Since the new standard for evaluating Presidential candidates is "eye bugging"!

[boston bean]

I don't see how anyone could ever vote for:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251779704

[leftofcool]

1. I was just slayed by the eye bugging!

[boston bean]

2. It fucking pissed me off. I know, I know it's just a message board

That post is a fucking embarrassment to every single democrat, or at least should be.

[sufrommich]

6. There is no bottom to how low some will go. The better the

polls for Hillary get,the more desperate they get.

[boston bean]

8. And in making a point about how fucking ridiculous it is

demands are made I delete my thread?

ah, no!

The post is not an indication that I believe it is true about Sanders, but to put that shoe on someone elses foot, to show just how fucking mean, ridiculous, low brow it is.

[riversedge]

32. That one hit a

sore spot for me also. Don't know why after the last several months of vile that has been posted on DU. Just ticked me off

[earthside]

79. The vote for President is personal.

As so many studies have explained, an individual's vote for president is very personal ... people use a variety of criteria for making the decision about whom to cast their ballot.

The "who would you have a beer with" notion is important ... we all have to live with the President for four years, a person who has the power to profoundly affect our lives. Why shouldn't we feel comfortable with the President?

So, looks, body language, demeanor, speaking style, etc., are just as important to one degree or another as stands on particular issues.

It is, in other words, fair game especially in presidential politics to critique looks and behavior.

Hillary's saucer eyes are very noticeable, her affected speaking style is very obvious -- what does that mean to you? Maybe nothing; to others it is a factor.

What does Bernie's messy hair mean? Too undignified for the leader of the world's greatest superpower?

You think Hillary fans haven't every made any mocking comments about Trump's hair or ever made fun of Shrub's ears and smirk? Hillary supporters have undoubtedly mocked Sarah Palin, too ... this holier than thou attitude towards personal characteristics is pretty shallow.

So let's get real, indeed. Have at it -- this is an incredibly important decision and what Hillary's body language is just as important at some level as other things she says and does.

Of course, any criticism of Hillary is almost always taken as 'hate' or 'sexism' or some other extreme accusation ... always a chip on the shoulder. So, go after Sanders -- it is just as legitimate as those criticizing Hillary.

[KittyWampus]

3. What does Bernie Sanders' relentless finger pointing say about his personality?

?1433957505

[Control-Z]

12. Sanders does point a lot, like in the picture posted.

But I don't think it means a whole lot. The no-pointing-while-giving-a-speech thing became popular a generation or so after his. I wouldn't read too much into it. I doubt anyone will make issue of it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

86. Step up, Kitty, and tell us what the finger-pointing means.

This isn't Fox News where someone takes a dump on the counter hoping others will analyze the pile of shit. If you're going to take a dump on the counter, go ahead and have the wherewithal to actually say what you mean. So what do YOU think the finger-pointing about? Does it indicate he's a sexist? A racist? A gun nut? A warmonger?

[JaneyVee]

4. What is eye bugging? And since when do liberals...

Discriminate based on body perceptions? Wasn't FDR in a wheelchair?

[Agschmid]

5. Self delete this crap.

You have an opportunity not to sink to that level, take it.

[boston bean]

7. No. It's not something I really believe, it is a retort.

A point made to show how fucking ridiculous it is.

Get it or not. but no, I am not deleting this thread.

Peace.

[Agschmid]

9. Yeah and a "retort" means your just stirring the shit.

Guess what, Hillary is ahead.

You don't need to sink to their level.

[KittyWampus]

10. Ah, but then body language can be telling. And Bernie's finger pointing is iconic of him.

[randome]

68. He's simply trying to emulate Michelangelo!

I agree, it's all pointless, bugged eyes, pointed fingers. Now which of them has the cleanest underwear!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[boston bean]

11. Guess what?

I'll post what I like. Just because someone is ahead in something doesn't mean you can't confront the asininity.

I am not stooping or sinking to any level, when I am criticizing the action.

Stooping to that level would be agreeing with it. Which obviously I DO NOT.

[Agschmid]

22. Me too.

I'll stick with...

"Self delete this crap".

But hey you wanted to "retort" which is clearly more important to you.

[boston bean]

23. You want to bully me around this website?

You want to dictate to me what I can and cannot post?

If you were very concerned a pm would have been better, but no you have to publicly pronounce and DEMAND what I do here.

I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. And I won't abide by you.

[Agschmid]

26. Me a bully?

Please.

When you post crap people call you on said crap.

No personal insults came from me, I just clearly stated that the OP was crap, which it is.

Clearly my "demand" had zero effect on your actions, so no biggie.

[boston bean]

29. Clearly your demands had zero effect and I explained why.

Are you a bully? No I don't think so. But it was bully behavior.

"delete this crap" is a demand that I do something.

As a matter of fact, your demands to me, were first, not to the other this was a response to.

[Agschmid]

30. Yes.

Because I trashed that other OP as soon as I saw it, and responded to it. This shit stinks just as much as that shit... It is what it is.

Both are beneath any normal level of discussion we should be having.

I thought maybe as a Hillary supporter, and since we are currently winning this primary you'd feel "maybe I don't have to fling shit" clearly I was wrong. I know I feel like I can just ignore the bullshit, there is no point even debating some of the crap that gets posted here. They don't want to discuss they just want to disrupt.

This OP helps them do just that.

[boston bean]

34. In your opinion, which has no effect on me.

If you want me to hear you out, you ought to have pm'd me, not come on like a bull in a china shop demanding I do something.

I don't take kindly to it.

[Agschmid]

36. Seems like you heard me just fine.

You just don't care.

No biggie, just don't think people won't call you on it.

[boston bean]

37. I don't care for demands and bossing me around on a website.

I think I made that pretty clear.

[Agschmid]

38. You did. And I made it clear this OP is crap.

That's the end of it.

[boston bean]

39. And you can think what you want. What I object to again,

is your public demands I do something. You can try to control me, but you won't be able to.

You also, won't get much consideration from me regarding your opinion when done in that fashion.

That's the end of it.

[Agschmid]

44. Again it wasn't me trying to "control you"...

It's me calling out crap when I see it.

If someone on an anonymous message board can "control you" than you've got a problem.

[boston bean]

49. You demanded I delete the post.

You just didn't say you thought it was crap.

I think it is crap too. Probably for other reasons than you, but that is what it is. Which was the point.

But you don't get to control what I post. And I will feel free to point it out to you when you attempted to do so.

It aint the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last.

[Agschmid]

51. This whole "control" thing that you are doing is rediculous.

[boston bean]

53. Then don't make them.

I've asked you before, I've told you before.

[Agschmid]

55. So then are you trying to control me? Lol.

This thread... Good lord.

[boston bean]

67. Yeah, my posts asking you not to control me is controlling you.

Have a good one.

[Evergreen Emerald]

40. I don't recall you calling the eye-bugging post about Clinton crap?

Or is it only crap and shit-stirring when it is about Sanders? Perhaps you need to look in the mirror before you attack other DUers.

[Agschmid]

41. Don't bring your drama on me.

I call it crap all the time and got two hides doing so.

Now I just ignore the shit, I did post in that thread FWIW... But of course it's crap. Total crap.

[boston bean]

42. You certainly aren't ignoring this thread.

[Agschmid]

43. Nope I'm not.

I'm a Hillary supporter and I hate to see us sink to this level, it's bunk.

We are ahead in almost every poll, there is not reason for us to have to post this kind of post. The only reason would be to stir shit (or retort) which you actually admitted to... So... There you have it.

Plus I'm sure you like the kicks.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. But you sure are ignoring all the righteous criticism coming your way. Good for you!!!!!

Makes your candidate look strong and bold!!!!!!

[boston bean]

52. And your candidate looks like what in the other thread?

You see, the difference here is, is that this thread is making a point about the other, which came first.

I think pointing out this shit takes some measure of strength. You on the other hand assume strength to be just taking it lying down.

Whatever floats your boat.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. This thread makes a point about the person who made it. So does the other one.

You are perpetually insulting but you still have not addressed a single thing I have said to you in this thread. In THIS thread. Your thread.

[boston bean]

61. I have addressed everything single thing you have said to me.

That you don't want to acknowledge what is being said, isn't my problem.

[Agschmid]

77. So it's just distuptive meta then?

[boston bean]

81. In your mind maybe. In mine, it is a response to something that

was posted here as a response.

[Agschmid]

83. Yah typically most people do that by replying in the thread.

Pretty much the definition of disruptive meta.

[boston bean]

84. Again, in your eyes. I didn't know a response to another thread

was meta?

But go for it and try to get it locked up if that floats your boat. There are processes in place for that sort of thing.

However, I think you would be wrong.

[Evergreen Emerald]

65. Chuckle

The complete lack of self-awareness cracks me up.

[boston bean]

14. go make your voice known here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251779704

[RiverLover]

16. Ah.

Will self-delete these pics.

This is getting ridiculous.

[Agschmid]

20. Yes it is.

Thanks.

[Agschmid]

15. You should also self delete this crap.

Glad we are having such a thoughtful discussion this morning.

You guys enjoying recess?

[ucrdem]

17. Results of your Jury Service

Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:06 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Since the new standard for evaluating Presidential candidates is "eye bugging"!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251780747

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Meta callout of another thread. Both threads are rediculous and over the top, both are disruptive and serve no purpose except to anger supporters of another candidate. This OP is also a callout of another OP due to the direct link to the other post. Pleas hide this OP.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:18 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I say leave it and let us us post the many many many horrible pics of Hillary that are available.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Either we all work together to fix GDP or we accept the present tenor. I will vote to keep posts like this until I see a significant change in what people are posting.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: More flamebait...no useful purpose to this sort of thing.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It doesn't call out a DUer, like most of copy-cat threads, and most don't get locked or hidden, not that that matters. IOW it doesn't violate CS and doesn't merit a hide.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Just...why? This meta shit is galling. I mean c'mon the absolute lack of class being shown by members of this site on both sides of this primary is disgusting beyond belief. GD-P truly is the rectum of DU.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[boston bean]

18. For some speaking about the real attack on a Democrat is worse

than the one doing it.

I hope whoever alerted on this feels mighty high and proud that they feel they have "risen" above with an alert to silence a defense to the low-brow, rude post about a democrat.

[ucrdem]

21. Yep.

Sauce for the goose ...

[MattSh]

19. Time to trash this thread....

[Bluenorthwest]

24. I think many of you would be happier as Republicans just for the stink of their fight.

I mean, I look at our candidates and I see three thoughtful, interesting people. But many here are dedicated to treating those dignified candidates as if they were just like that GOP clowncar. Many seem to desire intently to see all discourse reduced to venom and caricature. I think those who want to play like that are not really interested in policy and thus might be happier backing a Republican or just watching a lot of the Kardashians.

[boston bean]

25. Go post here as well, if you are so inclined:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251779704

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Feel free to link it, I have no desire to partake in this fool's banquet you lay on the table.

It's your meat, not mine, this sort of fringe tabloid bullshit. I post in your thread because you claim to know better, you claim to be 'pointing it out' but you really just doing the same thing without owning it.

Personally anyone who does not deal in policy specifics when practicing negative politics I assume to be acting from a malicious and potentially bigoted place. Some such posts aimed at Hillary are in fact sexist. Some such posts aimed at Bernie are in fact antisemitic.
I assume the worst anti Bernie and anti Hillary people to be Republicans and many of them have histories on DU that support that theory 'Reagan voters were good people' and that sort of thing.

[boston bean]

35. But you did participate.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Yeah, I spoke my mind to you. Have me arrested, Jesus. Can you manage to even try to address

what I have said to you? I have said plenty and I said it for a reason. You have, yet again, evaded actual discourse. When you steamroll over all I have said and just rant at me, that is not about policy and I've already said what I think about that.


So you refuse to converse. And that's what I am saying about the Hillary cohort vs Bernies. I criticize Bernie supporters who are nasty. Yet you won't even discuss the issues on your side.


If you don't object to this stuff, you are endorsing this stuff.

[boston bean]

47. I understand you have found it necessary to respond to me and

not the other, which was pretty bad and this one was to refute it.

You can post where you like and not where you don't like. But I'll notice who gets drumming.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. You know, you are ordering me around and yet you did not even repsond to what I said.

You are evasive, not discussing policy, refusing discourse. If you had simply responded to what I said, perhaps I'd have posted something in that thread as well. But you did not.

If you don't want to hear what people think don't make OP's on a discussion board. I think those who do this cartoonish politics are on their own side, in it for the jollies or they are Republicans.

[boston bean]

56. And the other thread was discussing policy?

I don't care where you post, but I will point out what I feel is telling about it, in having a conversation with you.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. I'm talking about YOUR thread. This is YOUR OP. You don't want to talk about your OP?

Then why did you make it? Was it just bait and not an actual invitation to discuss? It's a problem that I spoke my mind to you?

It is rude and officious for you to keep commanding me to go do your bidding in some other thread when you will not even answer direct questions about your own actions.

[boston bean]

58. And this thread is a retort to the other.

I suggest you read the other thread.

Come back here and read mine, and then read ALL of my responses here.

That might help you to understand.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. More dismissive arrogant commands. I responded to you because I used to think well of you

And because the other thread was stupid, but you declared it to be The New Standard and proceeded to do the very thing you say is so wrong.

I take issue with you because you are claiming that some silly post on DU is 'The New Standard' when it is just some silly post. Why would you do that? What is the motivation for that? For pumping up that volume?

[boston bean]

63. In your mind. You have to be able to understand the reason for it.

You don't want to acknowledge that. Pretty unfair if you ask me, but it is what it is I guess.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. You are saying 'Johnny did it first' and I think that is a bogus argument for an adult to make.

But not only is it 'Johnny did it first', you also take it upon yourself to declare Johnny to be 'the New Standard' when Johnny is just some poster who made a silly post. How is that 'The New Standard'? No, really. Is every OP on DU 'The New Standard'? That hardly seems possible. So what are the metrics you used?
This OP says you are doing this because it it the new Standard, not because some other OP bugged you. "Since the new standard for evaluating Presidential candidates is "eye bugging"!
But only you say it is the 'new standard', no one else did. You did.

I do not share your fury over some random OP. I do not however care for this hyperbolic bullshit. The new standard? In what respect, Charlie?

[boston bean]

66. No, that isn't what I am saying.

If you bothered to read my many responses, you would be able to determine the reason for my posting.

That focusing on shit to tear down a candidate in that way is low brow, rude.

If you had actually read my responses, this would be perfectly clear to you. Yet you decide to take my thread making this point to make a point that isn't relevant. Your points would be more relevant in the other thread, but whatever, you seem to be having a fine time in this one.

Point made. End of story.

[BlueMTexpat]

59. Pretty nasty thread indeed -

and not just the OP.

[Agschmid]

27. This, so much this.

[DanTex]

28. Wow, I missed that OP. The Hillary-haters are reaching new lows these days.

[Agschmid]

31. Yup.

But clearly so are we.

[NurseJackie]

45. Well, if that's the new standard …

… then perhaps my tongue-in-cheek jocular posts and needling about Bernie's "presidential" appearance and mannerisms are actually suitable as original post material.

What an easy target he becomes when everyone can make fun of his ill-fitting out-of-date thrift-store polyester wash-and-wear suits. Not to mention is all-occasion brown shoes and mis-matched black belt. And seriously now, how difficult can it be to iron a shirt after traveling between campaign stops. (Every hotel has an iron these days, and surely there must be someone on his staff who's willing to do it for him!)

And that hair! Oh my god! His hair! Does he even OWN a comb? Do they even make Vitalis or Brylcreme any more? Just a spritz of some unscented hairspray to control the fly-aways and static electricity will help. Surely he's able to gently tell his wife (without hurting her feelings) that her her kitchen-chair haircuts just aren't suitable for the campaign trail. I know they've probably gotten a lot of good use from that Flow-Bee hair cutting vacuum cleaner attachment, but it's time to for him to splurge on a $20 professional haircut that's age-appropriate and suitable for the position he seeks.

You know, if I wanted a slouching and droopy-shoulder president, I'd vote for Larry King. There's absolutely nothing about his posture that exudes confidence or strength. It just makes him look frail and that makes me wonder about his long term mental capacity. Little wonder that he's always leaning and propping himself up on the podium, at his advanced age, it's probably very tiring to have to stand for such a long period of time. Maybe it's related to his posture and he's simply trying to keep himself from toppling forward.

The grumpy old coot schtick is getting old too. This type of thing may play well to the angry base. Everyone gets fired-up when the fist shaking geezer shouts at the kids-on-the-lawn with their loud music and saggy pants and hippie hair. But on the world stage when dealing with leaders and dignitaries from around the globe, he'll be out of his league and out of place. He'll be a laughing stock worse than GWB. The finger-wagging and scolding may work in the Senate, but Putin will just laugh in his face.

And that speaking voice, horrid! Grates like fingernails on a chalkboard! Almost everything he says sounds abrupt and rude. He's like a barking yapping over-caffeinated Regis Philbin. He has all the charm of Gilbert Gottfried.

Nose hairs, ear hairs? Gag me! Unruly eyebrows? I know he's an older man and all, but COME ON! Seriously? These are just basic grooming areas that anyone in his position should know to take care of. How can we trust someone like that? If he doesn't care enough about his appearance, then how can we be sure he'll care enough to actually do the job? He's definitely not presidential material.

He's the embarrassing uncle at your Thanksgiving dinner who's only invited because everyone else has promised to not talk about politics.

Hey! This is easy! And fun!! (It's not bashing if it's true! Right?) </wink-wink>

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. Aww... you haz a mad?

[rhett o rick]

69. This is a new low. Giant unflattering photos. I am guessing you want retaliation.

If you can't compete with discussions on issues, attack, attack, attack.

On edit: I hope that Sanders supporters are classier and not retaliate. Not take your bait to split the Party.

[boston bean]

70. Yeah, I thought it was a real new low too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251779704

[rhett o rick]

71. And your response was to escalate. I don't like the other thread, but

seems like you are using the "he started it" argument.

It seems to me that some are frustrated that they can't not discuss issues, so they lash out to try to distract.

I hope you don't get your wish of an all out war and further fracture the Party.

[NurseJackie]

73. I take it as an editorial. Observation and commentary.

It's unclear to me why Bernie's followers come unhinged at this, but rejoice at similar posts when Hillary is the target.

[boston bean]

82. ayup! it's fascinating isn't it.

All the harsh condemnations here in this thread, personally taking me to task.

Yet the other, we see agreement with tripe.

[Agschmid]

88. This Hillary supporter thinks the this OP is crap.

FWIW, so is the other one.

[Adrahil]

72. You apparently missed the post this is in response to.

Direct some outrage at one of your own.

[thucythucy]

74. I understand (I think) that this is in response to another OP,

and that this OP has already generated a response to this response.

Can we all please just stop this right now? Attacks on anyone's physical appearance should be out of bounds, not to mention broad brush attacks on this or that candidate's supporters.

I can't imagine what the rest of this primary is going to be like, if we've already degenerated to snarky posts about various candidate's appearance.

[pinebox]

76. I don't give a crap because what matters is THIS

and not drama laden posts because in the end, someone's eye bugging or finger pointing or if they shout too much doesn't have ANY impact on my life and daily activities.

You know what does? Policies made by government officials.

[Agschmid]

89. Again this is a false meme...

But hey, why not post crap it seems everyone is doing it.

[pinebox]

90. No it isn't a false meme

and you and I have been through this.

When you can show me Hillary supporting gay rights in the 80s we'll talk then.
Truth is, Hillary is about as solid on positions as a sand castle is against the elements.

These aren't fake either.

[Agschmid]

91. Not fake but a blatant misrepresentation.

I expect nothing less.

Have at it, just don't expect to not be called on it.

[pinebox]

92. I disagree and I already said as much

Again when you can show me Hillary talking gay rights and supporting them in the 80s, we'll talk. Heck, she supported DOMA and DADT until recently. There isn't even a comparison between the 2 candidates when it comes to gay rights issues.

[Agschmid]

93. I never once said the factual misrepresentation was in Hillary's column.

Bernie's stand is NOT correct on the gay marriage issue.

[pinebox]

95. This is going to go no where

and we'll continue to argue on this just like before so let's just knock the stupid off because it will go no where.

[Agschmid]

97. I agree hopefully you stop posting "the stupid"

[tishaLA]

78. one dumb "eye bugging" thread isn't enough?

DU just NEEDED another?

[Scootaloo]

80. Posts like this make me wonder if Clinton followers are even old enough to drive, much less vote

[R B Garr]

85. Wow! Thats a trifecta picture! You have

your eye-bugging, your raised eyebrows and rolled eyeballs suspiciously to the corner sockets, and your finger-wagging! Ooh, and the mouth open for catching flies!!

Can this man be trusted??!!

[Ed Suspicious]

87. You're really something special.

You all keep trying to climb up on the high horse. Too bad for you it's always the wrong one.

[GoneFishin]

94. That tears it. I can't vote for Bernie. Oh, wait. Yes I can, and I will. This pathetic bullshit

is exactly in the spirit of a Third Way, win at all cost, sleazy campaign. This only reinforces what I already knew.

Go Bernie!

[ejbr]

96. True

Bush, Cheney, Carson or Trump don't have bug eyes; they would be better choices.