There are dozens of websites that are focused on the

[MineralMan]

Democratic Primary races. Some are single candidate-oriented and support only that candidate. Others are open forums where all candidates can be discussed. We all choose where we post. DU is in the latter category, which is a good thing. Here we can discuss the primaries and all candidates in them.

If you find another website that isn't like DU, that's no surprise. I can't imagine that discussions about other websites that include discussions of primary races and focus on just one candidate really matter much. I've looked at a couple of them. They have few discussions, few members, and are not really worth my time, or even any further notice. I can't see the utility of discussing websites, rather than discussing candidates.

I'd much rather discuss the primary elections and all candidates than discuss small websites that focus on just one candidate. That's why I'm on DU and not on any of those other sites.

Let the primary discussion continue!

[cantbeserious]

1. Absolutely - Agree Completely

eom

[Hortensis]

45. Yes. What's to disagree with "Let the primary discussion continue?" :)

[whatchamacallit]

2. I think you could probably have used fewer words

to say nothing.

[MineralMan]

6. Well, thanks so much for your critique of

my post, and for spending the time to reply to it.

[zappaman]

52. Well, there's a lot to say about words.

Words are what we use to communicate.
Words are everywhere.
In fact, you are looking at words right now! Surprise!
Sometimes I use words, sometimes I don't.
There are many words. Some are short and some are long.
Sometimes words are even put together to make other words.
I like words just fine.
Don't you?

[whatchamacallit]

56. Heheh...

[Prism]

3. Now now

People have been complaining about alert stalking in regards to the primary for a solid month or two.

Now that we're presented with solid, irrefutable evidence that it is in fact occurring, suddenly some people don't want to talk to it.

That isn't very sporting.

Also, racism against Sanders is very much a primary topic.

[MineralMan]

7. Well, the admins, who are the only ones able to see

stats on alerts, have said again and again that there is no evidence of alert stalking. I can't see those results, so I don't have any opinion on that subject.

[99Forever]

4. Let the excuses for shitty behaviors flow.

Bwahahahahaha.

Dirty campaigns, campaign dirty.

It's WHO they are.

[MineralMan]

8. I haven't made any excuses for anything.

I haven't even read any other primary discussion sites. Not interested. DU is where I discuss such things. I'm hoping we get back to that discussion.

[99Forever]

33. Whatever you say, dude.

It's not like anyone thinks you are insincere or anything.

[Puglover]

36. ...

[Metric System]

37. Yes, I've seen plenty of excuses for the behavior of Sanders supporters on social media.

[99Forever]

41. Isn't that special?

[AgingAmerican]

66. That talking point died

When the anti-semitic, pro-Hillary website came to light.

[aikoaiko]

5. It might be the CC-like, FR-like ridicule of DUers at a HRC site that is interesting to some DUers

[MineralMan]

10. It might be lots of things, I suppose.

I haven't read any of those sites, actually. I look in on CC occasionally, because they tend to talk about me there. Why that is, I can't imagine.

[Hortensis]

46. MineralMan, should I toss you some hornet spray?

I'm obviously clueless because I have no idea what log you kicked over.

[upaloopa]

9. We don't have discussions here we have food fights.

[MineralMan]

11. Actually, there are many good discussions here. They just

aren't the ones that get all of the attention and hundreds of posts. I read many discussions each day and participate in the ones that are the most interesting.

[BlueWaveDem]

12. I don't get the infighting. If we are all confident that our preferred candidates can

Stand on there own merits and records, why bother tearing others preferred candidates down? Our main priority should be electing a Democratic president and eliminating as many republicans from local, state, and federal levels as possible.

[MineralMan]

14. Neither do I. I have a preference in the primaries,

but I'll be happy to give my support to whoever is the nominee after the convention. All of the candidates who have substantial polling results would be just fine with me as President.

Looking at their positions, they agree on almost everything in a broad sense. They differ in details. I'll be out knocking on doors for the Democratic nominee, I guarantee. That's why I'm not pushing hard for my choice. The primaries and caucuses will determine who becomes the nominee and our next President.

[BlueWaveDem]

18. Yes, I too will support the Democratic nominee to the fullest.

Tearing our own candidates down certainly doesn't help any of our candidates. It doesn't help Bernie who will need the support of Hillary supporters, and it doesn't help Hillary who will need the support of Bernie supporters. There is one group though who Democratic infighting definitely does help, and that's republicans.

[MineralMan]

20. Exactly. It's also very difficult for people who have been

very vocal about their disapproval of a candidate to support that candidate if he or she becomes the Democratic nominee. Some have even said that they would not even vote for the nominee if it isn't the one they favor. I don't understand that at all. I'm a Democrat, and understand why it's crucial to support Democratic candidates in every election for every office.

My support for a primary candidate is simply that. I favor one candidate. I would not, and will not attack another candidate for the same office. I may end up supporting that candidate later.

[Hortensis]

47. You guys make too much sense. I will vote for whichever candidate

stands the best chance of keeping the presidency from falling into the destructive and corrupt hands of the GOP. Same for all the other candidates at all levels.

[sabrina 1]

35. Hi, yes, Hillary will need Bernie supporters should she win the nomination, but the vile, race

baiging, red baiting, anti-semitic slurs, the notion of aligning oneself with smear monger supreme and dirty trickster David Brock, not to mention the sheer hatred aimed at supporters of another candidate, now with a website in Hillary's name, isn't going to help her much. She needs to come and condemn these vicious hateful tactics being perpetrated in her name or they will forever be associated with her.

While Hillary's campaign has engaged in these tactics, Bernie has never in his career run a negative ad, never attacked another candidate personally or condoned his campaign engaging in such tactics, using Corporate Money to do so.

The difference in both campaigns is becoming more and more clear and maybe be one of the reasons for Hillary's shrinking poll numbers. I don't know a single person in the Real World who has anything but disgust for Corporte Funded Super Pacs and their slimey operators spreading lies and deceptions about other candidates, attempting to deprive voters from their right to hear candidates on the ISSUES.

[Metric System]

38. Nope, Sanders has his supporters to go negative and attack anyone who dares to support Hillary.

[artislife]

39. Let me clean that mirror for you. nt

[sabrina 1]

54. There's another thing Hillary's surrogates and supporters do. Thanks for the perfect example. Make

stuff up because Bernie's record on the issues is so great as a former Hillary supporter said just this as he switched to Bernie, they can't attack him on the issues. Made up stuff that they simply can't BACK UP .

Which is why fewer and fewer people are taking them seriously and many former Hillary supporters are changing their minds, wanting to be involved in a campaign that is about ISSUES rather than smear campaigns.

You ACCUSED Sen. Sanders of 'having his supporters go negative and attack anyone who dares to support Hillary'.

Provide just one single shred of evidence for that claim

I will return to see if you have any.

Otherwise it gets categorized with all the other false claims that have been so thoroughly debunked it makes you wonder are her supporters trying to LOSE this election for her?

[Metric System]

55. I'm talking about behavior I've seen on social media. And no, I don't think Sanders or his campaign

are personally involved in directing the behavior.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. You know, 'social media' is a bunch of stone cold strangers telling you who they are and then

apparently influencing you with magic words. Those posters could be anyone, with any number of intentions and not all of those intentions are political. If you simply believe what they say they are and allow yourself to judge others according to what they have said, that makes you into their proxy. Does that strike you as wise?

[R B Garr]

63. lol, I have yet to see you provide a single shred of evidence of your many claims, such

as the BLM activists being ordered by Hillary to interrupt Bernie. Do you have even a shred about that? Or is it all innuendo and conspiracy theories? Falsely accusing someone of something is the definition of negative campaigning, and Bernie's campaign supporters are full of that. So no coronation for any of you, either.

And your little issue checklist -- apparently if Bernie is for drones, that doesn't go on your checklist. That puts your purity checklist out the window right there.

[R B Garr]

53. Sanders used campaign donations to pay family

http://www.progressivestoday.com/bernie-sanders-used-campaign-donations-pay-family-members-2000-2004/

What no one cares about is someone else's moralizing, especially when the moralizing is couched in "issues". It looks like Sanders is perfectly capable of acting just like any other candidate out there.

And where are your Real World calls to Bernie Sanders about his supporters harassing people on the internet? How ridiculous that a Bernie supporter hunts down internet posters they have run off a message board and then proceeds to tell them what they can and cannot post about. It's a free country. Not everyone has to adore Bernie Sanders.

And some of the Bernie supporters were Ross Perot voters, so who cares what tangent they go off on next. Democrats can get elected without some of the fringe that were never there to start with.

[artislife]

57. RW site

Read their stories on H.
Like this one:

http://www.progressivestoday.com/?s=hillary


As you all love to say, do a bit of research.

[R B Garr]

60. You should take your own advice on research. And since when have headlines meant

anything. Have you read the vile headlines on THIS website, especially about Hillary. The "progressives" like to slam everyone, being so pure and all.

http://www.progressivestoday.com/about/

[artislife]

64. That is what I am saying, dear

I used the website the other idi---er poster used. It was to convey that they may call themselves progressives today but infact they write about how evil progressives are.

Again, stop jumping before looking.

[R B Garr]

67. That is not what you were saying. You just got caught trying to be dismissive,, and I

corrected you.

Those headlines are NO different than the headlines often seen on this site, and the so-called criticisms by "progressives" seen posting all over this site. I don't see you being bothered by those other similar headlines here.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Holy shit! Weren't you complaining about others linking to RW sites???

Look at those headlines at the site you just linked to:

NEW LIBERAL AGENDA ITEM: Pedophiles Have Rights Too

INCOME INEQUALITY: Michelle Obama Wore a $2,300 DRESS to Meet Pope Francis

THE UNITED NATIONS Wants to Censor the Internet to AVOID OFFENDING FEMINISTS

U.S. Ambassador To The UN Quotes COMMUNIST In Support Of New Socialist UN Sustainable Development Goals

[R B Garr]

59. lol, this coming from you after the Starr report is featured prominently in a

thread and you just go along with it with your friends. As long as it slams Clinton, it's all good, including Fox News and the Starr Report. Just laughable.

And Google the subject matter, and you will see it, including Vermont papers. It's out there.

[R B Garr]

61. and since when have headlines meant anythng. Look at the headlines HERE.

http://www.progressivestoday.com/about/

[artislife]

65. Hopefully by now you realize I wrote RW-for Right Wing

But I thought I would help you along again, just in case.

[R B Garr]

68. Oh, I definitely realize what you are doing...

U betcha.

[artislife]

69. How you are ...typical

You linked to the Progessive now website....I pointed out they were RW, I used the example of one of their articles on H. to prove they are RW.

You are too...blind?, to understand this. But nevermind, I don't get off exchanging emails with...a poster of your caliber.

[R B Garr]

70. lol, if I called you "dear", my post would be hidden, so

excuse me if I don't buy your silliness about "caliber" If I called you "blind", my post would be hidden, if I made several remarks about your age, my post would be hidden.

And you've proven nothing about the site being RW except that you haven't read the description of the site. Nothing in those headlines quoted is any different than what has been posted here before in the name of "progressive" critique.

[treestar]

13. Yes. Interesting there are people who would rather cry about

the existence of others sites than talk up Bernie as nominee. And as if they don't have their sites.

[MineralMan]

15. Talking about other discussion sites is a waste of time.

That's my opinion. Especially if it's just to pick at other DUers in some way. I don't get it at all.

[sibelian]

16. Is this about hillarysupporters.com?

?

[MineralMan]

17. No. That's just one website.

This is about all of the small websites that pop up during primary season. There are many of them supporting each of the Democratic candidates. Even the admins of DU have created one to support the candidate they favor.

This is about discussion other websites rather than the candidates and the primary races. I think I was pretty clear about that in the OP. Had I wanted to talk about just one, I would have written the post differently.

[sibelian]

29. ... seems like an odd subject to bring to the discussion board.

What prompted you to bring the issues you outline to our attention?

Clearly you cannot possibly be unaware of the enormous 600+ response thread currently sliding up and down the main page of GD-P in which hillarysupporters.com is revealed to harbour posters guilty of antisemitism and revealing that MIRT members on this site have been goading other members on this board into posts that could be hidden.

Just in case you have missed it, that thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=616648

Naturally your observations regarding the other websites elsewhere on the web could be very easily taken by people understandably mistaken regarding your intent with this OP as an attempt to move attention away from the conduct of members of that site.

I'd suggest circumventing this potential misinterpretation by stating your position on their activities, just to make it clear to everyone that you are truly impartial and that your post is relevant to something that ISN'T hillarysupporters.com. I don't really see any discussion on this site about any other websites regarding the primaries, so your OP doesn't really appear to solve anything unless it's about hillarysupporters.com and I'm sure others might make that mistaken assumption.

Up to you, of course.

[MineralMan]

31. I oppose anyone who calls any of the candidates racists, anti-semites,

or any other vile name. Whether they do it on DU or on any other website, they are simply wrong. Among the Democratic primary candidates, there are no racists, no anti-semites, no homophobes, and no other type of bigot. Anyone who suggests that any of the Democratic candidates is a bigot in any way is simply wrong and trying to spread vile lies.

However, we do talk about other websites. One is being discussed today. Others appear in discussions on other days. I include particular Twitter hashtags, news comment sites, and many others in that category. We discuss those, too, on a daily basis. Some DUers even post what shows up there and links to such things.

As far as I am concerned, and I have said so many times, all of the Democratic primary candidates who are currently under discussion and who have poll numbers that make them worthy of discussion are fine, upstanding progressives who I'd be proud to support during the General election campaign. None are bigots. None are racists. None are anti-semites. None are homophobes. Anyone who says one of them is any of those things is just plain wrong, and saying that makes me suspicious of their motives.

None of this is new. I've been saying so all along. I don't attack Democratic candidates. I support my choice in the primary, and let others support theirs. I have opinions about things like viability regarding primary candidates. I have opinions about supporters of candidates. But, I will support the nominee from among anyone who is running or considering running, once the Democratic Convention reveals the nominee. I will give exactly the same support as I have always done, regardless of who the nominee is.

How's that? I still think we should discuss issues and candidates' positions, not other websites where discussions take place. Hence my OP.

[Hortensis]

48. Sibelian, what is "revealed" on that thread is the irrational and hostile

group-think of a smallish group posting dozens of times each in some kind of malicious on-line flame-fest.

Not to say it isn't interesting, in a bizarre way, but for group behavior not information.

[sibelian]

51. I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth even bothering with them.

They seem to thrive on the attention...

[Le Taz Hot]

19. Yes.

[MineralMan]

21. No. I haven't even read anything on that website.

I looked at the topic list for one area on that website. I saw how few people are active and left. I don't have time for tiny websites. That's why I post on DU exclusively on political topics. It's active and busy. I also don't visit the DU Admins' Hillary Clinton website, or any other single-candidate focuses websites.

[sibelian]

30. Worth a look, I'd suggest.

Interesting insights are likely to ensue.

[MineralMan]

32. I'm cleaning my house out this week. I have a 20 cubic yard dumpster

in my driveway that has to be filled with all the crap that has accumulated here in the past 11 year. I'm only online during rest breaks, which are many, since I'm 70 years old and hauling stuff up from the basement winds me pretty quickly. I've caught my breath now, so I'll carry some more crap up and load it into the dumpster. I'll be back later to rest for another five minutes.

I'm not interested in single-candidate websites, especially if they're whining about stuff. So, I won't be visiting the site you mentioned again. Sorry. I don't enjoy reading whiny posts about what people are saying on other websites. Not my thing.

[artislife]

40. Good for you, I mean that.

I spend a lot of time with people who have inherited every scrap of paper their parent ever wrote. It causes a lot of anger to get mixed in with grief of losing them It is a huge gift to declutter and downsize your stuff. It also allows you one last time to remember and the let go.

[MineralMan]

42. It's something that needs to be done every

few years if you live in the same place for those years. When you're done, you rediscover the place where you live. It's refreshing. I grumble about it, but I'm fortunate enough to be healthy enough to drag a 100 lb. bag up the stairs and into the dumpster. I can't do that as quickly as I once could, but no matter.

[Hortensis]

49. DH and I recently "refreshed" a property we bought of two heaped

trailer loads we got to then unload at a stinky landfill on a hot day. DH is older than you, no 100-pound loads on the flat or anywhere. But it did feel great after. We showered and then took drinks out on the patio to watch the alligators while we waited for the Chinese takeout to arrive.

[MineralMan]

50. We're getting close to being finished, now.

For myself, I'd rather carry one 100-lb. load up the stairs from the basement than 2 50-lb. loads. Our 20 cubic yard dumpster still isn't quite full, so we're actively looking for more stuff to toss. I finally remembered the old lawn furniture stashed behind the garage. It's in there now.

Where on earth did all this stuff come from? Once the dumpster is gone, we still have to load up the old PCS, monitors and other electronics we just never got around to getting rid of and drive them to a place that will take them at no charge.

In the end, we'll have our house looking like it did when we first moved in. That's a very good thing.

[sibelian]

44. Well, I think it does matter in this case.

It wouldn't be a particularly good situation to have members of the site under discussion on the MIRT team here and publically discussing goading people into hideworthy posts, would it?

If you are attached to this site I'd expect you'd prefer it to be kept clean, like your house.

Up to you, naturally.

[m-lekktor]

22. yes. MM's passive aggressive posts are always transparently obvious. nt

[demmiblue]

23. Pretty much.

The OP would rather discuss the primary elections and all of the candidates than small pop-up websites, yet he starts an OP discussing small pop-up websites rather than the primary elections and all the respective candidates. See how that works?

[Le Taz Hot]

24. Nailed it.

[haikugal]

26. Yep!

[beam me up scottie]

27. Bingo.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

25. And there's ONE website dedicated to creating an alert-and-lock feedback loop to sow discord. nt

[MineralMan]

28. Actually, there are none that work to do that.

None have enough people to make that happen, and there are people on more than one site who are trying. As DU's admins have shown, there is no alert-stalking that is working on DU. Some people don't believe them, but I see DUers who are on different sides getting time outs for too many hidden posts. The reality is that very few DUers ever get a time-out.

I don't know who is on time-out right now, and don't much care. It's so easy to avoid that from happening. Simple civility works great for staying off the time-out list.

But, people continue to try to get people's posts hidden, I'm sure. But that happens on all sides of issues, not just one. So, you're incorrect, actually.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

34. Actually, I'm completely correct. Refer back to the feeback loop clause and get back to me.

[Fumesucker]

43. I'd need a spreadsheet to keep up with the drama around here but this fracas has been illuminating

Once again proving the old adage that for every finger you point there are three pointing back at you. The witch smellers turned out to have some seriously stinky baggage of their own that they were becoming ever more desperate to unload without that stifling civility clause in the DU TOS.

Personally I find the civility clause nice, I can get along without it just fine since my skin is fairly thick and my tongue fairly sharp but it does cut down on the noise level considerably, it's one of the reasons I keep coming back despite the fact you mention that there are plenty of other sites on which discussing politics is the aim.