Be advised: alt-left ratf*ckers and Russian bots are now going after Kamala

[Maven]

Last edited Tue Aug 1, 2017, 11:04 AM - Edit history (3)

They have a hashtag (#NeverKamala) that they are bouncing around their own echo chambers on Twitter, trying to make it catch on.

Be aware, be vigilant*. We see you, shitheads.

ETA: I realize it might be helpful to elaborate on what I mean by "be aware, be vigilant". What I mean is, know it when you see it and do not engage. Engaging with them helps to spread their bullshit. Block/ignore/alert.

[haveahart]

1. And i sense they are luriking here in large numbers.

[bettyellen]

21. No Ken- he's saying the rat fuckers are here. And I've seen them too.

Don't put words in their mouth- especially not more crap about coronations..... you're imagining things.

[Ken Burch]

26. Ok, ok. I hadn't known of any of this.

I don't even know what these people have supposedly been saying. And I don't want anyone to post if in this thread, so if you'd pm me about it, I'd be glad to read what you have to say.

[Ilsa]

41. The bots will be here, getting settled in, long before

2020. They have a following and reputation to build.

[DanTex]

45. Oh please, you were here last fall, you know exactly who these people are.

[wasupaloopa]

67. I was here also and I have been amazed at the

get along go along attitude of some of the anti Hillary folks.

I am just wondering when they will again go back to the old ways of bashing our candidate and who will they support.

I am still bitter about what these folks did to Hillary and would not trust them with my future.

[Gothmog]

96. Agreed

These posters are hard to miss

[NurseJackie]

117. Of course he does.

[Eliot Rosewater]

132. THANK YOU

[R B Garr]

134. +1000

[obamanut2012]

148. +1

[betsuni]

155. Yes.

[Docreed2003]

46. You're exactly right bettyellen...

I'd imagine they are sliming back from a "progressive" site which won't be named here. Yet another attempt to dismantle the Democratic Party...but I'm sure I'm just being

[padah513]

104. Hell I'll say it.

Rackpine Jadicals!

[Squinch]

107. That site's not progressive. That site's just ridiculous. And yes, they are already working hard

for 2018 and 2020.

[Docreed2003]

108. That's why I said "progressive"

[sheshe2]

55. Where was it said she HAD to be the nominee?

[Control-Z]

91. I don't think it was, she.

I think maybe someone thought it would be a good argument.

[sheshe2]

93. Thanks, Control-Z.

Thought I failed at my reading skills.

[George II]

70. Nobody is "seriously saying that, three years out from the next presidential election....

....we have to all agree in advance that Kamala HAS to be the nominee"

What is being said is that, three years out from the next presidential election we should give EVERY potential Democratic candidate an equal chance of becoming that nominee. We don't want to see the personal attacks and character assassinations begin already.

[padah513]

103. +1

[NastyRiffraff]

125. Uh oh! A voice of sanity

Be prepared for the pushback. Some people hate sanity.

[NurseJackie]

131. Wow! Did he actually say that?

How embarrassing.

[Eliot Rosewater]

133. We would be best served to RIGHT NOW stop pretending these anti Kamala people

are anything but pro GOP and/or pro Russia voters or operatives.

We have to stop pretending they are progressives who just cant get it thru their heads how the 2 party system works, because even if that is true, their actions will be identical to as if they are on the Putin payroll.

They work to elect GOP, period.

Electing more GOP is suicide for the human race, ALSO period.

[WinkyDink]

101. Oh, you do, do you? Maybe their M.O. is to sow seeds of discord? (Get it?)

[samnsara]

126. if they are they should be frightened by our determination and numbers...

....#RESIST!

[Ken Burch]

2. You don't have to be a Russian bot to not be a committed Kamals supporter yet.

She'd be an acceptable candidate, but we don't need to be setting up an "It HAS to be Kamala" narrative in the spring of freaking 2017.

[Maven]

6. Who is saying it has to be her, except you? nt

[Ken Burch]

10. We are both responding to an OP that equates any non-Kamala feelings to Russia interference

Last edited Mon Jul 31, 2017, 09:36 PM - Edit history (2)

Or the "alt-left".

At this point, we should simply treat her as someone we might nominate...not immediately demonize anyone who doesn't support her.

(on edit: I didn't realize it was your OP when I wrote that. Sorry).

[Maven]

14. It was my OP

and I posted it because what is happening fits an all-too-familiar pattern. Especially to those of us who are active on Twitter. It's no mystery why there are multiple users w/ under 10 followers who all seem to have the same anti-Kamala message. Which is then repeated by the same cabal of alt-left, anti-Democratic disrupters.

[Ken Burch]

17. In any campaign, there will always be some people like that.

That doesn't mean those people reflect majority or even substantial minority opinion among those who may not be pro-Kamala at this absurdly early stage.

And it doesn't mean we should start with a narrative that says Kamala is the person we HAVE to nominate, that she shouldn't even HAVE primary opposition, that no one should ask any questions about whatever her policies might be, and that anyone who questions any of that is acting out of illegitimate intent.

If you look at years like 1984, 2000, 2004 and 2016, we actually underperform when we have a "presumptive nominee" situation and discussion and debate are aggressively stifled in the name of an excessively rigid notion of "unity".

If she's who we should nominate, she'll be able to win in a fully contested process in which there is open discussion all the way through to the convention.

That's all I'm saying.

[Maven]

19. Are you not listening? Apparently not.

There is already a coordinated campaign to sow division in our party by tearing down a prominent Democratic politician who is favored to run in the next election. Sound familiar?

Majority opinion is irrelevant. They aren't interested in creating a majority. They are interested in using their echo chamber to drive a wedge in our party and peel off support from mainstream Democrats. Don't tell me "they're just asking questions".

I'll let you have the last word. I'm done here.

[obamanut2012]

149. He is listening

You know why he is deflecting.

[bettyellen]

23. We're seeing coordinated campaigns against Pelosi, Warren, Harris and Booker.....

Coordinated, as in bots and propaganda. And alt- left fools are repeating the propaganda. We've seen it here too.

[Ken Burch]

30. That would be weird if anybody on the left was in a coordinated campaign against Warren.

She's the most progressive person we could nominate in '20.

[mopinko]

58. yeah, that would be the point. look up ratfucking.

[Hekate]

85. Someone is determined not to see it

[mopinko]

109. yup.

[lapucelle]

167. Who is this "we" that you keep speaking of?

I, for one, neither need nor want anyone to speak for me.

[MaryLouisaWillis]

146. We never had a presumptive no. nee

that is bitter bullshit from people who resent that their choice did not win. Gore was not presumptive, Hillary was not either they were just better and more popular. The reason they "lost" were a combination of vicious attacks from their opponents who should have gracefully conceded and then gotten on board, and frankly stolen and rigged votes.

[lapucelle]

164. FYI...I've heard that they prefer the term "dirtbag left"...

sounds edgier and more bad ass.

[still_one]

81. If what is being referred to is Kamila running in 2020, that isn't coming from her, so your

assessment is right on

[boston bean]

7. Then why are people so insistent on setting up a narrative it cannot be her.

People will respond to that bs no matter what.

[Ken Burch]

12. That shouldn't be left unchallenged, either. But I hadn't even seen any of that yet.

All I know of it is that this OP states that it's there.

And we should take anti-Kamala comments with the same grain of salt we'd take pro-Kamala comments.

We are three years out from 2020. There's no rush on anything here.

[Control-Z]

15. Huh?

Seriously. Name recognition is a huge part of the game. I'll float her name from now until the cows come home if that's what it takes to win.

Kamala has everything we need in a presidential candidate. She's got star qualities like Barack Obama. People started promoting him in 2004. Remember? Or didn't you like President Obama?

[Ken Burch]

33. OK...promote her. I didn't say don't promote her(or anybody else).

What I'm saying is we should never start the process from the assumption(as this party has far too many times in the past), that there's one candidate out there who is the only POSSIBLE nominee.

Starting with that hasn't ever really taken us to any good places electorally.

Nothing against Kamala.

[JHan]

53. NO ONE is talking about anointing anybody.. the op is about ratfucking.

You're making an insinuation that Kamala is being anointed , you know - that thing that comes up with female Dem politicians , when the op is about efforts to string up anti-kamala fervor on twitter.

[Ken Burch]

56. It comes up with LOTS of Dem politicians

It came up just as much with Mondale, with Dukakis, with Gore, with Kerry(among others).

[JHan]

57. People suggested Gore only got the nomination because he was "anointed"?

That was a repeated meme then? really?

In any case that is NOT the point of the op, NO ONE is anointing Kamala. You introduced the meme under a very straightforward, easy to understand, op.

[Ken Burch]

59. Essentially, the party was told in advance that it would be Gore in '00, that it was unthinkable

to seriously consider nominating anybody else.

I agree with you that nobody should give a female Dem presidential candidate a harder time simply because she WAS female.

If people have differences with a female Dem candidate on the issues, however, they shouldn't be required to set those aside simply because that candidate is female.

[JHan]

61. er..

Hedging your bets on who would be the strongest contender in a primary is not the same as repeating a meme that they are "Anointed". The latter is ratfucking, the former is not.

Similarly the OP is about ratfucking - specifically activity on social media that is designed to sabotage a strong democratic politician. This activity has nothing to do with sincere disagreements with a politician over particular issues.. it is ratfucking.

[JI7]

86. this is BS, you are always dismissing voters who don't vote the way you do. people had a choice

there were multiple candidates .

[Ken Burch]

94. Not dismissing voters at all.

IN '00, I knew of Gore and Bradley. To my recollection, that was largely it.

[Weekend Warrior]

113. Gore was the sitting VP and won every single state.

There were no barriers to entry outside of the norm.

[NurseJackie]

120. Ahhh... REALITY. A voice of REASON. (Thank you!)

[NurseJackie]

119. Look forward! People need to stop picking scabs and opening up old wounds of the past.

Now is not the time to focus on the past or to rehash old grievances. Even veiled references are harmful and divisive. People who feel the need to do this need to try their best to resist the temptation.

There's important work to be done and focusing on the past only serves to highlight and reinforce the divisions. It weakens the party for the sake of pride and vanity. It's time for people to swallow their pride, get over their butthurt and move forward.

Don't stop thinking about tomorrow. Don't stop, it'll soon be here. It'll be here sooner than you think. Yesterday's gone. Yesterday's gone! Don't you look back! Oooo... don't you look back!

[lapucelle]

158. Bradley came out strong when he announced his run against Gore in 2000

with many important endorsements. The media loved him, but the voters didn't, so Bradley dropped out after a few embarrassing losses. When voters overwhelmingly select one candidate over another, that is not a coronation. It's democracy.

What was done to Gore over the course of the remainder of the general election campaign insured W the White House. The media's role in the trashing of Gore's chances has been widely covered.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/10/gore200710

Bob Somerby (liberal watchdog of the liberal media) even wrote a book about it.
http://howhegotthere.blogspot.com/

And Paul Krugman (among others) warned us that it was happening again in September 2016.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/search?q=clinton+gets+gored

Those of us who had worked the Democratic side of the 2000 election...BEGGED new voters and disaffected purists in 2016 not to let it happen again. Some listened, but just enough to make the difference went third party or stayed home.

The idea that any Democratic presidential candidate (outside of the possible exception of an incumbent president) is anointed by the party for nomination is disproved by history. That was one of the lessons of 2008.

[JHan]

160. Thanks for the info Lapucelle ,

Hopefully ken reads those links and it will jog his memory as to what happened.

From my reading of history, "anointed" and "coronation" only became a thing when the Dems ran their first female candidate for the presidency , and now it's being used on Kamala Harris. Curioser and curioser.

[lapucelle]

161. Like the term "flawed candidate",

"anointed nominee" is starting to sound more and more like code for "female".

[JHan]

162. Yep. +++++++++

[yardwork]

143. I don't remember that at all, actually.

The first time I ever saw the term "anointed" applied to any candidate was when it was all over the Internet as a dismissal of Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

The term "anointed" makes me think of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Russia.

The other world thrown around a lot last year against Clinton was "oligarch." Another word that is most commonly associated with Russia.

[thucythucy]

157. Dukakis was "inevitable" and "annointed"?

I sure don't remember that.

I recall Gary Hart was the presumptive favorite, until he self-destructed.

There were multiple candidates in those primary races. Dukakis had to fight hard for that nomination.

[Weekend Warrior]

111. You appear to be the only one making the claim that this is happening.

It's like you want to oppose something that cannot be opposed but no one is biting.

"one candidate out there who is the only POSSIBLE nominee."

[pnwmom]

16. We are talking about "NeverKamala" people, not people who prefer other candidates. n/t

[Ken Burch]

24. How many of these people exist?

This OP is the first I'd heard of them. If they are saying offensive things, I'll condemn them, but other than the hashtag I honestly don't KNOW what they are saying.

pm me with whatever info you think I need.

I agree that there's a good chance Senator Harris-I thought someone should use her actual title in this thread, out of respect-will run.

[pnwmom]

28. Try going to Twitter and looking for the hashtag. n/t

[Ken Burch]

35. OK. I usually don't spend that much time on Twitter.

But I will check.

[pnwmom]

37. You can also just google #neverkamala.

If you don't mind running into some virulent Hillary-hate.

I'm not going to post it here.

One of these "Democrats" posted about how the House GOP is asking the Justice Department to investigate how the DNC "rigged" the primaries. Because the GOP cares so much about Bernie supporters.

[lunasun]

29. It's been out there and not new

Did you miss the whole she's a sell out for meeting with east coast Clinton backers ??

[sheshe2]

74. People never used the proper title

when promoting Senator Elizabeth Warren who you have stated is the most progressive candidate. They called my Senator from Massachusetts...not Elizabeth, but Lizzie and that pissed me of. That nickname was meant to diminish her.

[obamanut2012]

150. lulz

[BainsBane]

89. You always do this

You invent arguments no one made in order to justify something on the other side. You could just directly say you have no problem with lies being spread about Harris because you're afraid she will be competition for your chosen candidate. Then you could at least have an honest discussion on an issue. Instead, you obfuscate, like when you outright made up a claim that I said caucuses were unfair to Hillary because you wouldn't deal directly with my points about voter suppression.

People do notice patterns, and they can see through obfuscation.

[Gothmog]

97. Ken-go to JPR and see what the russian botts are pushing on that board

There is a concerted effort by the JPR types and Russian botts to attempt to disqualify Senator Harris for the reason that she is female and not their preferred white male candidate.

[LanternWaste]

121. Your inaccurate inference of the OP aside, no one is making that argument.

Your inaccurate inference of the OP aside, no one is making that argument. You appear to be ignoring the actual premise and rather, focus on a fictional premise you merely interpreted... badly.

I get it... bias often does that to us without us even realizing it's happening.

[NurseJackie]

122. You're not the only one to notice that. Thanks for pointing it out.

[applegrove]

3. They grabbed a hold of benghazi 4 years before the 2016 election to

try and do Hillary in. It worked to reduce her popularity especially finding her private email server. Why wouldn't the GOP do I again? I've been saying Gavin Newsome should not to fly in small planes just in case. I give the same advice to Kamala Harris. And any other strong candidate.

[certainot]

71. that's what talk radio has been doing for decades, while dems ignored it

worked well with hillary. dems did not have her back.

[applegrove]

73. Maybe whenever they say anything about Kamala Harris we should

always always pipe in with the mantra "You love Kamala Harris". Every time we come across it.

[Control-Z]

4. What is their complaint with her?

Skin too dark? Or no dick? Getting so tired of what they do to our wonderful Democratic women.

[Kaleva]

20. There was a long thread here about her supporting property seizures

[bettyellen]

25. It was holds until prosecution- not seizures. I'm pretty sure she'll be accused of having slaves...

Since both HRC and Beyoncé have been lately.

[Kaleva]

27. Thanks. I'm using my tablet and it's a bugger to find info.

[bettyellen]

31. No problem. They were facing criminal enterprises draining their assets before trial....

And that was a reaction to that. But it was to place a hold not an automatic seizure and keeping assets.

[obamanut2012]

151. Their problem is she is an accomplished WOC

[Iggo]

5. ...and counting on you to spread it.

[Maven]

8. Point taken.

I debated posting this for that very reason. I would never retweet it but I thought it was worth DUers being aware of what's happening.

[Chevy]

11. And the alt-left media

like TYT and The Intercept are in on it as well.

[Maven]

22. Yes, they are part of the echo chamber that amplifies these messages

and tries to lend them 'journalistic' credibility. We need to be vigilant and stamp on this nonsense before it's allowed to spread.

[Foamfollower]

13. ANYBODY that spouts that shit is either an employee of Putin or a useful idiot of Putin

There are no other options.

[Ken Burch]

18. Other than the hashtag, what shit has actually been spread?

Please pm me with it, rather than posting it in the thread. I don't want to be part of an actual smear campaign anymore than anyone else does.

FWIW, this thread is the first place I'd ever even heard of #NeverKamala.

[bettyellen]

36. Ken, you should just join Twitter and research yourself. As this "prove it"

Attitude is unseemly. It's what everyone who denies sexism or racism is ever a factor does. You don't want to be that guy. Do your own research before assuming DUers are making shit up.

[Ken Burch]

60. I wasn't saying "prove it". I was saying I hadn't personally seen it.

I'm honestly not on Twitter very much. I will check it out.

[bettyellen]

90. Asking people to PM you and fetch you links when they've given you search terms is .....

Not going to endear you to anyone. And if you don't lol ar twitter very often, why are you even commenting? Seriously.

[NurseJackie]

118. You are correct. Very correct. And...

... I'd add that your final observation is spot-on! Thanks for saying "out-loud" what many of us have observed and just silently shake our heads about.

Happy Tuesday, Bettyellen!

[Weekend Warrior]

116. When time is available.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post35

[mcar]

47. Search DU

Several anti-Harris threads around here recently. They seem to be scheduled on off anti-Pelosi weeks.

[Weekend Warrior]

115. Other than what has been spread, what has been spread?

Is that a serious argument?

If you don't look at everything bad Trump is doing, is he really that bad?

[Turbineguy]

32. Good luck with that.

Idiots.

[apcalc]

34. Yes they are already Please notice the emerging pattern:

They NEVER criticize Russia, Republicans, or democratic men much. It 's Hillary, Wasserman-Schulz, Pelosi, now Harris. Spew RW talking points. Lie.

[JI7]

39. Yup . Even falsely accusing maxine waters of assault

Because she is pushing the russia story

[WinkyDink]

100. Um....Trying to prove something by what does NOT happen? Good luck with that.

[mcar]

38. I see them for who they are

Despicable misogynists and not liberal/Democrats.

[Chevy]

40. Here is an example

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Maven]

42. Gross.

Some nice misogyny with a side of racism. Very "progressive".

And WTF is the death economy? Corncobs? What?

[Chevy]

43. All the cool kids are talking like that now n/t

[wildeyed]

63. What's the rose emoji thing about?

I know it represents something, but not sure what.

[Chevy]

75. Symbol for Democratic Socialism n/t

[BainsBane]

49. Funny how the defenders of big banks

Are always women and people of color. I'm sure that's just a total coincidence.

[Chevy]

50. Totally. Just pure luck n/t

[winetourdriver01]

44. Knew it was coming..

Kamala is a triple threat to the wingnuts. Female, Democrat, Black. She needs to watch her back.

[BainsBane]

48. They are afraid she'll be popular

And they can't abide that.

[Chevy]

51. Kamala is so bad ass

she would have Eagles land on podiums.

[Maven]

52. !

[wildeyed]

62. Too late.

[Gothmog]

136. Harris scares the JPR idiots and the BOB types

[David__77]

54. Criticizing her honestly is fine.

I disagree with her position in support of allowing seizure of assets from people not found guilty of a crime. So what- that doesn't mean I'm speaking for anyone other than myself.

[bettyellen]

137. It was a hold on assets till trial, not seizures. Why would people lie about this?

[David__77]

138. Ok. A potentially temporary seizure.

I also don't agree with that.

I would also vote for her again if the election were held today.

[bettyellen]

139. I think when it drug cartel or fraud cases, it's a great idea.

Last edited Tue Aug 1, 2017, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Meanwhile people are spreading lies. And we should discourage that.
It gives them a 90 day grace period to file charges , and "Gang-related crime is not the only crime targeted in the bill. It would also allow seizures for crimes such as arson, bribery, child pornography, gambling and even trafficking endangered species."

I don't really have a problem w that.

[David__77]

141. I can understand how one could agree with it.

And I do not say or believe that my disagreement with it would prevent me from voting for someone who had a contrary view on the matter.

[NurseJackie]

64. Yes ... I've seen it. It's disgusting. Somebody...

... should do something about it.

[people]

65. "Alt-left"?????

I really don't like your characterization of these racists and sexists as "alt-left." I adore Kamala Harris and would love to vote for her, I did vote for Hillary and, before that, in the primaries, for Bernie. "Alt-left" to me means you are saying that those sending these racist and sexist tweets are characteristic of people who are further to the left than perhaps . . ..who??? (not sure who you are comparing them to). We all know that "alt-right" people are Nazi like - they are not people pretending to be on the right. So, what are you implying by calling these miserable tweeters "alt-left"? Who on the left would disparage a democratic candidate for being for medicare for all? Tell me. It seems to me you are trying to insult someone. Please do not characterize these tweeting pigs as on the left.

[BainsBane]

69. I agree

There is nothing leftist about them.

[Chevy]

78. Unfortunately you are misinformed

There is a rift in the far left as we speak. There are those who want to cooperate with the Michael Cernovichs to help take down the MSM and others who refuse to work with well Nazis. The Alt-Left exists.

[Bladewire]

80. An attempt to normalize the alt-right

That's what I hear when I hear "alt-left" that language isn't even in our lexicon when describing each other.

[leftstreet]

98. +1

[emulatorloo]

129. Nope. Alt-Left are alleged "progressives" who promote alt-right talking points and alt-right CT.

Here are a couple examples: Jimmy Dore and Michael Tracy of "The Young Turks"

Link to tweet

------

Link to tweet

[emulatorloo]

130. You are correct, there is NOTHING left about what's called the "Alt-Left"

You are absolutely right, there is nothing genuinely progressive or left about them.


I gave a couple of examples above, both of who work for TYT. Jimmy Dore, who promoted the Seth Rich CT and HRC's alleged Parkinson's Disease. Michael Tracy who constantly smears Dems and tried to pretend Maxine Waters "assaulted" him.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029398646#post129

[AlexSFCA]

66. it's a sign

that they are aftaid of her and she would be a strong candidate. Kamala is brilliant with great charisma.

[SunSeeker]

68. Yep, it's pretty easy to see through their phony concern-trolling. nt

[fallout87]

72. Is Kamala

the shoe in for nominee in 2020?

[Hekate]

87. Nobody is a "shoo-in" this far out. Kamala Harris is an intriguing possibility, and my Senator...

Smearing her with lies and half-truths in 2017 is designed to destroy any possibilty of a nationL run in 2020. That's why it's called "ratfucking."

[Bladewire]

76. So this is how the purity test begins...

The strongest candidate isn't strong enough yet, it's too soon, she's not progressive enough, not black enough, not feminine enough ... sewing the seeds now to shoot her down later? Got it

[Doug the Dem]

77. I thought you wrote Kansas

In which case my reaction would've been, "They can have it."

[still_one]

79. Here in California we are NOT easily fooled

[betsuni]

82. K&R

[ecstatic]

83. At a time like this, they out themselves when their biggest concern

is stopping Kamala. We'll be lucky to even have a democracy in 4 years. GMAFB!

[NBachers]

84. The new suspects, and the usual suspects

[DemocraticWing]

88. She's got some issues on treatment of trans prisoners.

And other things to do with her past as a prosecutor. Not the worst candidate possible , and she might not even run, but we are going to have a primary for a reason, and all of the candidates will be criticized, as they should be. May many candidates run and the best one win after a full vetting and selection process by the Democratic primary voters--That's democracy.

[JI7]

92. Notice it happened after she started getting attention for questioning of Sessions and the other guy

on the Russia issue. when the republican men felt the need to cut her off and lecture her .

[Expecting Rain]

95. We Democrats need to wake up

We know who the enemies are, and what motivates them.

Ignoring the obvious is madness.

They are coming for Kamila Harris. They are coming for Cory Booker.

They will smear any sane liberal Democrat who begins to emerge from the pack.

Enough is enough!

[WinkyDink]

99. Nevertheless, she will persist.

[WinkyDink]

102. I have a sneaking suspicion we here at DU can make up our own minds. Not sure, mind you, but it's a

strong hunch.

AND WE DON'T NEED ANYONE TO TRY TO GIN UP CONFLICTS HERE, especially by insisting on bringing over stupidity from nutty websites.

[Maven]

114. Pretending these coordinated attacks from the "left" didn't exist

Last edited Tue Aug 1, 2017, 10:53 AM - Edit history (1)

is what made us susceptible to them last time. If people are aware of what is going on, they can be prepared when it happens and not fall into the trap of engaging with it. That is the point of my post. Not to "gin up conflicts" -- exactly the opposite.

[obamanut2012]

152. Maven is doing the opposite of ginning up conflicts

It's already being trial ballooned here, on other DEm sites, and all over social media... by the usual suspects.

[Fait Accompli]

106. Something to think about

By writing off all of her detractors (some of whom have legitimate critiques and concerns about her record as AG) as racists and/or sexists you are actually tokenizing Kamala. Pretty shitheaded in and of itself.

[nini]

123. Oh boo fucking hoo

While not every single person is a racist/misogynist who doesn't like her, most of those assholes on the alt left are. They expose themselves quite often on twitter.

They present themselves as pure perfect progressives then slip in an anti-woman passive aggressive comment often enough to be able to see through them quiet easily.

THOSE are the ones getting the wrath here.

[NurseJackie]

135. LOL!

[obamanut2012]

153. So obvious

Just stahp.

[tenderfoot]

163. "some of whom have legitimate critiques and concerns about her record as AG"

Oh do share those concerns!

[ehrnst]

110. And it will be eagerly be shared by those that call her a "Clinton Donor Democrat." (nt)

[Demsrule86]

112. I've notice that...hopefully the gullible alt-left won't fall for this...any candidate who can win

will be attacked.

[58Sunliner]

127. They will go after anyone who is powerful. Especially women. No sexism here, nothing to see.

[irisblue]

128. Lots of anti KHarris tweets & 'news' stories floating on the webs today.

Coordinated complaints....😏😏😏

[LeftInTX]

140. This carp is going on locally

In deep red Texas. I go to a Medicare for all rally and I hear ratfucking. A BOB blamed my Dem congressman for Puerto Rico's debt..

[Fait Accompli]

142. Hmm

It's rather curious how those whom are ardently defending Kamala against "racists" and "sexists" were quiet when Keith Ellison was subjected to an Islamophobic smear campaign from certain centrist elements within the Dem party...

[LexVegas]

144. Who?

[obamanut2012]

154. lulz

[JHan]

166. ++++++++

[SharonClark]

156. Could you given an example? I'm sure we'd like to know more about this allegation.

[JHan]

165. that's fake news.

Try harder.

[MaryLouisaWillis]

145. I am sure they are here and at dkos too

they will attack anyone they think threatens bernie's chance in 2020 particularly a woman. They are bros.

[obamanut2012]

147. They are pretty disgusting

Telling obvious lie bouncy stories and being really sneery about her mixed heritage background. I didn't even know she was part Indian until I've read some of these tweets snarking about her "privileged Indian caste."

WTF

1. This is America

2. She went to Howard

3. Who gives a fuck

The alt left are soooo misogynist and soooo racist, they cannot handle the very IDEA of Kamala Harris, who is kickass and intelligent and accomplished. And confident. They loathe confident women, especially confident WOC.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

159. I've heard about this too on Twitter

This is either a concerted effort by the 'bots to ruin our electoral chances in 2018 and 2020 or just really STUPID!

I don't know too much about KH and have no idea who all is running in 2020 and will hold off until around then to start thinking about who I'm going to support as our candidate but it's totally ridiculous to be going after a potential candidate like this.