An Ode to My Berniebro Trolls

[Beacool]

By Michael Tomasky
3/4/16

Sanders’s many, many vocal fans on the Internet need to get it through their heads that people can disagree with them and not be monsters or corporate shills.

I ran into my friend J. on Wednesday, mordant Irish wit, labor organizer, ardent Bern-feeler, and, I suppose unfathomably to many of you, faithful Tomasky reader. It pained him a little, he said, to read my most recent column, in which I argued that the calendar and the math very strongly favored Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders should by all means continue to press his case for as long as he wants to but should pull back on criticizing her, since it looks very much like she’s going to be the nominee.

It pained him, he said, because try as he might he couldn’t really argue with it. Well, I said, if it’s any consolation to you, I’m getting hammered by Bernie people on Twitter. He looked at me with surprise. Really, he said; for that column? What was so objectionable about that?

The real-life answer is, nothing. Yeah, yeah, the headline; Bernie needs to “get in line.” I don’t write the headlines, usually (I sometimes do but didn’t write that one, or this one), but I’m not distancing myself from it either because good headlines do slightly oversell the copy below and get people to click and read. So I can see how that headline got people worked up.

But look. People feel passionately about Sanders. Fine. I can appreciate that. What I cannot appreciate is the imputing of foul and malevolent motives to those of us who don’t feel passionately about him. And I just don’t. I don’t have anything against him, and I’m glad he jumped in. But to me, his politics are much more gestural than concrete. He doesn’t get his hands dirty.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/04/an-ode-to-my-berniebro-trolls.html

Now Tomasky is getting the same treatment as Warren.

[betsuni]

1. K&R

[TheBlackAdder]

67. It's a nice article, but the writer does not know what an "ode" is! nt

[Kaleva]

79. He says he ususally doesn't write the headlines.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

82. Most writers don't

They write the column. The newspaper editors write the title.

[Number23]

69. This bit right here is more damning than all of the homemade, manufactured Clinton scandals

combined

Sanders’s “leadership score,” his ability to get others to cosponsor his bills, was the second-lowest in the Senate among senators serving 10 or more years. He got zero bills out of committee. On writing bills that won bipartisan cosponsors, he was dead last.

That is just simply fucking nuts.

[bravenak]

78. He's a FIGHTER!!!

[Number23]

80. Yeah, but for what???

[bravenak]

84. Oh, um, I'm not quite sure yet..

I know, "The PEOPLE!!''.

Or,

He fights the OLIGARCHS!!

Something like that.

Wait until Mitch McConnell sees the revolution at his window! Bernie will CRUSH him!! Look at his record of crushing Repubs. It must be special, right? I'm positive he crushed a bunch of them in the last forty years.

[bravenak]

2. Rec

[NanceGreggs]

3. Great article!

Thanks!

[dchill]

4. "Berniebro Trolls"

ALWAYS useful to a fair discussion. I don't care whose verbiage this is, I will read no further. My personal take is that there are NO Bernie Bros that are actually backing Bernie Sanders. ( You KNOW who you are!)

[DrDan]

10. you should listen to Bernie - he recognizes otherwise

[redruddyred]

19. i didn't read either

five paragraphs of fluff and i was done

[Cobalt Violet]

23. disgusting that this is allow to stay here.

I can't imagine anything so nasty and insulting about the queen's supporters would be allowed to stay.

[FarPoint]

29. I'm grateful that this discussion has been brought to the board.

It is cathartic.

[SCantiGOP]

55. I know one poster in particular

That I would bet everything in my wallet is a paid troll of some right wing persuasion. His/her posts are just too inflammatory and divisive to be a real Sanders supporter.
After I spent time arguing with said troll in a forum and put him/her on Ignore, I got DU mail from that person, so I blocked that and now thankfully don't see those posts anymore.

Some of you probably remember the trolls (I remember one in particular but have been told there were actually three) who proudly came out after the 2004 election and admitted they were trolling. The one I remember said that screwing with brain-dead liberals was his hobby, and he was glad of his small role in defeating Kerry. His posts were constantly attacking Kerry from the left: he's rich and can't represent us, he's no better than the Republicans, vote for the Socialist Workers Party candidate, etc. Does that sound familiar?

[Lizzie Poppet]

53. Agreed. Four unprincipled persons on that jury.

Adjudicating alerted posts on the basis of anything other than whether or not they violate the rules is infantile and despicable. Calling DU'ers trolls has always been unacceptable.

But the rules are different for the Clinton Cabal...

Fuck this.

[Beacool]

60. Who is calling anyone on DU a troll?

The article is not about DU or any supporter here.

[Lizzie Poppet]

61. LOL

Pure comedy gold...

[Beacool]

59. Seriously?????

Last edited Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Ahhh, the hypocrisy.........

Everything short of a kitchen sink has been thrown at Hillary and her supporters on this board. This is a pretty mild article about how some of Sanders' supporters have crossed the line on the internet. It's obviously not about every supporter. So, if you're not one of those people, there's no reason to take offense.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

83. Exactly

The old saying if the shoe fits wear applies here.

[FarPoint]

30. Bingo!!!!

[Shadowflash]

58. It's funny that they call us that.

In 2008 I was not for Clinton and was an Obamaboy.

I'm not and Obamaboy or a Berniebro, I'm just not for Clinton and feel the alternative is better for the job. But people's childish need to call others names instead of arguing the actual merits pretty much fits the bill for the Clinton machine.

[UglyGreed]

71. Calling David Brock

[stonecutter357]

5. K&R!

[riversedge]

6. rec

[Rilgin]

7. I think maybe what you dont get.

The most common meme here is we have to keep the Republicans out of office. This seems true on its face but it is often your own team mates that are of more concern.

I have great concerns that Hillary will alter social security. She will either raise the age, lower the benefits or change the way that increases are calculated. I think my fear is justified. The Clinton method is triangulation in pursuing rather conservative economics. I have no fears that she would end it, it just would do less than now because that is the "practical" accepted inside the belt way solution to our budget problems rather than change the distribution system. I think she will also have an interventionist foreign policy in ways that I find totally unacceptable. I believe that this is driving many of us on the left to support Bernie.

If Trump, Cruz, Rubio or Kasich tried to do this, the democrats in congress would raise up and fight the change or warlike posture. That is the long term history of the democratic party. In opposition, they sometimes act as an opposition party. So in some areas, I am less scared of the Republicans than of Clinton. I wish this was not true but it is a democratic friend who will head us in the wrong direction with no opposition who can do more damage than a crazy republican who may head in the wrong direction faster but who will cause a fight in congress.

Thus, if Hillary wins the primary, there are risks in both directions. There are risks if she wins the GE and risks if she loses. And at this point there is still time to avoid that by not putting a democratic candidate forward who will support a corporate agenda and who has an interventionist foreign policy.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

9. +1, and thank you.

[Betty Karlson]

8. The Warren meme is already getting stale; thank goodness you found a way to rehash it.

Still not buying it though.

[stonecutter357]

11. K&R!

[DrDan]

12. Excellent - and spot on

[The Traveler]

13. " his politics are much more gestural than concrete. He doesn’t get his hands dirty. "

And that, my friends, is the problem right there. I am going to dissect that sentence. And then, perhaps, just maybe, folk will understand the moral and practical dilemmas before us. I'm not going to pretend to know how to resolve them.

It turns out that Alan Grayson was right about Sanders being one of the kings of legislative amendment. He's gotten a ton of them through the process over the years. Not headline grabbing stuff, but often significant. Often important. And real nuts and bolts practical work. Not the labor of a grand stander by any means.

"More gestural than concrete" in this case suggests the author is describing a preconceived image of Sanders, rather than the steady, nuts and bolts worker that record reveals.

"He doesn't get his hands dirty." Now, that can mean one of a few things. Either the author (mistakenly) perceives Sanders will not deign to perform the legislative craft (demonstrably false), or that Sanders will not get into the really icky aspects of modern American politics. Does he imply that Sanders' hands remain clean because Sanders does not work ... or does he imply Sanders' hands are clean because he won't do the dirty deeds that often seem required to achieve political success? Or, to be more blunt, does he mean that Sanders' hands are clean because he won't take the money? Make deals with the devil. Etc.

By this point, pretty much everyone realizes that America functions as an oligarchy or plutocracy. We really didn't need the Princeton study to know that, but it's nice to know that our "street level" understanding of the system is in fact mathematically correct. Not a surprise. Bill Moyers, Noam Chomsky, and others have been warning us for years. I remember Bucky Fuller expressing concern about it during a talk back in the late 70s. Let's face it. That's what we got. It's been a long time coming. And we the people allowed it to happen.

Compared to other oligarchies found in history, this one seems fairly tame. Its people, on the surface at any rate, seem to suffer more from benign neglect rather than deliberate malice. But if its one thing we know from police tactics during Occupy, Ferguson and other social justice protests ... that velvet glove has an iron fist in it ... and that velvet is pretty damn thin. In any case, any of us who have traveled to the Orient or Europe lately have seen first hand the evidence that this country is falling further, and further, and further behind in virtually every measurable way.

So modern politicians do "practical policy work" ... which means roughly "work that is acceptable to the oligarchy". To cement those relationships, politicians are expected to accept the golden handcuffs of cash. And accepting that cash, and negotiating away pieces of the public good to placate the oligarchs (and keep receiving the cash) does indeed get one's hands dirty. And even good, ethical people succumb to this system of soft corruption because it really tries to make it impossible to accomplish anything at all without its tacit approval, and its largess. So that is something we have to keep in mind: People with dirty hands who do business with the oligarchy aren't necessarily evil. They're just compromised.

What this author and the Clinton people don't seem to get is that even moderately informed people understand this. This understanding is no longer confined to the academic, to the activist, or the policy wonk. The street understands it. Millennials REALLY understand it, and that understanding is baked into their political mind set. (And that's one thing that makes it difficult to get them to turn out to vote ... low to zero faith in the system.) And this is why some people (and more every day) are so angry about it.

You see, we are not down with the oligarchy. And we pretty much regard those who support politicians who ARE down with the oligarchy as, well, enablers. Collaborators. And those aren't pretty words.

At some point, we at the grass roots are going to have to come to an understanding of each other, or this party will split right down those lines drawn by the differing ethical systems all this implies. I think understanding is going to be difficult to achieve.

So far, especially on the Republican side, this primary season has been a shit show. We obviously have to stand together to insure that none of those whackjobs get within a mile of the missile codes and other powers of the Executive Branch. Yep. I get that.

But regardless of the general election outcome ... it's pretty clear. We Democrats are deeply divided by certain questions and issues. As moderate Republicans depart the crazy train and move into our house, we're going to have to sort that out, or this Party will gradually become the Party of Reagan by a different name.

Trav

[DrDan]

15. nice spin - but does not wash

"His hands are clean because he won't take the money"? If you continued reading you would have found the writers further explanation - should one be necessary.


"The fact is that he hasn’t been an active senator. Here is his 2015 report card from govtrack.us, a nonpartisan web site that tracks all matters legislative. Sanders’s “leadership score,” his ability to get others to cosponsor his bills, was the second-lowest in the Senate among senators serving 10 or more years. He got zero bills out of committee. On writing bills that won bipartisan cosponsors, he was dead last.

"Now you might argue, indeed I might argue, that given the nature of that crowd, that’s actually a feather in his cap. But the man is running for president. He’s going to have to work with those people. And he wasn’t 41st or 59th or 76th. He was last. Mike Lee and Ted Cruz had better scores. Bernie’s score was 0. Yeah, yeah, I know. None of this matters. He speaks truth to power. And such clean hands!"

". . . and such clean hands!"

[redruddyred]

20. unfortunately, bernie is far to the left of the american congress

but not so far to the left of the american people

electing him would correct the balance a bit. i don't know why we can't, generally, elect better democrats.

anyhow, i'm glad he's getting out there spreading the message.

[DrDan]

22. same could be said of Hillary - left of congress, closer to the populace

[Cobalt Violet]

25. Nothing like that can be said about Hillary.

[DrDan]

32. are you suggesting she is not on the left in congress and close to the middle with the populace?

[Cobalt Violet]

33. yes, she is a right leaning centrist.

[DrDan]

34. a "right leaning centrist" with respect to congress

[redstateblues]

85. That old smear. Hillary was the 11th most liberal Senator

in Congress. Cut it out

[Cobalt Violet]

91. it's not a smear, it's true.

[redruddyred]

26. not on the issues that matter

americans care about the TPP and getting an affordable education, not gun rights. abortion, like guns, people feel is a necessary evil (although definitely distasteful).

[The Traveler]

48. Nice spin but does not wash

Back at ya. You jumped right over the whole topic. Bravo.

Yeah. Clean hands, buddy. Don't do surgery without 'em, Doc. I would think you would understand that, and the metaphor.

And "work with those people"???? If there is ANY President who had the grace and patience to work with those fucktards, it's they guy in the Oval Office right now. Hasn't worked so well for him, has it? And given the actual hate Republicans have for Ms. Clinton .... But ignore those points. As you have ignored the elephant in the room.

Sorry, sir. I will never be down with the oligarchy or its hand maidens. Or its apologists.

Cheers

Trav

[DrDan]

56. sorry others fully and clearly recognize the "effectiveness" of your candidate in congress

changing the intent of the writer's words does your candidate no favors

[MrMickeysMom]

24. If you dissect the sentence, it's bound to have people chase after the pieces to find fault...

The fact is, Bernie Sanders has gotten his hands plenty "dirty", if "dirty can be defined in walking the walk whilst those around you block the block.

The point with most clarity is how we see our "democracy"... It truly has spun out of control. What we have left over is an oligarchy. There is where the Democratic party is split. Those who see the path to return who insist working within that structure are kidding themselves.

Call me what you want, I know the difference. I know who is guiding this revolt. We have a lot of work to do.

[riversedge]

14. rec

[That Guy 888]

16. Let us not forget Hill's Shills

Last edited Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Now Tomasky is getting the same treatment as Warren.

Let us now unite in victimhood.

I still hope Senator Warren will be our first woman President. Are you refering to DWS's attack on Senator Warren?

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz joins hands with GOP in assault on Elizabeth Warren’s consumer protection agency

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a close ally of Hillary Clinton, is trying to gut regulations on loan sharks

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, has joined the Republican assault on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren helped create the bureau in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis in order to protect Americans from the malicious practices of the financial industry — particularly banks, toxic mortgage lenders, debt collectors and payday loan companies.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has created pending new regulations in order to protect Americans from payday loan sharks, companies that make enormous profits off of predatory lending, exploiting the poor and uneducated by advertising quick and convenient loans while downplaying the concomitant skyrocketing interest. The bureau hopes to rein in the industry.

Not if the DNC can stop it, however. For Wasserman Schultz has thrown her weight behind the Republican effort to sabotage the bureau’s proposed regulations of the out-of-control predatory lending.

edit: I deleted a reference, to Senator Warren endorsing Clinton which I hadn't heard about until this post. Apparently with good reason... it never happened. The deleted portion contained speculation that threats to the CFPB were used to force her endorsement. Are they???

[wyldwolf]

17. corporate shill?? How dare you! I AM a proud PAID OPERATIVE!!!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

86. Can I be a paid operative for Hillary?

I'm still waiting for my George Soros check.

[wyldwolf]

89. Shhh. We'll find you.

[Lucinda]

18. KNR

[redruddyred]

21. hillary is a corporate shill tho

that's not an attack that's the truth

[BeyondGeography]

27. This wasn't Berniebros, it was David Brock's magic keyboard again

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

88. Plus the trilateral commision and the illuminatti.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. save for the overly tired use of "berniebro", it's actually a pretty good piece.

And hell, even that guy agrees that Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go;

can't figure out why some people here are still bleating and moaning over criticism of her, as they fall all over themselves to defend her votes on shit like sending medical marijuana users to prison.

[secondwind]

31. Personally, I think Hillary's expiration date has come and gone...as for getting his hands dirty,

he began in the 60's doing just that. where were Hill and Bill at the time... I don't recall.

Let's all try to stick together until the end, because we have an excellent chance of keeping the White House, and retaking the Senate.

This should be our primary goal!

[Armstead]

35. An Ode to the Clintonbro Trolls

Those who continuously write columns filled with nasty insulting crap and throwing cold water on people's hopes is aiming to (and probably welcome) provoke criticism.

[Vattel]

36. I will see your Bernie Bros and raise you ten Hillary Shills.

[Jester Messiah]

37. Still with that disgraced "BernieBro" tactic?

Honestly.

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. Yawn...

Of course, that was a BernieBro Troll yawn.

[JaneyVee]

39. Actually, it appears the enthusiasm is with Hillary.

[yardwork]

40. Sanders ignores this problem at his peril.

[Logical]

41. Lol, you really are funny. Mt

[Octafish]

42. Does his voice sound like nails on a chalkboard?

His writing does.

But wait, here’s yet a third news flash, and something I can guarantee you you’d never hear from my Berniebro critics, so adamantly certain that their way of thinking is the one true way: I could be wrong! She could win the nomination and be a terrible general-election candidate. Or she could become president and be an ineffectual one-termer. Or he could turn out to be able to out-Trump Trump. Or maybe he could win and be the greatest foreign-policy president in history. I haven’t the slightest idea. But none of you Sanders supporters has the slightest idea of what the future holds either. We just have our opinions.

"We came. We saw. He died." -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

[ismnotwasm]

43. Yup.

[Nanjeanne]

44. Well it's the Daily Beast. Chelsea's on the Board of parent co. Good place to cement the notion

that its Bernie "bros" and not possibly Republicans or Clinton supporters pretending to be irate Bernie supporters. But people can't be bothered to reason for themselves. So instead we have biased media promoting something that is based on anonymous social media.

[polly7]

47. That's how it works.

I hope enough people are thoughtful enough to see past the bullshit.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

90. So the Daily Beast is now thrown under the Bernie bus.

[Nanjeanne]

92. What is the obsession with buses? I believe that thinking people should always

Consider sources when reading. Blind following is not my thing. I know that I've seen tweets and FB posts and they are usually by very anonymous people. I have no idea if they are real Bernie supporters, internet trolls, Republicans or Clinton supporters. I do know that Chelsea Clinton is on the board so it's a good place to place a story if you want to want to spread something. With David Brock on Clinton's campaign I am always going to be suspicious.

What this has to do with trowing anything under a bus I have no idea. I like people who think about what and why they read something. Other people just care if a story fits their already formed opinion.

[mcar]

45. K&R

[SidDithers]

46. I thought they were a myth?...

DU rec.

Sid

[DesertRat]

49. K&R

[Orsino]

50. Waaah. Meanies on the Internet.

Number One problem in the world today...and it's all on Sanders' side.

[Gothmog]

51. Thanks for posting

[Agnosticsherbet]

52. The Bus continues to expand is size.

At a speed greater than the well known Expanding of he Universe as a whole.

[Iliyah]

54. Their revolution does not believe in Democracy.

[Blue_Tires]

57. I'm old enough to remember when

Greenwald said BernieBros didn't exist and were a myth... Fun times.

[UglyGreed]

62. Ties that bind

http://iac.com/about/leadership/board-directors/chelsea-clinton

http://iac.com/brand/daily-beast

[UglyGreed]

63. BernieBros meme

[DesertRat]

64. He's a brave man

Under the bus he goes!

[Jokerman]

65. "imputing of foul and malevolent motives to those of us who don’t feel passionately about him"

What, like calling them "Berniebro Trolls"?

More proof that Clinton supporters will say anything to advance their pathetic candidate.

[Beacool]

66. Pathetic?

Classy......

Proving once again why Sanders is a better person than some of his supporters.

[senz]

70. Whereas ...

Hillary's ... hmm... 'bout the same as her supporters ...

[Beacool]

72. Then we're a terrific group of people.

[senz]

74. LOL!

Too funny!

[Jokerman]

95. Don't like "pathetic"? How about, "corrupt", or "dishonest".

They all fit the bill.

[Number23]

68. Can't K&R this fast, hard enough

[aikoaiko]

73. Another whiner who doesn't like that a lot Democrats and others support Bernie.

[madfloridian]

75. Brock..don't criticize her. Tomasky..stay in race just don't criticize. Hmmmm

Intimidation tactics.

[ucrdem]

76. Thank you South Carolina!

[madfloridian]

77. "ardent Bern-feeler"

That's what he called his friend. Odd.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

81. How dare he speak against Bernie

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Why the need to insult a good percentage of his readers?

I guess it is time to put him in the same category, well not quite, as Jonathan Capehart.

Mr. Tomasky using an insult that is no different than Obama Boys in origin demeans what you wrote. And I mean it. Hell, I guess knowing who owns The Daily Beast helps...

[R B Garr]

93. This writer really gets it. This is part of the lexicon now because their behavior is

so pervasive. His first sentence says it all:

"Sanders’s many, many vocal fans on the Internet need to get it through their heads that people can disagree with them and not be monsters or corporate shills."

I find it disgusting that they want respect they are not willing to give. Now no one can call out their behavior without being targeted. Enough of this crap!

[Bobbie Jo]

94. K&R