For SHAME, Bernie would not approve!

[Cosmic Kitten]

The SCOLDING of Bernie supporters
is approaching comedic proportions.

Is it desperation or paternalism
that makes grown adults attempt
to "shame" others for expressing
their opinions freely?

The idea that supporters must
comport as surrogates for the
Sanders campaign is not only
offensive it's disingenuous.

A though ADULTS needs to act
in a manner that pleases those who
oppose us.
That we should live up to their
expectations while denying our
own voices is undemocratic.

Since when do ADULTS need to self-censor
to appease the sensibilities of an opponent?

If someone tries to shame or scold you
for speaking your mind, for speaking your
opinions, give them a hearty LOL.


They are not your parents, spiritual adviser,
employer or significant other... they are ONLY
another adult with a different opinion.
"They" don't have secret inside information
they only seek to undermine your position.

We need not bend our will to fit their
sensibilities or hollow admonitions that...
"Bernie would not approve".

[Luminous Animal]

1. Reminds me when the likes of Limbaugh admonish liberals for not being tolerant

of their hateful actions and speech.

[Cosmic Kitten]

11. It does seem reminiscent of RW talking points!

[Nitram]

59. There you go again!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Well said. I'm casting my vote for a president, not a dad. K&R

There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. Lord Acton

[Cosmic Kitten]

13. +1 Exactly!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

138. What about a mom?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

202. Not a mom either.

Nor a party label.

Just for you:

Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently.

Rosa Luxemburg

[geek tragedy]

3. the problem is that some people whose only real agenda is trashing Clinton, Obama, etc

have latched onto Bernie's campaign and act like anyone who doesn't share their hate couldn't possibly support Bernie.

"What, you don't think that Hillary has a statue of a Golden Calf in her living room? You don't support Bernie!"


They've hijacked a campaign about ideas and perverted it into an extension of their attention-seeking private hate jihad against other Democrats, Democrats for whom Bernie Sanders has great respect and with whom he agrees more than he disagrees.

[Autumn]

6. You should check out the Bernie Sanders supporters group, We don't

have a private hate jihad against other Democrats, Democrats for whom Bernie Sanders has great respect and with whom he agrees more than he disagrees.

We discuss Bernie and the issues his support and the campaign. We don't even hate on the Hillary supporters in that group.

[hootinholler]

17. Damned right we do not allow people to piss and moan about how awful Hillary supporters are

Or build conspiracy theories about Hillary supporters.

[Autumn]

70. There are no posters in our group that

have been blocked in other groups running in and posting how they were blocked even though their behavior was a model of decorum either and the group is so thin skinned. Any post doing that would be locked or the poster would be asked to delete it by any of our hosts.

[Aerows]

195. To be fair

I have noticed that some of those folks are starting to have their posts locked in the HC group.

Nobody is perfect, and while I am a Bernie supporter and also like O'Malley, I appreciate the effort the hosts of that forum are putting forth to stop that nonsense.

[Autumn]

221. This is nice and you are right nobody is perfect. I tend to avoid that place but

links have been sent of posters doing that. I'm looking forward to the O'Malley and Sanders town hall at Netroots Nation. With those two men that will be a wonderful event.

[Sheepshank]

119. Of coure you don't like Hillary supporters there

Otherwise why would I have been blocked/banned merely for posting jury results...a jury on which I had served. I gave no comment, no remarks...you just banned me with no indication why......even after I asked, you never bothered to reply.

[Autumn]

121. You were blocked because members complained about your post.

I think it was something to do with the laughing emoticons Sorry I must have missed the email.

[Sheepshank]

133. Nope...I didn't use any emoticons, and missing an email was pretty convenient then.

...so then you confirm that you people and your group simply don't like Hillary supporters....they had me pegged and felt that it wasn't a good fit for your group. A pre-emptive banning. So you can quit with the noble inclusive banter right now.

One of your own was alterted on. Dumb alert and I was glad it had failed. My only comment was in the title "LOL" as if to state the alerter lost this dumb battle. I was even one of those that voted to not hide your group members statement. The jury results were to not hide the post. Care to clarify why that was ban worthy now that it's all out in the public?

[Autumn]

147. A lot of message flew over that thread.

I probably deleted your message when I deleted the read messages and never thought of it again. That's why you got no response but had you cared to protest the blocking you would have done so.

[Sheepshank]

161. I followed the attached instructions to send you a message if there was a concern or question

I did just what was indicated on the notice I was provided, regarding the banning.

The "all inclusive shit" is just that.

[Autumn]

170. I told you why I blocked you, so now you know. If it had bothered you enough

you could have made an issue out of the message then and I would have taken it to the other hosts. Have a nice day

[Sheepshank]

175. your reason for the blocking was all made up shit

how does one try to stack up against a banner who simply makes up shit and uses that as an enforcement tool?

Thanks for the clarification, it's pretty much exactly as I expected.

[Bobbie Jo]

227. Wow

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya!

An emoticon? Seriously?

[Sheepshank]

231. there wasn't even an emoticon, for snarks sake.....that's what so asinine n/t

[MADem]

7. You articulated the issue perfectly.

I don't think this applies to anyone who has responded to this thread thus far, but I do get the sense that there are some people who pretend to support Bernie in order to bash and trash other candidates on the left side of the aisle. This doesn't help Senator Sanders at all because it gives people the false impression that his supporters are intolerant and abusive assholes, when the vast majority of them, I'm sure, are not that.

As always, in life and on the internet, people tend to notice the negative. Twenty positive posts about politics can be posted without much comment or reaction, but the one negative one takes all the air out of the room and gets people riled up.

[brer cat]

16. And you added to it perfectly.

OT, I hope you are feeling better.

[aspirant]

22. I sense

"there are some people who pretend to support" HRC " in order to bash and trash other candidates"

[Cosmic Kitten]

32. Wait, what? Not all Hillary "supporters" are earnest?

Who knew that a political
community would have
interlopers with an agenda to
scuttle the "socialist" candidate!?!

I demand in inquiry!
A loyalty pledge is in order!

[donnasgirl]

40. I pledge to back Bernie Sanders until the bitter end.

[kenfrequed]

84. It doesn't have tobe either

It neither has to have and end or be bitter if we stay active and positive.

[MADem]

75. That may very well be--I won't argue the point, but this thread isn't about her...

Yet, anyway...

[aspirant]

98. I'm sure you support fair and balanced

[MADem]

149. Are you insinuating I am a Fox News viewer?

Why would you direct such a hateful accusation at me? Surely you can do better than that, if you're going to resort, right out of the gate and without preamble, to low blows and cheap shots!

Here--let me return the favor with a cheap shot of my own.

HRC doesn't go on Fox News. Can other candidates say as much?

Have a real nice day.

[aspirant]

167. Why would your thoughts go directly to Fox News?

Your subjective read is very telling

Do you hate all who appear on Fox including DU posters?

Hateful accusation, remember your earlier post of pretenders who bash and trash?

[MADem]

183. It's not "telling" at all--you used their CATCHPHRASE. And directed it at me.

'Fair and Balanced' is their (without any detectable irony) way of describing themselves. It's their SLOGAN.

They've RUINED the term for anyone else.

If I said "Only your hairdresser knows for sure" you would assume I was suggesting that you dyed your hair. That's what happens when you use someone's slogan.

See how that works?

[aspirant]

214. You forgot my lack of quotation marks

A slogan only has deep long lasting effects if you find yourself regularly encountering it.

See how that works?

[MADem]

218. Since when do people here invariably use them? Punctuation is often overlooked by

many here. The term FAIR AND BALANCED--with or without quotation marks--has acquired a meaning that is entirely separate from its original provenance.

If I said only your hairdresser knows for sure (no punctuation), would you still think I meant something other than "You're dying that hair on your head?"

See how that works?

[Hekate]

188. Well aren't you the little charmer with the dog whistle.

Enjoy your stay.

[aspirant]

215. No dog whistles here, maybe over there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Nah that is not the problem

but both of us know that. That is the excuse.

Those people you speak off just happen to disagree that Obama is that great, and that Clinton is not going to be. Adults can agree or disagree.

For those of us just watching this for the "entertainment" we are watching familiar 2008 tropes emerge. Soon it will be open antisemitism, just like the open racism of 2008. That will be the time to walk away.

[geek tragedy]

12. Well, no, I don't think Clinton is great, I could rattle off a long list of concerns

about her.

I strongly prefer Bernie.

But, I'm not particularly invested in talking about her political beliefs when she was in high school 50 years ago, or email servers, or speaking fees.

[aspirant]

28. "long list of concerns

Could your list of concerns be different than another Bernie supporter or are we all clones?

[geek tragedy]

30. they're probably the same concerns, actually.

I don't think people who are obsessed with Benghazi emails are Bernie supporters in real life, to be blunt.

[hifiguy]

139. Now that is a good point.

But I have yet to see any critics of HRC here bringing up the bullshit Benghazi issue, but I don't see everything on DU. The e-mails are an insubstantial distraction, not worthy of wasting trillions of electrons on.

The people with whom a candidate chooses to associate and affiliate him/herself, the candidate's policy positions, public statements, past record, and their unwillingness to take clear stands are all fair game and raising very tough questions about them is perfectly fair. Trivialities are not.

And for the record, I voted for Obama once with great enthusiasm, but the second time primarily because he was not Mitt Romney. My disillusionment with him began when he brought Summers and Geithner on board as economic advisers - why not put two of the chief arsonists in charge of the fire department? - and HRC at State. His inviting Big Pharma and Big Insurance to the bargaining table while excluding anyone supporting a public option or single payer told me what he really was at his core - a slightly kinder and gentler corporatist.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. 50 years ago I will give

the server matters, not for the partisan reasons. It is government dysfunction at it's highest. It is also a good place to find CONTINUITY IN FOREIGN POLICY REGARDLESS OF WHO OCCUPIES THE WHITE HOUSE GOING AT LEAST BACK TO REAGAN, if not further back. So yes, they do matter. It is not so much about her, but quite a bit about policy.

People are blind to that at their peril. Personally I cannot wait for the next batch. Don't worry, that material does not belong at a partisan board. The fact that it does not belong is also symptomatic of other dysfunctions and why DC cannot find it's way out of a wet paper bag. But when tribalism is this toxic, well...what can I say? The country will be the one to pay for this...nothing much.

Speaking fees, they matter, but not for partisan reasons either. They have to do with income inequality, likely some quid pro quo, which is legally against the law, but chiefly about inequality for the record, the quid pro quo is a problem all over the country, not specific to them.

It is also an issue that cannot be spoken about on a partisan board. In the meantime, we are becoming a more corrupt society. Yes, there are folks who track that. Again, not an issue that can be brought up in a partisan board.

For the record, as far as hyper partisanship is concerned, the republicans get the hyper lions share in this, but democrats are not quite innocent lambs to the slaughter.

As I said, once the antisemitism becomes undeniable, I will simply walk away, and make sure my passport is up to date. It is what it is.

[Aerows]

177. "DC cannot find it's way out of a wet paper bag"

^ This ^

This sums up my opinion of DC at this point. It's so dysfunctional that occasionally it gets difficult to give a damn.

[MADem]

80. Who,, pray tell, is going to be the "open" antisemite?

Clinton? She catches heat here and elsewhere for being perceived as too "pro-Israel." At least in the eyes of her detractors.

But you think that's a move she'll make, eh?

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. Should I post the videos

That were produced in 2008 over the comments regarding Obama and Bobby Kennedy that she made? Regardless, I am talking about DU, not her.

The whispers have started. Once they become way obvious I leave.

[MADem]

99. Why don't you post the "anti-semite" videos? Oh wait...you made that up.

Whispers? Really?

I think you're going to have to prove that charge.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. I wrote racist videos

Oh wait, reading comprehension is never good for those eternally outraged.

And to be very specific Keith Oberman ran them in countdown. The comments about Obama and Bobby Kennedy's murder in 1968. You knew exactly what I was talking about.

Next I s'pose you will suggest I alert, which is a joke.

[MADem]

122. You sure did--and those have nothing to do with the topic at hand, yet there you were,

dog-whistling away.

I figured, in for a penny, in for a pound. Nothing to do with "reading comprehension" (though you might take a page from your own book, there). If you had "racist" videos, surely you must also have "anti-semitic" ones as well...since you're making an accusation about a candidate being an anti-semite, and all?

See, I knew you didn't have them (which is why I made the comment about making that up). It's hard to have something that doesn't exist. But here's something that DOES exist:

https://www.readyforhillary.com/webform/jewish-americans-ready-hillary

Ahhhh, but wait, there's more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-jewish-voters-favor-hillary-clinton-118831.html

Starting to see why your thesis is not just ill-advised, but poorly thought out?

As for DUers, you are making some very ugly accusations here. You've got to either link or slink. And yes, if someone IS making anti-semitic comments, you DO need to alert, no cutesy little "s'posing" about it, and if you don't, you're as much as saying you find the comments just fine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. As I said, once it becomes way

Obvious, I am gone.

What I find hilarious is the white 'splaining you are doing. It is just peachy to tell a Jew and daughter of a holocaust survivor what is and is not antisemitic, even if highly coded.

But hey DU never, ever ceases to amaze me. Why I left already. And quite frankly will do again.

I know, some will surely celebrate.

[MADem]

140. I don't care what you do, or when you are 'gone.' You've made some heinous accusations, here.

And you're not going to detract from the issue by trying to call me a "white" 'splainer. I doubt I've ever been mistaken for that in my life, EVER, so you FAIL at cheap misdirection, as well.

Is that your usual modus operandi? Get caught saying something ugly, double down with something uglier, like that personal affront aimed at me?

This isn't about how DU "never ceases to amaze" you. This is about you making an ugly, nasty charge and not backing it up.

So link or slink, as the kids say.

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. You are the one trying to tell me what

is and what is not antisemitic. Congrats...shoes and all.

[MADem]

153. No, I'm not. STOP changing the subject, and either prove your nasty accusation, or slink. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

155. Not changing nothing

But that is your MO

[MADem]

159. This isn't about ME. It's about you, accusing DUers of being anti-semitic. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

162. Some are

Are you having a problem reading? Am I not communicating? Some are.

[MADem]

165. Prove it.

Are you having a problem reading? Am I not communicating?

Since you won't--or perhaps more accurately, CAN'T-- prove it, I can only assume you're inventing the accusations.

[nadinbrzezinski]

169. I can what you are doing is white 'splaining though

And with that please continue with this conversation on your own.

For the record, what you are also demanding is your MO.

Just go over to the IP forum for some lovely examples.

During Gaza they were here in GD. One accused Israelis of being Nazis.

And of course the Sanders is dividing minorities including Jews was cute.

Now continue having that conversation on your own. White "splaining is not becoming

[MADem]

173. This is not about ME--it's about YOU and your unsupported, vicious and disruptive

statements on DU about DUers.

Prove your assertions or slink. Stop changing the subject.

As for your "white" splaining charge (that is the second time you've dragged that out--getting desperate, are you?)...you are making more of a fool of yourself with that one than you'll ever know.

[nadinbrzezinski]

189. Not desperate

Those who are blind and all that.

Have a wonderful day in fantasy land.

[MADem]

196. Can't prove your accusation, so it's "slink" then. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

206. I told you where to go look

seems you cannot do that. Perhaps it would prove the point.

And that you cannot do. Suffice to say, what you are asking is that I name names, which is a jury offense, and to a point could be a tossable offense. I will leave on my terms,. NOT YOURS.

[MADem]

207. No, you didn't. Or are your links invisible?

You are making very specific and serious charges, here. You haven't backed them up.

Your best move might be a retraction, but far be it from me to tell YOU what to do....

[nadinbrzezinski]

209. Yes I am

go to the I\P forum. I will not do what you want... it is called a call out.

But I will give you a link to the forum.

But you know what? WHY NOT. This was on GD,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113470717

And was juried, and was found to be ok. That is antisemitism...


There is more, and more recent.

This OP by BB was not just quite divisive, but people got the dog whistle not just me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6880168

I could go on. Why once this becomes more prevalent I am gone.

Though I expect somebody to alert on this and that might be ON YOUR TERMS/


These are just two examples. Want more? Becuase there are plenty more,

And do not tell me this is not antisemitic. Oh I expect it. I fully expect. it. After all what would I know about it?

[MADem]

216. You're completely changing the subject....and I am noticing it and pointing it out.

Both of those links have nothing to do with anti-semitic HRC supporting DUers--the group that you accused.

Don't even try to misdirect me to the I/P forum, you weren't talking about that--you were talking about DUers who support Clinton, not the usual dustups in I/P.


And Boston Bean's link says the OPPOSITE of what you're claiming. The subject line (Women, black people, latino's, lgbt, jewish persons are not dividing this country) should be a HUGE clue, there, for you... the operative word there is "NOT" --in case you're unclear. A vibrant and sometimes contentious discussion about political emphases is not "anti-semitic" and for you to even suggest it is, is pathetic in the extreme.

You have failed to make your case. I can only assume that you made an accusation that you can't support and you're trying to confound a simple request for proof with a lot of crap tossed up like chaff--and I would expect anyone reading this to come to the same conclusion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

220. I have stuck to the same subject

you keep trying to distract, and at this point I am wasting my time.

Have an excellent life

(No you are not going on a software ignore, but I really have nothing more to say to you)

Thanks for the white 'splaining though.

And one last thing, I predicted it... my watch is indeed running correctly.

[MADem]

225. You haven't proved the charge you made, and you're tossing out unrelated links and associations,

too.

And you keep saying "white" 'splaining like it means something to me (hint-it does not). Three times is not the charm.

You can either prove that DUers are anti-semites, or you can retract the charge.

Speaking of watches, tick tock. I won't hold my breath, though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

212. And with that keep pretending it does not exist among democrats

It is at a lesser percentage, but it does.

[MADem]

219. That's not what you said, though. You accused DUers of being anti-semitic, and I noticed.

We're not talking about "it" existing among 'democrats'--you were accusing DUers of being anti-semitic.

You're trying to pretend away that charge you made with a lot of irrelevant comments. You need to answer that demand for proof, or be known as someone who makes accusations without backing them up. Alternatively, you could retract that accusation and acknowledge that you misspoke.

Your choice.

[Hekate]

194. Nadin, I have no clue what you are talking about, but reading through this subthread to the end...

You are sounding stranger and stranger with your wink-wink nudge-nudge that we are all supposed to decode in some fashion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

203. I am not being strange, I am being quite upfront

there are people on this site who have posted antisemitic rants. It was quite open during the Gaza campaign. and now, as predicted, that is happening again. It did happen in 2008 with Obama

To be surprised that it was going to happen now with Sanders is ignoring that history.

What that other poster is demanding is that I validate her point of view that this place is free of antisemitism or racism for that matter. Having talked with a few people of color as well, there is quite a bit of racism as well.

I know for hyper partisans this is impossible because only the other side does that.

This is not wink wink, nudge nudge, and having somebody tell me what is antisemitism and what is not, is white 'splaining.

It is like when people tell hispanics and African Americans that they are not seeing the racism either or are misinterpreting it. For the record, as a woman and latina I also see that too. But that is another story.

So to be clear, there are people here to engage in that. To be even further clear, I left once because of it. and the day is near when I will leave again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Oh and should i link to the whisper

Campaign? Are you making the same demands from the OP? There was one great example that garnered over 400 responses 48 hours ago. It was a classic of the "so called divisive " campaign that Sanders is running.

And that was the latest in a series of posts that are becoming quite agenda driven.

[MADem]

112. You are making accusations of anti-semitism by DUers. That's a rude thing to do.

You need to either prove the charge or retract it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. It is my view and of others

That has started. Once it becomes way too obvious I will leave. I am not the only one seeing it.

And quite frankly, as a Jew it is far from shocking or surprising. During the Gaza campaign it was well beyond obvious. I left. I came back due to a promise to a local woman. But I am well prepared to leave once more.

[MADem]

136. It's your view that some DUers are anti-semites and they post anti-semitic things here supporting

Clinton? That's what you're claiming?

Let's be clear, here. So long as you're speaking "quite frankly."

"Quite frankly," I'm less concerned about your tender feelings than the accusations you are making, which you've yet to back up with any proof.

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. Yes, some folks are antisemitic

Whether they support Clinton, or any other candidate is far from my concern. And some of those folks post here. And some of those folks were quite open in their hate during the Gaza campaign and now are a tad more circimspect

Some of those quite openly antisemitic posts survived juries as well. Why I came to a certain conclusion and left.

I am not the only one who noticed that. If I named names that would be against the rules. Suffice to say I talk with a couple members of the tribe on Facebook about this particular issue and none of us expects Juries to come down on that. For that matter the owners.

As I said, once it is far more open, I am gone it is not a promise. It is a guarantee. In fact, that time draws nearer every day.

[MADem]

158. It's obviously NOT "far from your concern." You were sufficiently "concerned" to accuse DUers of

being anti-semites.

You've yet to prove the charge. I'm still waiting.

Call outs are no longer against the DU rules, nor is linking to a post that proves a point you've made.

You have made a nasty and unsubstantiated accusation. If you don't prove it, I'll just have to assume you're acknowledging that you were playing fast and loose with the truth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. Yes. Some are

Again you are trying to tell a Jew what is and what is not antisemitism. At this point this has to be either an act or tone deaf.

[MADem]

166. PROVE the accusations you made against DUers.

Stop with all the distracting chatter. Don't tell me what "you" claim you are. That has no bearing on your accusations.

Prove it, or I will assume you invented the charges.

[Cosmic Kitten]

15. Oh geez..."the hate"

Perhaps you would prefer
the passive aggressive tone
of Team Hillary?

" I support Bernie's right
to run but..."

Your concern about "others"
co opting Bernie's campaign ideas
is duly noted...
now politely ask Team Hillary
to cease and desist!

[geek tragedy]

20. Why would Team Hillary listen to me?

I'm a Bernie Sanders supporters, and we're just irrelevant speed bumps. Because, polls.

[aspirant]

29. To make your record straight and balanced.

[geek tragedy]

31. I don't have a 'record' I'm a nobody, anonymous poster on the Internet nt

[aspirant]

81. So we cease in referring to you as Geek Tradegy. new name Nobody?

[geek tragedy]

82. I've been called much worse nt

[Hekate]

197. First it was "fair and balanced" and now it's "straight and balanced." What's going on here?

And by the way, Geek is not "Nobody."

[aspirant]

217. His own words, "I am a nobody" and I even asked for clarification

Look again, my words have no quotation marks

The question is why do your subjective thoughts direct you to a slogan, mine don't?

What's going on here is for you to understand why you have these thought comparisons. Where is the root of this problem?

[Cosmic Kitten]

38. You don't have to convince "Team Hillary"

Team Hillary will vote for Bernie
in the General elections.
Who else will they vote for...
republicans? SCOTUS!!!!!111!11!!

Just don't allow the slander
against your candidate, and
disabuse undecided voters
of false claims made by
the opposition.

[treestar]

66. +1

It's very obvious. The same people who cannot stand Obama can't stand Hillary and were looking for someone to latch onto. Warren for a while and when she failed to cooperate, they jumped on the first train that pulled into the station. If O'Malley had declared quicker, he's have it (though he's apparently not much to the left of Hillary).

[Cosmic Kitten]

68. Are you saying Bernie supporters are motivated by hate?

[stevenleser]

69. Yep. I am going to link to this post regularly. nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

77. Any chance you could K&R when you do linky?

[stevenleser]

102. Oh geek knows I approve of her post. Then again, she doesn't need the validation. nt

[aspirant]

92. Will you also refer to it on your job?

[stevenleser]

101. Which job is that? nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

103. Talking head on Fox News??

[stevenleser]

108. That is not my job. I'm a guest when I appear. nt

[aspirant]

127. Do you get paid for appearances?

[stevenleser]

129. No. Guests are not paid. nt

[aspirant]

178. Then why appear on RW propaganda?

[Rex]

179. LOL!

YEP.

[stevenleser]

244. LOL! Except, Bernie does too! Oops!

LMAO!

[Enthusiast]

239. That is the big mystery isn't it.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[stevenleser]

242. Ask the guy whose picture you have as your icon

If it's such a big mystery to you.

[stevenleser]

241. Ask Bernie, Greenwald, et al. Then get back to me. Nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

141. Really? NO compensation?

Then why bother to participate
in broadcast that only serves
to discredit and slander
Democrats?

It's not like any "guest"
would change the mind of
a Fox news viewer?

[stevenleser]

145. No guest on any news channel gets paid. This is not new.

And I have changed minds. I lurk on various right wing sites and I monitor what they say.

[MADem]

171. I always thought that was an unfair barb that is routinely thrown against you.

I don't always agree with you, but that's probably the cheapest shot going. The people who are snarking at you have likely never seen any of your appearances in the lion's den.

I've never seen you say anything that would lead me to believe you're in the Fox tank, and the one clip I saw of you on that stupid channel, they weren't doing you any favors.

[aspirant]

187. OH,

so those people that bashed Dennis Kucinch as unelectable in the Northwest because he's a Fox News stooge is also "the cheapest shot going"

[MADem]

199. Leser is not getting paid. Kucinich IS. Distinction AND a difference.

Surely you knew that--or did you actually think Kucinich was appearing on that network for free, out of the goodness of his heart?

It's a multi-year contract, and he's been at it for three years, now.

He's not being paid to be an honest broker, he's being paid to play the Lefty Fool, a foil for the Bigger, Stronger, Wingnuts.

[aspirant]

222. So others appear out of the goodness of their heart

God bless them

But only Kucinch appears as the "Lefty Fool," all others don't.

[MADem]

224. Kucinich signed a multi-year contract to play the "Colmes" character on the soap opera that is

Fox.

He's bought and paid for. He apparently gives good value for their money, they haven't fired him yet.

You do understand the difference between an "employee" and an unpaid guest, don't you? I'm not getting the sense that you do grasp the difference.

[stevenleser]

246. Yes, like Bernie, and Greenwald. Attack them for it. Nt

[stevenleser]

245. Yeah, it's petty, and trite at this point. Folks only do it when they have nothing else

To come back with. In reality, it is the equivalent of waving a white flag at me in any DU debate.

[MADem]

248. That's accurate--I guess it feels better than stomping a foot, pouting and saying

"Awwwwww, I got NUTTIN'!"

[Sheepshank]

130. petty little implication

it's not a big secret that Steven Appears occassionally as a guest on Fox to represent the Dem side of the discussion. Not a secret at all. Are you trying to imply something else? Fi som, please don't be so coy, spit it out and lets get this out in the open. These little nudge, nudge, wink, wink accusation are so fucking annoying.

[Cosmic Kitten]

143. Chill, Bro. It's just the interweb, not reality.

[Rex]

181. It's the usual handful of swarmers.

For only 5 or 6 people, they sure do make it sound like they run this place!

[Cosmic Kitten]

201. Yep, obviously, since 9 out of 10 DUers support Bernie

[Rex]

204. And it is driving them cray cray!

I've never seen such foaming and gnashing! You would think the word SOCIALST sends them into a fit of rage or something! Hey! They have something in common with the GOP now! How nice.

[stevenleser]

243. Who also appears as a guest on Fox, by the way. Nt

[aspirant]

190. Would it be annoying

to get a hide when you link to a RW rag even with a dem message?

Let's get it out in the open

[Sheepshank]

229. i have no idea what you are going on about

that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[stevenleser]

247. That's ok, the person to whom you're responding has no point.

[FSogol]

71. Well said.

[uponit7771]

152. +1

[Hekate]

185. Spot on, geek tragedy.

[aspirant]

223. Which spot is on

and which spot is off?

[Hekate]

226. You're outta this thread, so Ciao

[rbnyc]

228. I think it's natural...

...that people who don't like Hillary Clinton and do like liberal policy positions would gravitate toward Sanders once he entered the primary. I don't really think there are a bunch of Hillary-haters whose primary motive is to destroy Hillary who are just using the Sanders Campaign for this purpose.

We are all here because we are passionate about politics. We often express ourselves passionately. But what I see happening here, far more than any indication that some group of pathological Clinton-haters are co-opting the Sanders Campaign, is that almost every time someone criticizes Hillary Clinton, someone chimes in to claim that they are purely motivated by hate and that all their thoughts, opinions, ideas, and feelings on the subject are baseless and illegitimate.

It's getting super tiresome.

[geek tragedy]

232. the person who got banned for calling Hillary the c-word was a host of the Bernie

Sanders group, and a Grade-AAA gun nut who posted gun porn in the days after the Newtown, CT massacre.

Indeed, the RKBA crowd here, probably the least progressive element on this site, has shown strong disdain for Clinton.

I am going to go out on a limb and suggest it's not progressive policies that drive their agenda.

Similarly, the people who wish that Obama had lost to McCain, and go around repeating wingnut talking points blaming Obama for problems created by Bush, are not really progressives or oriented around progressive policies.

The vast majority of Bernie backers here are attracted to him because they agree with him on the issues.

But the loudest voices are often the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) types--and they simply migrated from the anti-Hillary usergroup to Bernie Sanders.

[rbnyc]

235. Thanks...

...for talking about a specific example. I am not familiar with some of what you are referencing, though somewhat familiar with the most recent incident that resulted in the banning.

My impression about the c-word post was that he was referencing the comment of some other troll. The actual intention there was not clear to me, but admin has the right to moderate content.

Maybe he was more motivated by a fetishistic abhorrence for Hillary than he was by commitment to positions on issues. It could go either way.

But I appreciate that you brought up something specific, even though I don't know how productive it would be to re-hash this, because moving forward I would like to make more of an attempt, personally, to stay in the text, as a college literature professor used to always remind us to do. And I would like to see other people do more of that too.

It is hard enough that many of us under this Democratic umbrella have strong differences of opinion about the direction of our party and are at odds with one another. That's a tough-BUT NECESSARY-position for us to be in. Making sweeping characterizations of each other while we work through it makes it more difficult.

I am sure I will continue to speak passionately, but I really will try to stay in the text, as well as discern interests from positions, and realize when positions don't necessarily serve interests.

[geek tragedy]

236. strong, princiipled debates on policy and principle are necessary and healthy

where things go very wrong very quickly is where people assume moral faults, character flaws, and vice are to blame for politicians and even other DUers taking an opposite position.

I do not see Clinton supporters as being a bunch of Joe Liebermans, and I suspect that most Clinton supporters do not see Sanders supporters as a bunch of Ralph Naders.

But, it doesn't take many fools to pee in the pool and befoul the water.

[rbnyc]

238. yes...

...but I wonder...

Part of my job is marketing, so I do see things from a marketing perspective sometimes. So when you talk about when people "assume moral faults, character flaws..." what you say is really reasonable. And yes, we are agreeing, let's talk about the issues and the behaviors and the policies and avoid counterproductive extrapolation. But assigning more characteristics to something than those characteristics which are indisputably observable is what people do with brands. Marketers try to influence that process in a way that favors the brand, and candidates are very much like brands. So is there value in exploring these extrapolated assigned traits from a kind of marketing perspective?

A brand gets damaged in 3 ways. It's a flawed product. The marketing messages are wrong. It is being attacked by other brands.

What is damaging Hilary's brand? It's probably all three of these things, but in what proportions? Every product is flawed, but is she fatally flawed? She seems to be delivering so many of the right messages; can she deliver them more effectively? She is being attacked. By whom and why? And in making these assessments, what do you have to gain or lose in assigning different values to each?

These are honest questions and a hardcore tangent so I will not be offended if you disregard.

[Autumn]

4. It's becoming idiotic, the shamers really need a new gig or they should

at least clean the mote from their own eyes.

[Sheepshank]

5. Ain't that just the whole truth of it. n/t

[Autumn]

10. Yes it is just the whole truth of it.

The whole fucking truth of it. Then there are people who happily brag that they come here just to stir shit and they get away with it, they support no one except the wooden paddle they use to stir the shit, day in and day out.

[hootinholler]

23. Hmmm

Maybe this place does need an enema

[aspirant]

36. and a truthful scent

[Sheepshank]

156. you mean like the following back and forth down thread?

Post # 37...50...65...73...86...104...109...131...135

There seemed to be a lot of baiting going on.

[Autumn]

163. I'm not gonna look em up but if those posts bother you, you should alert on them.n/t

[Sheepshank]

174. alrighty then

While complaining at those they are trying to call out, Bernie supporters need to see the mote in the eyes of their own cohorts...but not if they don't want to I suppose

[Rex]

184. Look it is the usual handful of 'people' poo poo ing in this thread!

What a surprise! I LOVE knowing that their particular swarm is annoyed with us! Nothing better than annoying a group of concern trolls imo!

[Hekate]

211. Baiting, goading, poking...

.....Aspirating. Someone's a busy little bee.

[Sheepshank]

230. and has been busy throughout this thread.

There is none so blind as those who will not see (or read, as the case may be)

[Puglover]

237. And brag about it off site.

And they're outraged I tell you!

[Cosmic Kitten]

19. Indeed!

The irony of course is that
Hillary supporters generally
behave as Hillary herself would

[Autumn]

26. Well if 2008 is any indication

[Cosmic Kitten]

39. Bingo!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Some people just come here to fight.

As I said yesterday it would inure to their health if they went to the gym and hit the heavy bag or perhaps take up Mixed Martial Arts.

[Cosmic Kitten]

21. You seem to post A LOT about raising fists?

Do you encounter as much violence
or aggression in real life as you
seem to perceive here?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. No...Because I subscribe to Malcolm X's axiom

Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.

-Malcolm X

[Cosmic Kitten]

51. Who is putting their "hands" on you here?

Last I checked, this is a forum
of ideas, not body parts?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. You asked me about real life

Last edited Wed Jun 24, 2015, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

You seem to post A LOT about raising fists?

Do you encounter as much violence
or aggression in real life as you
seem to perceive here?

In real life most folks treat other folks civilly... I have seen lots of incidents where folks were uncivil to one another and it ended poorly... Not me because I am courteous, civil, respectful, and almost deferential in real life.

[aspirant]

37. or learn from their fights as you did in Deltona

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. I learned to treat people respectfully because some people don't take too kindly ...

I learned to treat people respectfully because some people don't take too kindly to be treated disrespectfully and it's beyond my control to calibrate their response...

Of course over the "internets" I am free to treat people as disrespectfully as I want with virtual impunity but that would go against my nature.


I wouldn't have traded away my formative years beside not having a dad who died before my fourteenth birthday. Growing up In Deltona with other plebes was so cool...

[aspirant]

65. If it goes against your nature

why would you even have the thought of disrespect?

Maybe there is still some inner work to do.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. Respectfully, I believe you are mischaracterizing what I said

Of course over the "internets" I am free to treat people as disrespectfully as I want with virtual impunity but that would go against my nature.

It goes against my nature to disrespect anybody,but especially on the internet because the person I am disrespecting is limited in what he or she can do in response...


Most folks are pretty nice to one another in real life. Proximity has a way of enforcing reasonably polite behavior.

[aspirant]

86. If your on the internet, the keyboard doesn't limit any words that I'm aware of.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. I have no desire to insult or disrespect anybody.

My point is that using the internet as some ersatz shield to disrespect and insult people strikes me as pusillanimous.

[aspirant]

104. Don't you have the ignore button as a shield

or is that disrespectful?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. Why do I need a mechanism to stop me from something I said I was disinclined to do?

eom

[aspirant]

131. ...but you still have the thoughts,

you haven't reached ascension yet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

135. In every post in this thread I have said I have no intention to...

In every post in this thread I have said I have no intention to be disrespectful or discourteous to anyone .. Buy yeah, I have no artifice, no guile... I do take exception when people are disrespectful or discourteous to me, whether it be subtle or overt, and respond in kind.

[aspirant]

150. Turn the other cheek,

that's what a genuine respectful person by his nature would do.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

157. I am unfailingly kind, polite, respectful to people, to the point of almost being deferential...

I am unfailingly kind, polite, and respectful to people, to the point of almost being deferential but I don't turn the other cheek.

[haikugal]

168. Nasty...

Just nasty.

[Hekate]

213. Well-practiced nastiness

Alerted for racism -- we'll see if it works

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

14. Would this also mean Hillary approves of Bernie being called a sexist and a racist?

and a poor money manager because he's not a zillionaire.

Because if she didn't approve... well you get what I mean.

You are right, strange human frailties and foibles magnified all over here. Do as I say, not as I do is the big one.

[geek tragedy]

18. Anyone who states that Bernie is a bigot towards women, blacks or the GLBT

community should be sent packing.

I've seen a lot of discussion about his "one size fits all" campaign message and whether that works/is appropriate, but that's different than accusing him of being a bigot, which is truly beyond the pale.

[Cosmic Kitten]

27. Did you miss the ongoing tirad...

That Bernie doesn't address the
concerns of PoC and Women?

Seriously, you haven't seen
any of those threads?

No one said Bernie is a "bigot".
But the slander is a thin veneer
designed to raise that specter
without garnering alerts.

[geek tragedy]

35. I have seen those threads, and there is a very, very big difference

between "Bernie isn't explicitly addressing the issues that black folks want to hear about" and "Bernie is a racist."

Maybe you should listen to black people when they talk about how politicians aren't addressing their issues, instead of dismissing them when it's inconvenient to listen to them.

You reinforce that perception when you try to dismiss black folks as a bunch of race-baiting whiners.

[Cosmic Kitten]

45. DISAGREE, dog whistle politics is endemic to some teams

No one is being "dismissed"

You seem to be forwarding
the talking point that Bernie
is not "explicitly" addressing
the issues of concern.

His record speaks differently.

[geek tragedy]

54. you ARE dismissing them.

you are writing them off as dog-whistle race-baiters instead of considering the possibility that maybe they have a legitimate perspective.

One sign of maturity is the ability to recognize that people can have a good faith disagreement with you

[Spazito]

64. Well said...

[Cosmic Kitten]

74. Who is the arbiter of "legitimate perspectives"

You seem to think you know
what I or others believe?

There is a distinction with a difference
between "legitimate perspectives",
and "wedge issues".

When sexism and racism are raised
against a candidate, in the absence
of hard facts to support said accusations,
it appears more as triangulation or
a wedge than "legitimate perspectives".

The false narrative that social and economic
justice are mutually exclusive is a blatant
attempt to drive a wedge into the
Democratic community.

Change the frame
capture the narrative

[geek tragedy]

78. you're dismissing them because they don't agree with you.

and complaining that they're being too divisive.

Because they don't see things the way you do.

Something that a lot of white people do to minority voices.

This is not a very becoming approach. It sure as hell doesn't do anything to promote Bernie's candidacy amongst people of color.

Your approach is exclusion, not inclusion. As a Bernie supporter, I thoroughly reject your dismissal of minority voices and your arrogant "sit down, shut up and I'll tell you why Bernie is the only candidate for POC" message.

[Cosmic Kitten]

85. I dismissed who exactly?

You don't know me or "my approach".

Yet here you are further advancing
the wedge issue.

And to add insult, you pretend
you know know me and ascribe
a a motivation to me, personally.

As a Bernie supporter, I thoroughly reject your dismissal of minority voices and your arrogant "sit down, shut up and I'll tell you why Bernie is the only candidate for POC" message.

This sort of false accusations
coming from a self-describe
"Bernie" supporter is disconcerting.

Calling me arrogant...
and then putting words in my mouth
is immature and disrespectful.

Perhaps you could take your own
moralizing to heart...

One sign of maturity is the ability to recognize that people can have a good faith disagreement with you

I await your apology for such
over the top and rude insinuations that
I would be disrespectful towards others
based on race or gender.

[Bobbie Jo]

88. Absolutely dismissive.

Yet they keep it up, absolutely blind to the behavior.

"Arrogant" is indeed the best description of this attitude.

Well said.

[Cosmic Kitten]

95. "dismissive" "they" "arrogant"

Perhaps you could start
your own OP to flesh out
those horrible transgressions
against the community?

Name name and link to posts
of those horrid individuals.

[Bobbie Jo]

100. Check, check, check.

Chuck a rock...

The dog that yelp be the dog done got hit.

[Cosmic Kitten]

106. Oh geez

[Bobbie Jo]

123. Add to that list...mocking.

Which is really just another form of dismissiveness.

Check.

[Cosmic Kitten]

151. Mmm Hmm

Some people can find an offense
in almost anything

I bid thee adieu

[Bobbie Jo]

164. Check.

Don't stop now, you're on a roll.

Adios...

[aspirant]

114. So is Bernie a Racist?

[Bobbie Jo]

126. Of course not.

What a bizarre, twisted question.

One that leads me to believe you're missing the entire point.

[aspirant]

198. Who are the "race-baiting whiners"?

[Bobbie Jo]

210. What?

You seem confused.

Try starting here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6894102 read through the subthread, and follow accordingly. Your questions are totally out of sync here.

[aspirant]

118. Does Bernie agree with wedge issues?

[geek tragedy]

120. Bernie doesn't think civil rights and equality are 'wedge issues' nor does he think

immigration is a 'wedge issue'

Do you?

[aspirant]

200. I agree with Bernie

so where are the "race-baiting whiners"?

[geek tragedy]

233. I don't see any nt

[aspirant]

146. Enlighten us on how YOU distinguish

between the sincere voices and the wedgemeisters who just want to trash Bernie as a racist.

[geek tragedy]

148. same way one distinguishes betwee genuine supporters of Bernie Sanders

and those who are here to troll the boards while drawing attention to themselves.

One spends enough time on the Internet, these things become pretty obvious

[Cosmic Kitten]

154. Oh, so it's subjective and open to personal bias?

[aspirant]

205. Subjective, what a personal view.

[MADem]

90. I agree. Maturity also grants a measure of empathy.

People who don't face discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, orientation, and gender, have to try to put themselves in the shoes of people who do face those issues, and not make their first move a reflexive grab for the bootstraps--because bootstraps aren't going to help in that situation.

If one can put oneself in the shoes of another, one can begin to see how exhausting it can be, being "the other," the "minority," the one that stands out in the crowd, who can never be late or sneak out early without being noticed.

The Japanese have an expression "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down." It can be difficult spending one's entire life being "hammered down." We, The People need to get our act together and just not do that kind of stuff anymore. The American Dream is for everyone.

[aspirant]

137. Any sign of maturity is telling the truth,

even from a Nobody

[aspirant]

134. Does Bernie call them "race-baiting whiners"?

[aspirant]

41. Has Hillary distanced herself from these statements?

[geek tragedy]

42. I doubt Bernie or Hillary reads DU. I hope they don't, nt

[aspirant]

67. Do you think talking points are only released to DU?

[Cosmic Kitten]

24. +1,000,000

Would this also mean Hillary approves of Bernie being called a sexist and a racist?

You forgot... "gun nut"
<sarcasm thingy for sarcasm impaired>

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

25. How can I forget 'gun nut'.

Thanks for that reminder. Umm, maybe not!

[KittyWampus]

34. what could be more "paternal" than Sanders supporters saying minorities only support

Hillary because of "name recognition".

Before O'Malley entered, my support in the primary would have gone to Sanders.

But I sure would not want to be associated with some of the Sanders supporters posting on this forum. That's for sure.

[aspirant]

44. So you won't give Bernie the time

to be recognized for who he is?

[Cosmic Kitten]

47. Paternal:

Paternalism (or parentalism) is behavior, by a person, organization or state, which limits some person or group's liberty or autonomy for that person's or group's own good.

[Rex]

87. So, because of some nobodies usernames on a forum, you will decide to vote for someone else...

Almost believable.

[Cosmic Kitten]

97. Right? And the DLC wonders why we lose elections!

[KittyWampus]

115. What a bizarre non sequitur. And a sad misreading of my original post.

[KittyWampus]

113. No, I chose O'Malley because he doesn't see things solely as an economic problem to be solved.

He has valuable executive experience from a state that includes a diverse population.

His record indicates a more realistic approach to problem solving.

[Marr]

43. Authoritarians don't get that.

It isn't surprising, when you think about it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

48. kinda like... do as I say, not as I do???

[Marr]

49. Or not getting the idea that people who support a politician aren't also

viewing that person as some kind of surrogate father figure/life coach/etc.

[Cosmic Kitten]

56. NICE! THAT really gets to the point!

It does become a cult of personality.

Your point adds a necessary
dimension to understand where
those scolding or shaming
are coming from.

[KittyWampus]

117. LOL! The least tolerant posters on DU are the most likely to throw the word Authoritarian around

It's basically a "tell" on who is really intolerant.

[Cosmic Kitten]

124. Can you support that accusation?

What evidence can you post
to defend your accusation
that using the term "authoritarian"
is somehow a "tell" that someone
is intolerant?

LOL! The least tolerant posters on DU are the most likely to throw the word Authoritarian around
It's basically a "tell" on who is really intolerant.

That seems kinda "over the top"
maybe even rude or hurtful?

[dsc]

52. My dream candidate isn't running

among who is running I probably would vote for either O'Malley or Clinton but that said, I find some, not all but some, of the Bernie supporters here have been downright awful. I also think some Clinton supporters have been every bit as bad. In the case of Sanders supporters, I think some have been out right dismissive of the very legitimate complaints of posters who find that Sanders hasn't addressed the concerns of racial issues. One poster literally compared not mentioning black lives matter to not addressing the concerns of flatlanders. Black people in this country are literally being gunned down daily by police and now confederate racists in their churches. Yeah I think they have every right to have a problem with a candidate not mentioning that in a 45 minute speech where he declares his candidacy. Sanders has done better on this score, but it isn't calling anyone racist to have a problem with that.

[Cosmic Kitten]

60. What is your point?

Are you defending the "scold"?

[dsc]

72. yes

I think those who have dismissed the honest, heartfelt concerns of people who, shock of shocks, think that the fact black people are being hunted by our urban police forces is worthy of mention by Presidential candidates were out of line.

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. I don't speak for Bernie...

He speaks for me though!

[Cosmic Kitten]

57. Imagine that!

A candidate that reflects the
wants, needs, and desires
of the public!

What a novel concept

[Prism]

58. Why are you not angelic?

You, you whomping, noodle-slurping, hedge-jumping, poopy-headed, squirrel-hugging, badger-boinker! You, you worst person who ever lived, are always throwing out personal attacks!

Unlike me.

*innocent blink*

[Cosmic Kitten]

61. Erhmahgerd...teh erony et berns!!!11!11!1

[LittleBlue]

62. How long before the appeals to civility brigade realize

nobody else cares? At some point they must get tired of the lecturing when it dawns on them that nobody is listening. Civility died when Bernie was cynically insinuated to be a racist and sexist.

[Cosmic Kitten]

63. Probably never.

The faux civility is a rhetorical
bludgeon to silence dissent
and derail discussions.

They don't want civility...
they want conformity.

And they will use every trick
in the book to advance their agenda.

Change the frame...
capture the narrative.

[truebrit71]

76. Yup the obvious concern trolls are obvious....

....'you'll hurt the party'...'he'll never win'...'you shouldn't say nasty things* about Hillary'...







*"nasty things" = highlighting her actual positions or quoting her directly...

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

83. *"nasty things" = highlighting her actual positions or quoting her directly...

I have noticed that! A video of something Clinton said, or a record of what she has done that isn't exactly flattering, suddenly becomes verboten! Like history and records must be wiped clean, how dare you bring up Facts to confuse the 120% of Democrats that will vote for her, for sure. Done deal.

That's real creepy.

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

79. What I think is shameful is how a member on a time out was talked about yesterday.

She/he was a prolific poster by what I saw and not a Clinton fan and was juried out to pasture so the opposition had a great time with a pile on while she/he was not here to defend herself in a thread by someone asking of the whereabouts.

That was a terrible thread all full of glee and cheering. It should have been locked, but it looks like one of the actual hosts (?) of general was in the thread cheering on the fact too.

I suppose this kind of thing can and maybe has happened in the reverse, where a non Bernie fan got thrown out and there was cheering for that too.

Anyway, kind of made me sick and kick me in my can if you ever see me being so kindergartenish and disrespectful to someone who cannot defend themselves.

[Cosmic Kitten]

89. +1

Discussing or disrespecting members
who cannot respond or defend themselves,
with the exception of a MIRT removal,
should not be allowed.

After all, there are real live people
on the other end of these keyboards.

I would suggest that if an OP author
is blocked, in their own thread, that thread
should be locked to prevent the inevitable
dog piles.

[kath]

93. That thread was truly sickening.

As were many of the jury decisions that put her on time out.

Who is that host (PM if you want)? Perhaps s/he needs a time out from hosting duties.

[hootinholler]

191. But according to Hillary supporters

Bernie supporters are alert-stalking them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

193. Unfortunately that is standard

For this place. I expect people to cheer if I die, leave or get tossed

[matt819]

96. The scolding of Bernie is also entertaining

The man is in his 70s and is a long-time liberal politician. Whether he wins or loses, he can certainly hold his own on the campaign trail and in the debates. He may flub now and again - who doesn't? - but the scolding of him and his supporters is a waste of time and energy. I keep telling myself I won't comment on this ridiculousness, but here I am, doing just that.

[Cosmic Kitten]

107. consider it "weighing in" against ridiculousness

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

110. No doubt Bernie can handle whatever is thrown at him.

He's had decades of straight talking and no one is going to successfully paint him differently than he really is. I have every confidence in him looking out for himself quite well, and looking out for the distortions of his message and having them corrected, immediately, by his throngs of followers.

Just because he says he will not go negative does not mean he's a cream puff. The truth can be spikier than lies, and I think someone(s) has already figured that out.

Can't wait for the debates - if he's allowed, that is. Lol.

[Vinca]

125. Odd. I've been experiencing the exact opposite.

Hillary supporters seem to be in "full bashing" mode when it comes to Bernie and his supporters. They were the same in 2008 against Obama. They should try to remind themselves that if Hillary is the nominee, the Bernie supporters will be important to her win.

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. Re read it

The OP and you are in the exact same page.

First para should be enough.

[Vinca]

182. In the unforgettable words of Rick Perry . . . OOPS.

I wasn't paying attention.

[Orsino]

172. Well, thanks for scolding Bernie supporters, I guess? n/t

[Cosmic Kitten]

176. Um, no?

Did you read the OP?

[Orsino]

180. Yeah.

I just wasn't sure who was being scolded, or if it was a sarcastic reference to a lack of scolding, or what.

Perhaps I had to be there.

[Avalux]

186. It's getting really silly at this point.

The admonition posts don't bother me because I know the motivations behind them. As a Sanders supporter, they can call me all the names they want. It's just a shame it has to be that way here. If Hillary is such a shoe-in, has this one in the bag or whatever - why do they feel a need to degrade us?

[aspirant]

208. It's the Corporatists vs The Little People

[McCamy Taylor]

234. For the sake of civility, I will simply say that some things are not what they seem.

[6000eliot]

240. I can't imagine who thinks that trashing the other candidate is going to change anyone's mind,

no matter which candidate you support. All of the anti-Hillary stuff I've seen on here has not made the least bit of difference in my support of her candidacy. I don't like the anti-Bernie stuff either, though.