES
lapucelle
(18,410 posts)that you didn't say "we".
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)brer cat
(24,662 posts)FSogol
(45,595 posts)annarbor
(570 posts)I feel this comes up every weekend. Sigh 😔
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)with addresses in Odessa. (I don't mean West Texas.)
It is not unlikely that DU would be a target for the bot farms. And sowing discord among Democrats would be exactly what they would like to have happen. If Zuckerberg could miss it, any other site could.
pnwmom
(109,025 posts)We Hillary supporters will try to do better.
Skittles
(153,310 posts)ecstatic
(32,798 posts)but you appear to be mocking both sides with this OP. Is this just innocent fun or something more sinister?
Steven Maurer
(476 posts)...but more importantly, please explain to me how telling people to stop [expletive deleted] fighting, can in any way be "sinister"?
VOX
(22,976 posts)"Don't stay up late."
"Don't let the cat outside."
"You ought to feel (grateful, proud, ashamed, etc.)"
"That's a totally absurd idea."
betsuni
(25,815 posts)"Get your hair out of your face."
"Don't you think you're wearing too much makeup? You look like a painted doll."
Etc.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Now I guess we have another.
louis c
(8,652 posts)I will never forgive.
Sorry. binary choice.
I refer anyone who doesn't understand to the 1932 German election between Otto Wels and Adolf Hitler.
You didn't have to like Otto, but you sure in hell should have voted for him.
Spy Car
(38 posts)nini
(16,672 posts)Playing nice is a thing of the past. Look where it has gotten us.
I'm going after anyone who is a threat to this country.