Bernie supporters, be careful out there.

be like Bernie. do not attack or smear other candidates, only fight facts with facts! just like Bernie. We are representing him. let's not be obnoxious if we can help it.

I agree that we should be polite and never, never, never smear anyone. But attacking is fine so long as one uses facts to back up one's criticisms of the candidate in question. If no one points out O'Malley's horrible mass arrest policies in Baltimore, for example, how will anyone know why they shouldn't vote for him?

And if i was to say i simply do not trust the other Candidate is that or would it be considered an attack.

in their record or their views, or that the candidate behaved poorly in some respect. An attack becomes a smear when the available evidence doesn't support the claim that the alleged flaw exists, or that the alleged bad behavior occurred. "The Clintons murdered Foster" is a smear because there is no evidence that Foster was murdered. "Hillary Clinton has been too hawkish" is not a smear if there is evidence to back it up (and IMHO there is plenty of such evidence).

I, for one, have grown very tired of having my fellow posters tell me and other DUers what we should and should not post.

Quo warranto?

It's as though Ms. Holier Than Thou and Mr. Control Freak had a baby who grew up to post here.

And I love the way you put it...Ms. Holier Than Thou and Mr. Control Freak had a baby who grew up to post here.

This is politics. Politics gets nasty and if posters have to reach for the fainting couch every time someone says something mean about their candidate, then they might want to take up another hobby.

I don't have to emulate anyone. I am my own person, Bernie is his own person and other DUers are their own respective persons. I resent like hell someone telling me how I "should" behave. I'm 60 years old, opinionated and not at all afraid to express my opinions. The way I see it, I've been an activist all my adult life and I've EARNED the right to say whatever the hell I damned well please. Miss/Mr. Manners needs to lay off this shit trying to tell people how to act.

Democratic political message board is deemed nasty.

If it's inappropriate for this board, Skinner has every right to state that. He hasn't. If something is acceptable to the owner of the board, where to our peers get off? If they want to control the content of the posts of other posters, let them start their own boards.

And, again, this group is supposed be a safe haven for supporters of sanders. I doubt members of the Hillary Group are beating each other up.

No

They just ban anyone who isn't groveling at Hillary's golden idol.

From less than a week ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128016116

I agree, in the past few months i have not said to much here and for several reasons. The first being i have lost 4 family members in six weeks but that is only part of the reason. I will support Bernie Sanders in any way possible, i will wear out my shoes going door to door, i will support with donations, and i will especially point out any and all lies being told about the man.

Please don't let any DUers get you down any further, including me. Especially me.

No duer has gotten me down as a matter of fact, but what does bring me sadness is when people voice an opinion they are chastised for having that opinion, but you are not one of those people you are one here i look up to.

I wish I could say something more meaningful.

To say anything, we expected 3 of the losses but the one that hurt the most was my nephew, he was 23 and taken because of liver Cancer. I highly appreciate the words merrily and trust me those words do mean an awful lot so Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Of course, it's all unbearable, but some part of you knows you will lose parents and grandparents, for example.

He was in college when he came down with the disease studying to be an Electrical Engineer and never once looked back or felt sorry for himself and never once cried, ( that we seen) he was always upbeat and hopeful and constantly talked about owning his own business. I think what always impressed me about him was he didn't care about material things he just cared about people and if they were doing OK and always had a smile on his face when asking.

I know how much I love her kids, so I think I know how you feel.

Just so unfair!

But what would be fair would Bernie Sanders winning the White house, and now that all this is finally behind us we are now going to look forward and finally start helping a dream come true and get Bernie Elected.

And then, maybe explain why they're worse than post after post implying something is off about Bernie when it comes to equal rights for people of color, immigrants and women. Also that his supporters suffer from those same faults.

with a 2000 like purge of voters. I was basically saying that no one was going to do anything like that in the primary. That we needed to find a way to stop the Rs from doing that again in the general. The R was implied.

No I did not say it exactly that way and a jury thought I was smearing Hillary. I think this OP is warning us about this type of infighting.

BTW Skinner was nice enough to let me repost what I said.

the owner of this board has put juries in charge of making a lot of decisions about the contents of the posts of other posters. That is not so of a lot of DUers who simply take it upon themselves to post telling other DUers what they should or should not post. It's a fucking nuff already, especially in a group that is supposed to be a safe haven for Bernie supporters.

I trashed GD Primary as soon as I heard about it. If these control freak posts belong anywhere, they belong there, not in this group. Not to complain about how supporters of Sanders post--but never about how supporters of Hillary post. Not in a safe haven.

That's how I feel.

it's a piece of advice for us all to keep it together.

we're on the same team merrily, yet you keep biting my head off whenever I speak up to the team about holding strong and keeping our cool out there.

seriously how am I offending you?

I think it is important to point out candidates inconsistencies and weak points at this stage. After all the nominee will be competing against other parties which will have no problem in raking up the bad stuff. This is a good time to clean out the cupboards.

"attack." Just stop. Speaking or posting the truth about any politician, esp. one currently running for office, is neither a smear nor an attack. To the contrary, it is the form of speech most protected by the First Amendment.

Please also stop worrying about the content of the posts of other posters. For honest and reasonable people, it should not reflect on either you or Bernie and, as to those who are not honest and reasonable, nothing is going to matter, anyway.

Thanks.

that I claimed Bernie supporters are the only ones doing this?

Also, as you very well know, I said "implying." So why did you bother with "stated?"

all I ever intended with my posts was to encourage civility when engaging others in political conversation.

someone above said that politics gets nasty and that's the way it is. why does it have to be that way? who decided that insults and mud slinging were the only way to figure out who is best?

it's a perfectly reasonable and logical expectation to believe we're capable of being above that.

aside from that, I see a lot of people have different definitions of smearing and attacking and think that I'm judging them from some pedestal. I'll clarify for everyone's benefit.

don't insult other candidates. Bernie wouldn't.

don't spread lies about them. Bernie wouldn't.

don't be cruel or spiteful when sharing simple facts, Bernie wouldn't!

just be civil! that's all I ever asked.

Last edited Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:29 AM - Edit history (3)

Perhaps you can explain why you think it necessary to lecture Bernie's supporters--and only Bernie's supporters--about civility? To call them bad, and, to boot, in a group where they are supposed to be "safe?" What do you think that implies about Bernie's supporters? And what makes you think your own lectures to this group on this have been so civil? Yet not a word of proof of any of the very negative things you been posting and implying about how Bernie's supporters post.

To refresh your recollection, this is what you've actually been posting on the topic of Bernie's supporters in what is supposed to be a safe haven for Benrie's supporters:

in regards to Bernie supporters giving up and leaving...
I admit that I'm an angry person with no tact before I say this.

can we PLEASE stop throwing in the towel when we're met with unfair opposition? grow a backbone people!

what do you think Bernie is up against? he's said it from the beginning! it's an uphill battle. this will not be a cakewalk and was never going to be one!

Bernie deals with this crap everyday no doubt about it.

how does he deal with it? well let me first explain where some of you are going wrong.

when you're met with people praising Hillary and smearing Bernie you tend to smear back. no! bad Bernie supporter! bad!

Bernie has never run a negative ad in his life. he refuses to smear his opponents. we should do the same.

so next time you're up against the odds, just stick to the truth. don't try insulting others, don't even stoop to their level. be like Bernie. just give them facts. fight misinformation with information! you can't save them all so yes there will be people who stick to their guns! but oh well, leave them be and move on to the next person who could hear about Bernie.

also even if you feel that the administration is biased, oh well. as long as you have a voice on this site, as long as you have a voice for Bernie anywhere, USE IT.

Bernie will not win with apathy, he will not win with discouragement, he will not win with fear of the opposition.

stop throwing in the towel, Bernie hasn't and he won't. if Bernie keeps fighting an uphill battle for you, I think we should keep returning the favor. don't you think?

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Bernie supporters, be careful out there.

be like Bernie. do not attack or smear other candidates, only fight facts with facts! just like Bernie. We are representing him. let's not be obnoxious if we can help it.

but it's not complaint of how Bernie supporters post

ll I ever intended with my posts was to encourage civility when engaging others in political conversation.

someone above said that politics gets nasty and that's the way it is. why does it have to be that way? who decided that insults and mud slinging were the only way to figure out who is best?

it's a perfectly reasonable and logical expectation to believe we're capable of being above that.

aside from that, I see a lot of people have different definitions of smearing and attacking and think that I'm judging them from some pedestal. I'll clarify for everyone's benefit.

don't insult other candidates. Bernie wouldn't.

don't spread lies about them. Bernie wouldn't.

don't be cruel or spiteful when sharing simple facts, Bernie wouldn't!

just be civil! that's all I ever asked.

because Bernie's team is my team. that's why I care how we carry ourselves. that's why I don't care to direct other groups.

I don't care how the other supporters act, they can do whatever they want. I want my team to win.

why do you think I'm so evil? it's just supportive speech. I've insulted and victimized no one.

you think you're defending others but there's a majority that thought my post was quite encouraging.

and again, I'm on your side. why do you have such a problem with team players simply keeping an eye on their home team? is no one allowed to cheer or direct their team when they simply want them to stay the proper course and win?

If you can look at what you wrote about us in a safe haven group and see nothing out of place, that's on you.

Next time I say "Please stop" though, please don't ask me what I mean.

I understand that context is difficult to read through text. but even after clearly explaining my intentions I'm being accused of bashing others. I forfeit my discussion with you as I clearly can't get any understanding here.

I understand these are passionate times merrily but just try understanding that not everyone is trying to fight around here.

this is my last word about this, I meant well and never ever pointed anyone out, I never admonished specific people so you can't ask me to go find posts where Bernie supporters said rude things. I don't have to, all sides have their bad apples.

in the end, I said represent Bernie by being like Bernie. if telling people not to be rude counts as bashing others and admonishing them then im obviously stepping out of line and instead of attacking my posts and misinterpreting them you should simply alert my posts if you really think I'm stepping out of line.

I'd rather be modded than misinterpreted any further.

that said, I'll repeat and stand by my initial statements so you can alert this very post if you feel I'm stepping out of line.

Bernie supporters, fight misinformation with information. do not smear others because Bernie would not smear them. there is no need for it in a race where facts can speak for themselves. and as Bernie supporters, we have a lot of facts. hold yourselves respectfully as you represent Bernie because no one will care for a candidate that is supported by rude people.

be like Bernie! talk about the issues, bring up the flaws in others, that's not attacking, it's stating facts. but be respectful about it. just be like Bernie because it's only with that kind of integrity that we'll be able to win this.

that you sidestepped the question.

where did you get that implication?

so if someone were to make a generalized statement like "sometimes dogs like to wag their tails" you would read that and assume that the person making the statement is implying that ONLY dogs are capable of wagging their tails?

so in order to avoid misinterpretation that person should list every creature capable of wagging their tails then?

Your post to me is worse than what I posted to you.

However, there are many times when the Clinton people have labeled things that I consider should be discussed as "attacks" and "RW attacks". This has included discussions referencing votes, positions, comments Clinton has made, whether she is overstating her role in accomplishments, and the developing problem with her emails.

Examples are things like all her comments on Syria made during her book roll out. She intentionally took a more hawkish position than Obama and went as far as to state a conjecture that had Obama followed her (and Petraeous') advise to give lethal assistance to the rebels, ISIS would not be the problem it is. On DU, saying she is more hawkish IS a negative - more than half the board seems to feel Obama is too hawkish. Therefore, there have been Clinton supporters who reject any post that argues that she is more hawkish than the poster wishes a candidate were.

Likewise on trade, HRC has either pretty much take credit for the tilt to Asia - with the trade deal as a centerpiece - as her big contribution to foreign policy. However here, her supporters claim that she - like them - is unsure she supports OBAMA's trade bill. This gets too clever by half quickly.

There may also be many issues where her team diminishes the contributions of others to maximize the credit that goes to her. I WILL respond when her supporters give her the lead credit on things like Cuba, climate change pacts and even Iran. (HRC 's book can actually be read giving her credit for the Syrian chemical weapons deal - and rather than giving Kerry any credit, speaks of his "gaffe". There is NO WAY I will either give her credit (for "persuading" Obama to take "Putin's offer&quot or not give JK credit for some very good diplomacy that resulted in the actual agreement, which he is rightfully proud of. Same goes for a lame attempt to give her person, Jake Sullivan, top credit for an Iran deal possibly coming. It is true, that the early negotiations took place when she was Secretary, but Kerry, as SFRC chair helped set up the Oman conduit and Obama himself was behind the effort. HRC was noncommittal before the interim agreement and has kept her position vague.) The fact is that OBAMA deserves the main credit for ANYTHING done by his administration because it is his legacy and - on anything important - it is go ahead needed. In addition, I will not stay quiet when HRC - as she did in her book - makes herself as an Obama peer -- while diminishing Kerry.

On a different issue, I will honestly respond on things like Clinton's email. I have worked in a large corporation and know people who worked for the government. Most are stunned by her having a private server, not routinely sending emails to state.gov over the time she was secretary, not bothering to do so after she left (even knowing there were Congressional inquiries which they fit), then after "negotiations" she gave the SD her selected emails ON PAPER. Then when all this came out, she cavalierly said she asked the SD to make them all public. Note there are now 12 full time people in the SD processing all this to make that possible - while they are attacked for "being slow" and now complying --- ALL HRC's fault. I will comment on this - and criticize HRC - because it matters when John Kerry's chief of staff has to spend enormous time - that certainly could be better used - dealing with Growdy. (Yes, you can argue that he is annoying - he is - but the fact is it is now proven that the SD does not have all the emails. It is also clear that Growdy by demanding the SD state how they could get all of them is trying to make it a fight between the current Obama administration and Clinton - even though the SD has no real power to force Clinton to do anything.)

none of what you said is an attack or a smear and it was presented as fact. nothing more, nothing less. this is the kind of political conversation that I say we should all keep in line with. it doesn't hurt to cite publications or articles though! go Bernie!!!

They have to line up all the reasons why she lost. If you think the PUMA shit was ugly in 08, wait till you see how horrid it will be when she loses this time.

Would it be rude of me to ask folks like yourself to promote your candidate and save your attacks for the Pubes?

Can you manage that?

Hope so.

Did you come here to castigate posters here or to support the TOS of this Group?

The Hillary 'dead-enders' in 2008 were indeed horrible here on DU.

They already are back to the same smarmy retorts to any opposition -- and the first voting is months and months away. So, when she does lose again in 2016, I, too, expect the vitriol to be volcanic.

Look, its about issues and it is about politics.
We can discuss candidates on a political web site in political terms.

In my estimation, Hillary Clinton is an inadequate candidate, not very good on the campaign trail, not a very good speaker, not especially principled, too old in her view of the nation and the world, and she has become too enamored of money, power and influence.

I don't like her position on a host of issues, either.

Sanders is a very reasonable alternative.

I would not "save my attacks" for the Repuglicans because my "attacks' and/or critiques are for Hillary Clinton -- that is where the contest is for Democrats right now. What is so hard to understand about that?

I wish!

A lot seems to be about Bill Clinton.

And a strange notion that Hillary DESERVES the presidency. A very RW notion that...someone deserves to win.... a year before any primaries.

in this group, too.

considering the OP I was replying to:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=6967

Sometimes you gotta call out the bs when they are turning this into a war and plotting these things in their little 'safe haven'. I don't believe that's what the groups are for, to plan actions against other DUers, especially involving real life outside of DU. Now that particular plan was so ridiculous and childish it was completely idiotic, but still, the fact that they are in there acting as if we are the enemy shows there is something terribly 'off' over there.

That was the cause of your comment in the Hillary Group, right? But it is not the cause of Darb's comment in this group. So, I am not seeing the parallel, except that you both did cross into a protected group whose main current interest you did not share.

Darb asked if it would be rude of him or her to come into this group and tell us not to post anything negative about Hillary here.

I see a clear distinction between posting facts about a political candidate, even ones that are not flattering, which Darb is saying we should not do, and posting ad homs and insults about one's fellow DUers, which you said we shouldn't do.

Apparently, I am in the minority on this as DUers seem to feel it's fine to do the latter on a political message board, but not the former. My own view is the direct opposite. I think it's fine to comment about a politician on a political message board, unless the comment violates the board's TOS.

Anyway, I don't think the two situations are similar.

to any Bernie supporters. As my linked post shows, their group plots like we're at war where as in the Bernie group negative OPs are asked to be deleted.

I totally agree with you. The two situations are not the same and there is nothing wrong with criticizing a candidate and listing things on their record. That's part of deciding how to vote.

The Hillary supporters who whine about Bernie supporters while acting like they're at war with other DUers are disingenuous and hypocritical.

telling others what to do is rude. and your tone is equally rude.

and then proceed to instruct the people who live there how to behave?

To answer your question, yes, it is rude of you.

There's another new poster in this group who seems to think he/she is the Behavior Sheriff. He/She didn't learn from the first time he/she was smacked down in this Group so he/she is at it again. And now he/she has an ally. Isn't that wonderful.

LOL

Last edited Mon Jun 29, 2015, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Oh, wait. The ones who are getting admonished in their safe haven are not the ones who are wrong.

To the contrary, we mock it ourselves.

Hillary agrees with the republicans on a large majority of important issues, so that won't work. Bernie himself is a tough target since his values haven't changed, ever. So that leaves his supporters.

The pumas are awful people, having no principles except "I like her and you have to also".

Stick to your principles. You'll feel better over the long run.

It's HER TURN!!! Why should facts and policy matter?!?!

ZOMG!!

to go to the back of the line.

We have all seen some people who start "bashing" threads over and over. Not just useful issues, but RW memes, very old news, crazy rumors, and irrelevant issues. This happens for all candidates and I haven't counted who has the most or worst offenders.

First, this strategy will do nothing to change the mind of the other candidate's enthusiastic supporters. It usually annoys people who are already committed so that name-calling and personal attacks result in hidden threads. As we all know, at some point people may be suspended or banned.

Second, if there happens to be a someone interested in learning about candidates or hearing the latest information; they give up or go away if they don't like all the battles. That likely is more harmful to your candidate than any thing else.

If you have made it your mission to post threads everyday attacking the other candidate, please stop. That is certainly horrible behavior. I know that I've seen variations of the same attack post reappearing over and over - often with the same poster.

If you have some new information or opinion, if you see some positive news about your candidate, if you have a personal analysis to express; then fire away. If someone replies and they disagree, then try to avoid attacking the poster or you have now lowered yourself to being a horrible person.

I will vote for the Democratic candidate. Even though I have my favorite candidate, I would like to hear more about all the candidate on current issues and positions. It's hard to do that sometimes, and I really don't want to ignore a bunch of people or serve on juries three times a day.

elsewhere and stop trolling the safe haven for Bernie supporters.

Although I support Sanders, if a Sanders supporter smears Clinton, I will call them out on it.

I also agree that one should strive to be polite. I confess that I tend to be much less polite when the poster to whom I am replying is smearing someone or being deliberately dishonest or is being impolite themselves. But if one wants to promote one's candidate, politeness is always a good thing.

I don't entirely agree that posting old information is bad. Revealing relevant parts of a candidate's record is an important part of explaining why someone should vote or not vote for that candidate. Even repeating information can be important because not everyone always sees the earlier post.

The candidates.

And even if it were true, this is a group where supporters of Bernie Sanders are supposed to have a safe haven, not one where they get bashed a few times a week for things no one bothers to be specific about, let alone prove.

If you think someone is actually abusing DU, alert and/or take it up with Skinner or take it to GD: Primary or whatever it's called. If YOU must. That is, if you really think you should be telling other adults on a political message board what to post about primary candidates.

Please stop stirring in this forum, though.

remember "Obamabots" and "Obamatons"?

One messes with the HRC fantasy at one's own risk. Expect MORE hyperventilation.... not less.... as time goes by.

Esp if the polls tighten up. ( Which they will.)

You need to get to work promoting Senator Sanders out there where many don't know who he is and what he has to offer. Every minute you spend arguing on blogs is wasted time. Get moving.

(Good move - there, BTW)

One can chew gum and think at the same time. Really!

Please don't assume or presume. Your post does both.

Spreading the good word about Senator Sanders out there in the real world, and posting here.

Don't forget that a well written, honest post here is shared all over the place. We are not at the level of a couple other places but we are shared.

it's a message board. Secondly, you have NO IDEA what people do with their time and how much time/money they dedicate to the Sanders campaign. Thirdly, who the hell died and made you DU Sheriff?

Interesting, all at once this gaggle of newbies showing up on the Sanders group ordering Sanders supporters around. Wonder if they're also in the Hillary group doing the same thing. I'm thinking, no.

I'm seeing the same exact crap appearing over at kos now as well. When asked for examples, they can't provide it.

People need to stop stirring shit in this group.

Exact same tactics. Makes me laugh. I would guess a lot of them are the same people. But I guess since Kos doesn't seem to have juries, people can smack down the nagging much more effectively. It's not working over there either.

composed of all the trusted users. A lot of the concern trolling gets hide rated quickly. They have a DBAD(don't be a dick) rule forbidding people from into diaries just to stir up crap. I suspect that is what is behind some of the animosity towards NN. They can't get away with much of their crap over there.
If you make a claim, you better be able to back it up with credible sources or you will be quickly hidden.

Excellent. We've past the "ignore" and "mock" stages and they're fighting us. Y'all know what comes next!

one group on the entire board that is supposed to be a safe haven for us.

But we can take it.... because we are all grown up and not so starry eyed.


We don't ban everyone who disagrees..... I hope!

scolded here regularly. Otherwise, what's the point? Let's stay in GD then. That's my view.

If anyone feels as though they are too emotionally beaten up to stay in this group, it should be an interloper, not a strong supporter of Bernie, like Atomic Kitten. That's my view and I don't think it's the least bit unreasonable.

I'm sorta making jokes, y'know.... because I got banned, after a single post, from the Hillary Group, who were at the time all "Gosh... I hope Hillary will be alright. Those meany Right Winger are saying bad things about her!" post after post after post....so I , as a JOKE posted:

in there to begin with because I had not noticed the headline I clicked on was in the Hillary Group.

No hard feelings, though. But, when I see them complain about being blocked from here or from the Populist Group, I have to laugh. Troll a group intentionally and you just might get banned, duh. How is that anyone's fault but the troll's?

Indeed.

But posting the "leave Brittany Alone" vid is only trolling when the group is made up of 4 year olds.


It's kinda funny because the banning sorta "proved" my joke to not be a joke.....who knew???? (at that point)

You are obviously not like minded to members of the Hillary Group when it comes to Hillary. So, you didn't fit the description of who was welcome to post there.

Echo chambers lead to unreasonable expectations and bad surprises when reality turns out to have other ideas. Also, I'm confident enough in Bernie and what he stands for that I can tolerate opposing viewpoints. I find that the need for "safe spaces" usually speaks to a lack of confidence in the thing that is having the safe space erected around it. (Unless it's a need for a -physically- safe space, like a battered women's shelter or similar.)

And don't post in any safe haven group, if you don't believe in them.

Fact is, this group, like every other group on this board, is advertised as a safe haven for like minded people.

Echo chambers lead to unreasonable expectations and bad surprises when reality turns out to have other ideas.

Also, I'm confident enough in Bernie and what he stands for that I can tolerate opposing viewpoints.I find that the need for "safe spaces" usually speaks to a lack of confidence in the thing that is having the safe space erected around it.

This is what the whole "safe space" mentality does. Everything that isn't 100% in line with a person's preconceived notions is taken as a red-alert man-the-battle-stations assault. I'm on your side, get it? Or Bernie's side, at least. I'm not attacking you, or him. I'm just expressing my opinion about a matter that is tertiary at best.

Being a supporter of Bernie means you are on Bernie's side.I've been supporting the idea of a safe haven and you've been replying with some things about people who want a safe haven that are negative and that I consider to be untrue. So I said so.

And, negative though my words may be, I stand by them.

claiming anyone on this board gets exposed to only one view of Bernie Sanders or only one view of Hillary Clinton is just not true.

I outlined my objection in general terms, citing a tendency that I believe to be true. You're applying it specifically, but that's only going to be true on a case by case basis.

Everyone knows that Sanders and his supporters are just working to split the Party and weaken America's Next President™. In fact, RT is even covering the Presidential race!

But it won't work. Mook says the polls are wrong.

Better Believe It,

TWM

Or, did he tell another lie about polls that I missed?

Everything with you people is true or false. LOL!

Sometimes there are truths that are better than the truth: we call these doubleplustruths. For example,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=17235

However, I must confess that I have often posted that polls predicting election results (or polls poking around in that general vicinity) are not reliable this far out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=16602

So, I guess I am a little mook-y myself.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mook

However, you are mistaken that everything for me is true or false. Every now and again, I make a truthy post and I don't even add the sarcasm emote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6900520

Shame on you TWM! I should block you.

I want a button that says that. "I am a Sandernista."

But I'll go with the crowd

I'm a Bernie supporter, and I'm a horrible person. Once, when I was a child, I spoke rudely to an old person. After that, things just went downhill. In grade school, I said "Poop!" In high school, I had... um... "intimate knowledge" with a couple different girls and, unlike Bristol Palin, we were not engaged. Fast forward 40 years, and here is the horrible, evil person you see before you, or at least whose words you are reading on your screen. Now I'm a democratic socialist. Yes! It's true. Parents, let this be a lesson to you. Keep a watchful eye on your offspring, or they'll end up being socialist Democrats instead of liberal Democrats.

Are there grades of horrible?...if so I am a grade above you.

...but you could be worse than I am. Well, I guess I should be relieved, shouldn't I? Thanks!

you said poop in high school! LOL!

to define it is simple: Privilege is the ability to beat your opponent ruthlessly with society's approval, and to know that society will defend you if the person you hit hits back.

It is no secret who has the privilege, and even though Hillary herself has thankfully not attacked Bernie, the Claire Mcaskgills and others who feel they want to ensure she wins this time are behaving viciously, much like Bill Clinton did in 2008.

They forget that the way many of Hillary's supporters acted was a major turn off. We were lucky that we ran two candidates that could not help but generate buzz, or else we could have been creamed. We do not have that luxury this time, sadly.

So, to her supporters I say this, if you really want different results from 2008, do not repeat the mistakes of 2008, which include demonizing people that, at the very least, want to give her an excuse to tilt leftward before the same Wall Street/Third Way idiots that have lost us so much try to wrap her up as "GOP, but with Nutrasweet and several essential Vitamins."

REGARDLESS of the Primaries YOU WILL NEED US TO WIN, for WE can convince the middle voters to jump.

REGARDLESS of your insults, WE WANT THE GOP TO LOSE

and this is REGARDLESS of the fact that we know that after she wins, many of you will lean right in Hilliary's ear and say "get rid of those lefties, we are the good children, we should be your favorite. And regardless of the fact we know Billy Big Dawg will say "yes Hillary you should" before going off to do who knows what.

Granted, I suspect Hillary herself is NOT stupid enough to fall for any of it, but if her followers repeat the 2008 pattern, we might not find out.

...the OP got comically wrong, was the use of the phrase "a couple of people". Now that's comedy gold.

And I blocked one person over that...was sick and tired of their crap. My blocked list keeps growing.

members who have made this website into an unpleasant, unintellectual one where hurt feelings seem to rule over factual information and intelligent discourse. I'm almost afraid to post this but I hope fellow Bernie supporter understand what I'm trying to opine on.

You know where Hillary's support is? It's at the end of a phone line when a pollster calls. They sure aren't interested enough to canvas for her, they are as awol from canvassing as Hillary is from taking interviews.

It will also be difficult to impugn Sanders personally. So their options are limited

Bull's eye. They do not have the high ground on so much as ONE issue.

your post is concise and perfectly expresses the reality


It is so relaxing supporting Bernie.

I remember how stressful it was as a loyal Bill Clinton supporter in the 90's. You never knew what would pop up, and it would never be the thing, it would be the way that they handled it.