Bernie Sanders Biggest Fans?

[MineralMan]

Joe Scarborough explains why Clinton is "Losing."

Murdoch media outlets pushing "Clinton Email prosecution" exaggerations.

The list goes on and on, and every negative story about Clinton gets posted here, regardless of the source.

We have a Democratic primary race. It will be decided by Democrats voting in their caucuses and primaries. I doubt any of those candidates need or want Republicans and right-wingers helping out in these races.

Consider the source, please...

[mcar]

1. I don't recognize this p!ace anymore

Touting RW sources and their tired old HRC smears day in and day out.

[MineralMan]

4. There are good arguments to be made for and against

our Democratic primary candidates. Arguments based on actual factual information. I see those raised here by people who are serious about this race and who our nominee will be. On the other hand, Republicans and assorted right-wingers are not necessarily proclaiming genuine arguments. Distortion and lies are their tools.

We need to be discriminating about the sources we quote here on DU, I believe. Arguments made by right-wing sources are suspect, simply based on who is making them. Why on Earth would be consider some right-wing commentator or Republican to be speaking the truth? Why would they do that?

Enough!

[mcar]

8. Enough indeed!

[Fumesucker]

2. "Hillary is too stupid to be President" -Mineral Man v2.0.08

[elias49]

6. MM must have gotten that from left-wing media.

Which, apparently, makes it an OK sentiment.

[MineralMan]

7. You know the context of that.

I'm not going to dignify your attack by repeating it.

[Hortensis]

13. Please provide context for this peculiar remark.

Good post, Mineral Man, rec'd.

[MineralMan]

18. I will provide the context.

Hillary Clinton, in 2008, referred to Bobby Kennedy's assassination when explaining why she was staying in the primary race with Obama. It was an incredibly stupid remark, and may well have been one of the reasons Obama got the nomination.

It was stupid of her to have make that reference, and I said so. I wrote, at that time and in response to her gaffe, that "She is too stupid to be President," based on that incident. That was 8 years ago. She has learned from her mistakes. She will not say anything so stupid this time.

That is the context.

[Fumesucker]

20. Ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever

You made the remark, you didn't think she was fixable then.

I think it's quite amusing the number of heavy Clinton boosters in 2016 who completely trashed her in 2008, I think of four on DU easily and I'll bet there's a lot more.

[Hortensis]

32. Stupid is forever...

Alarming and sad thought.

I remember that remark, all right, Mineral Man. I also remember the clutch at my heart every time I wondered if Barack would survive that election season, and then the presidency all through that first term, each year passed a reason for celebration and renewed finger-crossing.

Remember the right wing media's unbelievable trolling for assassins, a blatant phenomenon that created the need for a term to describe it? Fox News's, including their alpha blondes', constant excited "wonderings" if the outrage wouldn't be just too much for "someone"? Until called out on it. Fox shut up fast then, but I still hear quick little pokes and nudges at that idea now and then.

[karynnj]

31. problem here

You say it is one reason Obama won, but you say it was a reason given for staying in the race. At that point, he really had already won . She could not get more pledged delighted and a huge number of the superdelegates were already with Obama or had said they would go with whomever had more pledged delegates.

[MineralMan]

33. That was her explanation for staying in.

The unspoken thing that was so incredibly stupid was that Obama might be assassinated, like Bobby Kennedy was. That was what was so stupid, and was my reason for the statement I made. She later apologized for what she said. I think she learned from it. She apparently satisfied President Obama, since he made her his Secretary of State.

That was then. This is now.

[DefenseLawyer]

45. One could argue that it wasn't "stupid" at all, but calculated.

Calculated in the same way as "hard working Americans" and "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, twice". Unfortunately for her, those dog whistles didn't have the impact on the race she had hoped, so in hindsight they can be viewed as "stupid". I would submit, however, that at the time the campaign knew and did exactly what they intended.

[hollysmom]

3. it works both ways if you stop one side, stop the other

I support fairness.

[MineralMan]

34. I'd be in favor of that. You will not see me quoting right-wing

sources here. I can only control what I post, not what others post. I can comment, but not control. In this thread, I'm commenting on some recent posts that use such sources. I do not read every thread on DU. I doubt anyone does.

[hollysmom]

39. well, we agree, how do we get to the others?

heh. I was happy with the high road and discussing ideas

[MineralMan]

40. I'm not sure that's possible.

Really, I think the only thing to do is to maintain our own individual standards.

[rhett o rick]

43. I see you only complaining about the Sanders supporters. nm

[MineralMan]

44. Yes? Today, that was who was posting from

right-wing sources. If I see others doing so today, I'll speak to that.

I do not read every thread on DU, by the way. Not even close.

[NurseJackie]

46. Those are hard to find as they are quickly hidden by juries ...

... in contrast, the anti Hillary threads from similarly questionable sources usually survive such alerts.

It appears that Skinner's observation about juries is true. Namely, that juries typically have the same ratio of Sanders to Hillary supporters as is found throughout the site as a whole ... about 6 to 1 in favor of Sanders.

Humans being what they are, it makes sense that this mathematical or statistical weakness in the jury system can be effectively used against the minority.

[peacebird]

5. Is or is not the FBI investigating Hillary currently?

Is she a member of the secretive Fellowship/The Family? A group that worships power and feels the elite need to rule?

Did Hillary lie repeatedly about coming under sniper fire at the airport, joking that if a place was too dangerous for the Pres, they sent the first lady? This one points to ego over intelligence. She knew the ceremony on the tarmac was filmed.

Did Hillary vote for the IWR? This goes to her judgement, or lack thereof.

Did Hillary take huge speaking fees from Wall Street in the year before her run for President? Considering the rise of Elizabeth Warren, this also shows her lack of judgement.

[MineralMan]

9. Thank you for reading my post and replying to it.

[elias49]

11. Well, yeah.

But the New York Times probably said those things. Therefore, fair game.
However, if someone from the Right says the same thing, we must disregard.
??

[berni_mccoy]

10. You seem upset. You should discuss this with the Hillary supporters who post much worse crap

Race-baiting, claiming Sanders is sexist, using RW sources far worse than Morning Joe, on and on and on...

[MineralMan]

12. Why should I do that?

I have agency only for my own statements. I'm not aligned with anyone or any group in this primary race.

I speak only for myself.

[berni_mccoy]

14. So it's ok to call out one side on their sources but not another?

Then you are only seeing what you want have no authority to lecture anyone on what to post here.

[MineralMan]

15. I post what I see and want to comment on.

I will continue to post as I think best. Thanks to DU, I am able to do that. Thanks for contributing to this thread.

[berni_mccoy]

16. So will I. And so you can stop whining about it...

I suggest you block me if you don't like what I have to say on this site.

[MineralMan]

19. Whining? No. I will comment on threads posted on DU.

I have always done so, and will continue to do so. I don't put anyone on Ignore on DU. Why would I do that? I want to see what is being posted. I will continue to comment on threads as I choose.

[berni_mccoy]

21. Your OP wreaks of whining because you don't like the source of posts

From Bernie supporters when you know damn well Hillary supporters do the same and yet I hear no poutrage from you on that. In fact you say the same thing many Bernie supporters will with the broken clock response. But please continue you pitty party as only Hillary and her fans play the victims. That's the sad fucking truth around here.

[MineralMan]

22. No whining here.

There will be whining always, though.

[berni_mccoy]

23. Deny it all you want. Doesn't change the fact you did.

Only deleting your own OP will save you the embarrassment you've caused yourself.

[MineralMan]

24. Oh, I won't be deleting my OP.

What's embarrassing is quoting right-wing Republicans as authoritative sources on Democratic candidates. That's embarrassing, whenever it happens. I'm not embarrassed for saying so, nor am I whining about it. I'm simply pointing out the contradiction.

[berni_mccoy]

27. Whoever said it was authoritative.

He has a valid point. That kind of talk coming from a campaign indicates they feel like they are losing. You are the one who brought up the point that Joe is a loser... So in your opinion, he should know shouldn't he.

[MineralMan]

28. You have the last word in this subthread.

I'm out.

[Autumn]

17. Yes. Please consider the source...

[Segami]

25. +1

[Autumn]

30. .

[aikoaiko]

26. [The nominee] will be decided by Democrats voting in their caucuses and primaries... not quite MM

In some states it will also be decided by independents, Greens, and Republicans, too.

Bernie Sanders is drawing a broad coalition. It might not be enough, but it will matter.

[MineralMan]

29. When people vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses,

they are acting as Democrats. Here in Minnesota, our caucuses are open, but each caucus opens with a pledge to be in agreement with the goals of the DFL party. That statement is read and agreed to by everyone at the caucus meeting, either truthfully or not.

It's true that some states have open primaries. Others do not.

I don't believe, though, that non-Democrats ever have much to do with the results. They are outnumbered by people who are actually Democrats and who have been for years.

The effect you're talking about is more theoretical than real, I believe.

[tularetom]

35. IF Sanders loses the nomination it proves only one thing

It proves that things haven't gotten bad enough for enough people yet. It also pretty much guarantees a republican will occupy the white house starting in 2017.

[MineralMan]

36. I disagree on both counts.

Sadly, I do not have time this morning to explain why that is, and it has nothing to do with the subject of my thread.

[Armstead]

37. Some of us consider many "mainstream" corporate sources as conservative mouthpieces

[MineralMan]

38. I'm sure that's true.

News reading is an art. To get the actual news, a person has to be very discriminating and try to avoid opinion-based writings, whatever the source. People are forever posting some editorial opinion piece from, say, the New York Times, and attributing that opinion to the newspaper itself. That's deceptive. Others believe that the only real news comes from websites like commondreams.com or somewhere with a strong bias to the left.

The reality is that real news is simply a recounting of facts without comment. If someone says something, the quotation is news. Anything else is commentary on what was said. Most of what we think of as news today is not news at all, but commentary from a particular point of view.

I don't read opinions about politics. I read news. I read what people running for office actually say and think about those people based on history. I form my own opinions. It's not easy to avoid seeing opinion as news. There's so little actual news reporting out there that is uncolored by opinion. So, I read selectively and fish out the actual factual material and ignore the rest.

Then, and only then, I form my opinion. I use multiple sources, always paying attention to whatever bias that source may have. I do not read right-wing sources. I do not read left-wing sources. I read neither without a constant awareness that there is bias there. I treat all news sources as biased and read for the facts.

I don't necessarily think that others have any more valid opinions than I do. I think. I ponder. I review. But, I do form opinions. Sometimes I share those opinions, knowing that others may disagree with the conclusions I've drawn. I don't pretend to be a news source. I'm not a news source.

[Gothmog]

41. The GOP and the right wing media are trying to help Sanders

[jillan]

42. Why should the RW have to attack Bernie? The Clintonites are doing it for them, and so well... from

Ageism
Using the image of a sickle & hammer when describing him
Calling him an angry old man
Calling him a woman hater
Trying to make him sound like he doesn't care about minorities
Saying this former Mayor, Congressman, and now Senator has no experience.
Saying his candidacy is like a fairy tale where the heavens will open....(rerun of 2008)

And my favorite one is - the GOP will attack him if he is the nominee. Coming from the Clinton Campaign that one is Hillarious.

So tell me please - why should the rw have to do a damn thing but sit back and watch?