Sorry, but "Bernie Bros" is the relatively BENIGN term for the vile scum-buckets to whom

[Atticus]

it refers: those who disrupted the 2016 Convention; those who encouraged people to vote for Trump or Stein or to stay home on election day 2016; those who urged Hillary's defeat in order to "speed the revolution; and, those who threatened Clinton supporters with violence. IMHO, these folks were not, are not and never will be Democrats.

To be sure, these do not represent the majority of Sanders supporters, but the fact that some occupy positions of authority in his 2020 campaign is disturbing. It leaves one to wonder whether personal integrity is even considered when power is being delegated.

Fire away.

[Horizens]

1. Agree

1000%

It also refers to people who believe the BIG LIE that the 2016 primary was rigged. Often repeated, easily debunked.

[Cha]

115. +1!

[Blues Heron]

2. It never referred to that until now, with your post

I disagree with your thesis, seems like your retro-fitting the term to mean what you want.

[Codeine]

16. It's always meant that.

It’s the Bros; the loud, young, privileged suburban white boys screaming vile threats at anyone who has the audacity to support Hillary Clinton, or now supports Warren, Buttigieg, or Biden. The moniker has always been aimed at that crowd, and it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

[Blues Heron]

22. Disagree

It doesn't refer to threatening screamers - you're trying to redefine the term to fit whatever narrative your pushing. Fail.

[LanternWaste]

27. Can you support the allegation of redefining particular words with any evidence or data?

[lark]

91. Sorry, not a fail.

Bernie Bros has ALWAYS referred to the screaming, threatening, supporters who want him or the highway and were OK with electing drumpf as retribution for Democrats not picking their guy.

[DENVERPOPS]

101. Hey Lark

Couldn't agree more, don't elect our guy and we will show you any and all ways we can...........

[lark]

107. Sorry, what did you mean by "any and all ways we can......."?

It seems like you may be intending to threaten me, but if so it didn't have the intended effect because I have no idea what you are threatening? If I don't vote for Bernie - 1 - you would never know unless I tell you, 2 - if you did know, there's nothing you can do to me or to others who don't vote for him. 3 - Are you threatening to help elect drumpf, if so, you are in the wrong place.

FWIW - I won't vote for Bernie in the primary, there's others I like & trust a whole lot more. If he wins the nomination, I will vote for him and even work for his election through the FL Democratic party - ANYBODY is better than drumpf. Will you honestly say the same thing if Bernie isn't the nominee?

[DENVERPOPS]

134. Not you Lark,

Bernies tunnel visioned followers. Things like voting for anybody by Biden, Voting Green candidate, etc etc.

[DENVERPOPS]

135. Again, I miswrote or you took me wrong.

I will vote for the Dem, no matter who. I have been 100% behind voting for the most electable candidate and it ain't bernie.
We are going for broke here. Our backs are to the wall, with Democracy and our nation at stake. Have no doubt about it.......

[Squinch]

127. I totally agree with that definition. That's what they have always been.

Also, do you really think writing "fail" does anything? Because it doesn't.

[justie18]

28. Exactly!

I could not agree with you more!

[yardwork]

104. They're not all young.

[cab67]

167. I respectfully disagree.

There has always been a distinction between someone who likes Bernie Sanders and a Bernie Bro. The morons who booed speakers at the DNC were not run-of-the-mill supporters of Bernie Sanders. Neither were those who voted for Jill Stein.

[Blues Heron]

170. The whole nickname thing is used as a broad brush though

It's very childish. There's no distinction - it's used for all Bernie supporters.

[cab67]

171. I've never seen it used to describe all Bernie supporters.

I've only ever seen it in the context of those who go beyond support and verge on venerate.

I have a lot of friends who support Bernie Sanders. None is a Bernie Bro.

[Blues Heron]

174. It's used to tar his entire campaign.

Nicknames are beyond childish - they're lazy too. Please refrain, thank you.

[Quixote1818]

3. You may be right but it also alienates all Sanders supporters who feel like they are being grouped

Last edited Mon Feb 17, 2020, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)

in with them. That is not helpful in the same way you should not use sexist terms .

[MarcA]

14. +1,000 n/t

[HarlanPepper]

23. LOL

Not quite the same as a racial slur but I give you credit for the false equivalency attempt. 7/10

[Quixote1818]

48. I should have said sexist

It originated to suggest Sanders followers are only sexist men who won't support female candidates when clearly close to half if no more of his supporters are women.

[Cartoonist]

50. I'm a Bernie Bro

I voted for Hillary.

Somebody in this thread is an asshole.

[wryter2000]

54. If you voted for Hillary

You're by definition not a Bernie Bro

[mcar]

58. This!

[I_UndergroundPanther]

89. I voted for Hillary

And I like Bernie and Warren .

[cannabis_flower]

108. I voted for Hillary

After I voted for Bernie in the Texas primary.

[mitch96]

62. +1

[I_UndergroundPanther]

87. Agree

Someone is using the broad brush to smear bullshit.

[LakeArenal]

31. Racial???

[KPN]

61. You are correct, but it won't make a dent. The anti-Sanders/Sanders supporters

folks are like the pot calling the kettle.

[lark]

94. No, it's not helpful, but the behavior is atrocious.

I have more than a few pure blue Democratic friends who are Bernie supporters, but they are Democrats first and Bernie supporters 2nd. They will all vote blue, not matter who, and are decidedly not Bernie Bros. I used even wonder if most of the people who self-identify that way are really even Sanders' supporters or Repug trolls. Bernie's hiring of Nina Turner as one of his top people made me rethink that because he personally hired one of the worst of the Bros. and one who personally helped drumpf win and did everything she could to discourage people from voting for the Democratic nominee. Now, I'm not so sure what is going on, but it's still the Bernie Bros who boo and harass the other candidates - no one else's supporters do this.


Edit - fixed typo

[yardwork]

105. That's an insultingly false analogy.

Sanders supporters need to speak up if they don't agree with the behavior of their campaign's leadership, some of whom epitomize "bro" behavior.

[cab67]

169. Know what else isn't helpful?

Booing at speakers during the DNC convention.

Voting for a third-party candidate because your preferred candidate didn't get the nomination.

Claiming there's no substantive difference between the other Democratic candidates and the Republican candidates.

I don't see the label as divisive; it describes an existing division. There are a lot of people who like Bernie Sanders and plan on voting for him during the primaries, but there are also people who've crossed the line into cult land.

[gollygee]

4. Has Bernie said anything publicly telling them to stop?

Are they under the impression that they're helping him? I don't understand why they're behaving this way.

[Quixote1818]

8. Here you go

Bernie Sanders to supporters: 'I condemn bullying and harassment of any kind'
By Katie Bernard and Gregory Krieg, CNN

Updated 7:52 PM ET, Sun February 24, 2019

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/24/politics/sanders-letter-to-surrogates/index.html

[gollygee]

10. I'm very glad to see that

Thank you

[NurseJackie]

15. Ahhh... both sides.

[ehrnst]

126. Yep. That again...

[stopdiggin]

18. well, maybe this week

but it's a FACT that Sanders didn't do sh** about the awful abuses that went on at the last convention. A few words out of his mouth could have prevented a LOT of that crap from ever taking place. Crickets!

[Squinch]

145. Not this week. A year ago.

[cstanleytech]

20. Ummm that is not telling them to stop outright though.

He as well as the other Democratic candidates need to be more forceful over this problem and they all need to bluntly tell their supporters that they need to stop the attacks on fellow Democrats as this election is to important to lose fighting among ourselves as otherwise we get 4 more years of Trump.

[ehrnst]

128. February 24, ****2019*** "Both sides" need to stop?

Last edited Mon Feb 17, 2020, 10:21 PM - Edit history (1)

[ehrnst]

129. Oh look, he's also saying that it may be people 'impersonating his supporters"

Link to tweet

[Squinch]

143. A year ago. It didnt work too well.

[redstatebluegirl]

12. He has said some things, but only by saying "everyone is doing it and should stop" or something like

that. It is never strong enough to get it to slow down or stop.

[Cha]

121. he "floated" this..

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

131. That floats like an air biscuit...

... and smells like one too.

[Cha]

132. ..

[gollygee]

137. That isn't good enough

If people are doing it in his name, he needs to take some responsibility and speak to that specifically.

[Cha]

138. I know.. and yes he does! make it stop.

[ehrnst]

139. "It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds."

Has a familiar ring to it....

[Cha]

140. It doesn't "float".

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. What I don't understand

is why the Sanders supporters who are not obnoxious, nasty and divisive - the vast majority of them - don't seem to be making an effort to shut these assholes down. If Bros at a public event start booing or heckling, why don't other Sanders supporters tell them to STFU because it's reflecting badly on their candidate? Why Bernie himself hasn't done so - except by issuing a bland, all-sides-do-it statement (they don't) escapes me because his campaign is starting to become noted for assholery, which he'd think would be detracting from his message.

On DU, at least, it seems like Bernie's people (who are clearly not Bros and are probably very nice people) are either arguing that the Bros aren't real or are making excuses for them or are claiming that all of the campaigns have the same number disruptive assholes. No. They are real and the other campaigns don't have them. And there is no excuse for them. All of the candidates, whether or not you like them or agree with them, are entitled to at least a basic level of respect and courteous behavior. Get a leash on these bratty children, please.

[redstatebluegirl]

11. I have wondered this too.

I know some really nice Sanders supporters but they will not shout down the bad ones or even say anything against them.

[Mike 03]

32. Very eloquent and reasonable points.

It's head-shaking stupidity on the part of certain of his supporters.

Where is the strategic thinking?

[Sogo]

75. Russian meddling in 2016 included

infiltrating the Sanders campaign and sowing hatred and mistrust of Hillary and the DNC to the extent that they got many of Bernie's supporters to vote Stein, or Trump, or anyone but Hillary. It was part of the strategy then, and it's happening now, as well. The Bernie Bros are on a hair trigger about ANYTHING remotely critical of Bernie, but attack the other Dem candidates viciously, and they are extremely suspicious of the DNC. I live in an area with a concentration of Bernie supporters. They are fanatical in exactly these ways!

Trump sees Bernie as a pushover in a one-on-one matchup. That's why the Rs are planning to turn out for Bernie in SC.

[MineralMan]

77. How can someone further infiltrate a campaign organization that has

Jill Stein supporters in prominent positions who were hired directly by Bernie Sanders himself?

Seems to me that it is already fully infiltrated.

[Sogo]

79. Perhaps I didn't express my comment to your precision.

But I meant the same....

[Rilgin]

117. Or it could be that Bernie defenders on this site see mass hypocrisy.

My candidate this year is actually Elizabeth but I like Bernie and would happily vote for him and did in the last set of primarys. So now I have defined myself.

In answer to your question, I do not see many Bernie defenders attacking other candidates on DU but defending Bernie against mass attacks every day. Why the attacks? Mostly cause the make up of DU is a little more establishment/Centrist than the outside world as can be seen by candidate support on DU vs polling outside.

I have no doubts that there are bad feelings and reactive supporters of Bernie. Bernie supporters tend to think the American economic, social, and political system needs immediate and systematic change and that can lead to emotional responses. However, it is not unique to people in this country supporting Bernie although its possible that it is more prevalent in people who think the system is screwing them. However, Bernie supporters are labeled derogatory every day and for years as unicorn hunters, living in unreality, sexists and the list goes on and on.

Now for hypocrisy, the same people asking for Bernie to somehow "control" attacks against their candidates or supporters do not somehow "control" or ask their own candidates supporters to control the vitriol against Bernie on DU. Think about it, look though the threads. There is a very vocal crew on DU posting thousands of posts a day attacking Bernie and his supporters, labeling them Bernie Bros and other names. These specific posters rarely and I mean very rarely if ever post detailed positive things about their own candidates although they will claim that their candidate is being attacked unfairly (kind of like Bernie Supporters) and claiming that their candidate is the most electable claiming polls when it favors their candidate and dismissing them if the poll doesnt (although they will also allow other candidates other than Bernie to be electable).

One of the prominent attacks is a negative one: Bernie is not doing enough to control his surrogates and supporters. If you think Bernie can control people, you should believe that other candidates should and more importantly can control or prevent these daily relentless attacks on Bernie and Bernie Supporters on DU. Some of the attacks are highly specious including misrepresenting statements or ignoring statements that Bernie has made or claiming that Bernie never campaigned for Hillary in 2016. However, rarely do I see DU posters asking their own candidates to control their own bad actors other than Bernies. Attacking daily and relentlessly Bernie and Bernie Supporters while claiming that Bernie and Bernie Supporters are not doing anything to control people attacking others is a big hypocritical circle.

Personally, I am glad that I hope to live in a world where Candidates can not control their followers. I wish I or any candidate could waive a magic wand and have attacks stop between candidates and groups of supporters without controlling what they think. However, I am realistic and know that is not possible. Every single supporter of every single candidate has reasons right now why their choice is the right one and everyone else is making the wrong choice. I have heard Bernie make unifying Statements. I watched Bernie campaign for our candidate in the last election. I saw him say "We must elect Hillary Clinton" at the Convention. Although ignored, these are exactly what is asked of him. What he does not do is claim to control others. I am glad of that.

I support who I support and have made a vow not to attack any other candidate this year even though I certainly have my own opinions both affirmatively and by default in my choice of which candidates appeal to me. And I resent some of the attacks being thrown in my direction directly and by association. However, I don't blame the candidates or other people for attacks made by a specific person. And I find it hypocritical that people who claim Bernie and every individual Bernie supporter has the responsibility to and could waive that magic wand or should do some other unspecified action to control other individuals. If you think I have a responsibility as one who does support Bernie to control others (even though I would not have a clue how to accomplish it), please give yourself the same responsibility with respect to the DU attackers of Bernie and his supporters.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

133. That's a lot to unpack but I'll try.

First, criticizing and attacking are two very different things. DU's TOS prohibits the kind of attacks that I've been talking about. As to the candidates themselves, DU members are not allowed to post "disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s)." https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice We are also not permitted to post divisive attacks against groups or personal attacks against other members. Such posts will be alerted on and most likely removed. On DU we are policing the behavior of our members. However, we can post critical comments; this is, after all, a political message board. If you consider what you see here to be vitriol you're not getting out much.

What has been happening in the real world and on-line outside of DU (mainly Twitter, but to some extent on Facebook and elsewhere) is something altogether different, and it seems to be almost entirely the work of Sanders supporters. There are many documented instances of Sanders supporters disrupting events IRL, booing and catcalling whenever the name of other candidates (including Warren, but also Biden, Buttigieg, etc.), former candidates (Hillary), and other prominent Democrats (Pelosi, even Obama) are mentioned because apparently these politicians are part of the dreaded "establishment" that they oppose even more than they oppose Trump. What Sanders supporters did at the 2016 DNC convention is very-well documented. On-line, Sanders supporters have been doxxing and harassing posters, who express anything negative about Sanders. If the poster is female the words "bitch" and "c*nt" will often be used. Ask anyone who frequents Twitter and posts something critical about Sanders. This is not made-up. And supporters of other candidates are not doing these things, or if they are, it's not happening often enough for the mainstream media to take notice and publish news articles and editorials about it, as they have re: Sanders' people.

Obviously these are a small minority of the totality of Sanders' support but they are loud and obnoxious and occasionally frightening. Anyone should be able to go online and post a critical remark without fear of personal attacks, doxxing or stalking. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior no matter how strongly someone might feel about the injustices they think Bernie is able to cure. There is no excuse for booing Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar or Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi, all of whom have devoted their lives to public service and deserve respect for that even if you don't agree with them. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone attending an event who witnesses this kind of behavior to step in and say, "Hey, cut it out!" (at least if they're not afraid of further harassment by the offending person, which could be a problem). Zeal and enthusiasm are not excuses for bullying behavior. I don't get why Sanders' more civilized supporters - the vast majority of them - can't seem to see that the so-called "bros" reflect very poorly on their candidate and on them. Wouldn't that be at least a little incentive to speak up about it and say "Those people do not represent me or the Sanders campaign" instead of trying to justify it by arguing that they are just enthusiastic about Bernie's wonderfulness, or by claiming it doesn't happen?

Bernie and his supporters are not being attacked on DU because it's not allowed. Fair criticism is allowed, and all of the candidates are getting plenty of it in equal measure. Pointing out the reality of some Sanders supporters' bad behavior is not an attack but an observation coupled with the question of why anybody could possibly think it's OK, because it's not.

Aaaand just now, after a couple of guys got into a fight at a Sanders rally:

“He had a problem with the shirt I was wearing,” this man said. “I was recording the event, he walks up and calls me a racist. But I thought, ‘What’s he know about black lives, about discrimination, or, for that matter, the representation of the shirt.'”

Throughout American history, the man continued, “Black people and their ability to own firearms has historically been very restricted. The shirt I got from a conceal-carry class.”

He said he agrees with Sanders on a number of policies but definitely not on gun ownership.

“I think it’s really a sad thing at a Bernie rally, when someone has a difference of opinion, that someone would be treated like that. I thought it really would be a lot more inclusive than that. It’s not a safe place to express differences. I would expect that sort of thing at a Trump rally.”

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/02/17/video-fight-bernie-sanders-rally-denver/

QED.

[Rilgin]

149. Thank You. Will try to continue with the same civility and with actual substance.

Absolutely, there are bad actors in the world. Unfortunately, there are many who are not really capable of being controlled by civil norms. I live in the Bay Area, some demonstrations have ended up violent unfortunately despite efforts of the organizers. Bad actors are not controllable and an attack saying they can be is by itself somewhat inauthentic.

On the internet, I truly wish there was a way emotional people would refrain from attacking others they do not know and it is probably exaggerated by the anonymous nature of the internet. However I do not actually think its possible to stop these particular people. And they are a small group who go over the top.

Now to DU and please forgive me for adding specifics. I will try not to refight the battle but use it to illustrate that reactions are understandable.

On DU, someone posted an article by Martin OMailly calling Bernie a con man who is conning his supporters. That was the language used. Yesterday, a video was misrepresented that claimed that Bernie had claimed to prefer communist Russia to our system. It was only necessary to listen to the whole video rather than a clip pulled out of context to understand it was a misrepresentation. Both posts were followed by multiple DUers with many posts attacking Bernie including the usual attacks plus others. Is this not the same thing as a group of Bernie followers booing the name of another candidate.

One attack on Bernie is talking about John Lewis and an allegation that people booed him at the convention. I don't approve of booing anyone in fact my current policy is don't attack any of our candidates. However, the John Lewis anger did not come in a vacuum. Before the South Carolina primary in 2016 he gave a press conference solely for the purpose of denying Bernie's actual history followed by the actions of Jonathon Capehart to deny that a picture of Bernie leading a civil rights sit-in was actually Bernie despite the response of the reasonably famous photographer that took the picture. There were campaign attacks and not fair. Should John Lewis be booed. No. No. No. But it did not come in a vacuum.

I am a 62 year old democrat (my birthday is in 2 hours). I have a wife, 2 daughters, 2 women senators, 1 woman representative (Nancy Pelosi) and have worked for my local female representative. Yet I have been called misogynist, sexist, just a Bernie bros in the last primary because I discussed specific problems I had with one candidate. 2016 put a tear in the Democratic Party which is mostly the reason I support Elizabeth this year rather than Bernie although will support Bernie if Elizabeth fails. I think the constant hatred against Bernie for actually running in 2016 and doing well persists in the Democratic Party among one group that now constantly bashes him for breathing. The hatred is undeserved but its there. I find it similar to the undeserved hatred for Hillary in parts of the Democratic and Republican Parties. It does not matter that in New Hampshire the first thing he does is congratulate his opponents. It does not matter that he campaigned for Hillary after the Primary and made a speech at the convention saying what any other candidate says when endorsing a candidate they ran against.

The attacks on Bernie have affects on people who like him because they are not policy discussions nor even civil and ignore any responsibility for the fact that attacks on a group usually create negative feelings and emotions and counter attacks. It does not matter what is first. There is a both sides problem going on in DU. Again, all you have to do is look at the threads. Few attacks on other candidates or supporters, mostly defense against pretty bad attacks and bringing up single incidents involving people who probably are not on DU and insisting that Bernie and Bernie Supporters are in the wrong because they don't stop these other people they don't know or have any power to stop.

It really would be better if the circular firing squad Stopped Now. Bernie is a fine candidate. He has his weaknesses like every other candidate but has strengths as well. Since he may in fact be our candidate against Trump it might be good to refrain from attacking his supporters especially with good arguments but specious points that just serve to inflame peoples emotions. In particular, pretending that the establishment of the Democratic Party has not actually tried to work against him for years while also claiming that Bernie Bros are instigating divisions is problematic. Both are true, the establishment clearly wants another candidate and does political hits through politicos and the media on Bernie and Bernie's followers attack the establishment for attacking them and want them out. I hope that it ends when the primary season is over but claiming that the problem is solely in the Bernie camp solely creates more divisions.

[McKim]

165. Excellent Comment

This is an excellent comment and one of the best things I have read at DU on this topic. We should etch this in stone and go one from here. We have no energy to waste in a circular firing squad. I support Warren and Sanders and I find this post refreshing and honest.

[juliuswest]

142. This deserves its own thread and the response..

I do not see many Bernie defenders attacking other candidates on DU but defending Bernie against mass attacks every day. Why the attacks? Mostly cause the make up of DU is a little more establishment/Centrist than the outside world as can be seen by candidate support on DU vs polling outside.

This is DU in a nutshell.

[radius777]

150. Doxxing, threatening, bullying, etc that we

see from a vocal contingent of Sanders supporters (and not from any other Dem candidate) on social media and IRL - is far different from normal political disagreement - but something darker and uglier.

DU is a moderated site for Dems, and most Dems do not support Sanders - thus that sentiment is accurately reflected here.

Social media (which is a sewer because it is mostly unmoderated) is dominated by Berners and Trumpers - and as a platform is highly unrepresentative of what American voters think, who tend to be far more moderate and mild mannered.

[Rilgin]

152. Did I doxx or Bully you. Have you seen that happen here?

You say DU is a moderated site for Dems and most Dems do not Support Sanders. You imply by that that democrats who do support Sanders are not true democrats.

You are bullying right now by tarring by association the majority of civil democrats who support Sanders policies and support Sanders by associating them with a group that acts outside the norms of convention. It is not the case that doxxng is a policy of Sanders nor of any Sanders supporters that I know. It is worth condemning. Doxxing and physical or mental assaults' are performed by small groups outside the norm. Further, they are their own people and not controllable by anyone. People who go as far as doxing are acting out in ways that are not controllable.

Associating a candidate with a group he can not control is buillying and divisive in a different and very real way. You are just defining to insignificance what should be appropriate. Calling Biden not electable is unacceptable is a bad opinion by the Bernie Bros. Calling Bernie unelectable is a "fact". Calling people Bernie Bros if they support Sanders is bullying although different than what Sanders supporters say about centrists however it is still offensive. Then you go further and claim that Bernie supporters are like Trumpers. This too is extremely offensive and an attack.

So control yourself. I cant control you and obviously your candidate of choice can not control you from calling Democrats of equal standing to you Trumpers. Attacks are not only coming from Bernie Supporters. You are engaging in an attack right now that should be outside the pale right now. I am a 62 year old democrat, have not missed a vote and you are mixing me with a group of people who dox and with Trump supporters. Hopefully you can see it.

You make assertions as fact that are opinions on your forays into the internet. In fact, I have met and communicated with extremely rude supporters of other candidates as well as some dogmatic Bernie supporters. Primaries bring out emotions and emotional people attack. Your fallacy in this is you do not want to see it from supporters of other candidates. This site and plenty of other internet sites are filled with Bernie people but they are also full of people who respond to any mention of Bernie by attacking. Some with policies but many with inauthentic swarming attacks. These attacks can not be acceptable just cause its on Bernie.

Last, the one opinion you make that is not an attack is claiming that the electorate is moderate compared to the internet. This is an opinion and it might be better to ground it as an opinion rather than an assertion of fact. However, I will argue against your opinion by giving you my opinion without stating, without evidence, that it is fact.

However, it ispretty clear from general issue polling that your claim is debatable. My feeling is that the potential electorate is much more radical and demanding of systematic changes in income equality, upward mobility, and racial justice than is explained by saying our country is moderate. I think the majority of people in this country support in every poll extremely liberal policies favored by candidates like Bernie but do not vote because the Moderate candidates make it clear that they are not for any real change in those areas. Bernie may not make win the Primaries but he is not deserving of the attacks on him and his supporters that we face and NO OTHER CANDIDATE OR SUPPORTER FACES. If you ignore those attacks sure, only Bernie supporters are out in the world in the internet responding to each other. That is my opinion.

[nobuddy]

168. It's just Bernie Bros

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOieaGhgmp-BFkEGXBTz8SaigFHjpCczlM2_UEP7nz0dDt6_lfZ6NWBlEBhThp79g?key=YTdLbmpoa00wcExHZFI2OElKMENWTWg4ZTJMX1ZB

[Rilgin]

187. Thank You.

I appreciate that you support Bloomberg and at the same time provided that link showing similar beyond the pale comments directed at Bernie and Bernie supporters.

Hopefully, primary season will start winding down and we will have more clarification on who our candidate will be soon and we can try to unite behind him or her.

[radius777]

189. False-equivalency/both-siderism.

All camps have some bad apples, but with Bernie and Trump they are defined (especially on social media) by often aggressive and sometimes unethical tactics to humiliate and silence opposition - especially to silence the regular middle of the road voter who doesn't want to deal with such vitriol - it drives them out of the space - allowing privileged bros/bro-types to own the national conversation.

Also, that link violates the TOS as it is not a reputable/secure source but is some google photos site that some anonymous person setup... and thus is an example of such bro behavior, not a refutation of it.

[Rilgin]

190. Is this definition from the Webster Dictionary or Random House?

I think you pulled that definition out of thin air. What you think of others is an opinion not a definition. The problem with your post, is that other people have different opinions based on what they see on the internet as well. In 2016, it was constant attacks of sexism. This primary it is other attacks. The constant is dismissing supporters as less than thinking people supporting who they want to support for valid reasons.

And yes, People who do not want Bernie to be the candidate, think bad things and post negative things about Bernie and his supporters some of which go totally over the line. And its annoying and offensive because it is negative campaigning from democrats against other democrats. On this site, you are right, there is no both sideism. There is only one side, constant attacks on Bernie Sanders and Bernie's supporters. So I not only disagree with your definition (meaning opinion) in that it is my opinion that the Bernie and his supporters are actually the main target of unethical attacks even though different than attacks by Bernie supporters on other candidates. And I can think a lot of the negative aspects of primaries and elections and politics are true at the same time. Emotional people strike out, the establishment is attacking Bernie, Bernie Supporters are being attacked by association, and yes, Bernie supporters can be emotional and strike out as well. And I can recognize the difference between attacks of progressive attacking the current established political powers and the attacks of the current established political powers and even the attacks of moderates.

Look at this very thread. I know what my point is. My point is to post positives about your own preferred candidate, not negatives about others. Unify, don't attack other candidates because it is bad strategy for beating Trump. Campaign and give reasons why your candidate is the right candidate without calling other democrats gullible or sexist or unicorn hunters or "Bros" like you have. Positive campaigning leads to unity and not to bad feelings from constantly being attacked for your support of a candidate you want for president.

What is your goal here? Your goal is negative. What could possibly satisfy you here. Should people who have reasons to support someone they like crawl across the floor on broken glass to repent their support to declare that their candidate is the worst candidate that every lived in the history of the country. Do you want me or others to acknowledge that we failed to stop some person that we dont know from posting something offensive on the anonymous internet. How exactly are we or Bernie expected to stop people who are not them and are anonymous. Are you responsible for all the specious and vitriolic posts against Bernie which exist in the internet and in groups. And to be clear, Bernie constantly speaks out against bullying. I just listened to one on MSNBC just as I finished this. One of the specious attacks is to ignore it claiming he never does anything or to attack the way he condemns bullying people. This is only available if one chooses to be selective about ones knowledge of the world and is a particularly nasty argument tactic of one is trying to actually discuss candidates.

Now, I have told you my purpose in posting. Dont attack other democrats in the primaries. Campaign positively. What purpose does your post do? It is all negative. Your only purpose is to overwhelm so you can win a debate. My goal is the opposite, unify by supporting who you support without tearing down other people. So refrain from attacking in response to prove that in fact Bernie Supporters post 67.3% of the highly vitriolic posts vs 33.7% for other characters. Why don't you instead, post what you like about your candidate without any reference to a candidate I like

[ehrnst]

123. Yes, I agree. Even a "I don't approve of (specific behavior), don't do it my name."

seems to be too difficult...

"I decry bullying in general" and "both sides are doing it" is weak tea.

[Cha]

191. that would be a good start.

[MineralMan]

6. I don't use the term "BernieBros."

I might have a time or two, but it's not something I normally say.

I don't have a catch-all term for Sanders supporters. They're a mixed bag. Some, like the supporters and delegates at the 2016 convention who booed John Lewis, for example, have nothing but my contempt. Others seem like normal people who prefer Sanders as a candidate. I try to wait and see how people behave before judging them, like my mother taught me.

I still remember watching that ugly performance at the convention, though. Senator Sanders didn't do anything to get them to stop, either. They booed Hillary Clinton, too. What a shameful performance. I'm not sure why Bernie Sanders just ignores behavior like that, but that's his business, I suppose.

[LakeArenal]

34. Oh I think it's our business to know why he doesn't condemn them.

[MineralMan]

76. Why is probably because he doesn't object to their tactics,

I think. He makes general statements about civility, but doesn't rebuke his own supporters when they are extremely uncivil. Frankly, I cannot think of a more objectionable thing than booing John Lewis at the convention, but they did it and Sanders stayed silent.

No, thank you very much, sir. No. I can't countenance that.

[grossproffit]

7. I'll never forget his supporters booing Hillary's name after he lost California. He let them go on..

and on and on.

[ehrnst]

130. And when they chanted "lock her up!" in Philadelphia at a rally...

[stonecutter357]

9. K&R

[Lunabell]

13. They aren't Democrats.

I'm not leaving the party, I'm trying to move it in a more progressive direction. To our FDR roots.

[wyldwolf]

24. our FDR roots aren't what *some* imagine it is. "Progressives" despised FDR

[HarlanPepper]

26. Most trumpeting his name today couldn't pick him out of a photo lineup if their lives depended on it

[denem]

42. Given that the word "progressive" had a well understood meaning in the 30/40s,

'"Progressives" despised FDR' is factually incorrect, unless the word can mean whatever caricature that takes your fancy.

[wyldwolf]

47. would you prefer "far left," "socialists," "further-left liberals?" How about...

.. the ideological forebearers of Bernie Sanders?

Take your pick. They didn't care for FDR.

[denem]

49. the word 'communist' comes to mind

[wyldwolf]

52. not to mine

Huey Long, William Lemke, John Flynn, John Dewey, Charles A. Beard... the Bernies of their day... despised FDR and the New Deal.

Cool video. Adds nothing to the discussion.

[denem]

57. The communist party and fellow travelers opposed FDR yes?

Would you like to identify left opposition to FDR that was not Marxist? I could look it up, but no doubt you have it to hand.

[wyldwolf]

64. is "fellow travelers" your 'out' phrase?

Huey Long, William Lemke, John Flynn, John Dewey, Charles A. Beard, Ernest Gruening... the Bernies of their day...

[denem]

68. Oh come on - 'fellow travelers' is also a well understood term

- Marxists who did not accept the authority of Joseph Stalin / Central Committee.

[wyldwolf]

70. sure, and none I listed would fit under that term...

... but they were all "progressives," or liberal with a far leftward bend. And they all felt FDR was a sellout.

[denem]

74. Huey Long "Share the Wealth" fits.

The others, not so much. Lemke was a Republican, Beard an Isolationist. You can can say what you like about Ted Kennedy, but he was neither a Republican nor an isolationist.

[wyldwolf]

78. Conservatives called it communism, communists disagreed.

RE: Huey Long:

Long's program, however, diverged significantly from Marxist communism. In particular, the Share Our Wealth program preserved the concept of private property and also sought to avoid any need for violent revolution. When asked whether his plan was communist, Long replied: "Communism? Hell no! ... This plan is the only defense this country's got against communism."

Although conservatives labeled Long as a communist, bona fide American communists also sought to distance themselves from his project. They thought his project both preserved the capitalist enterprise and also was diverting interest away from their own party. Some of Long's fiercest critics were prominent American communists, such as Sender Garlin and Alexander Bittelman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long#Communism

Lemke was a populist who ran as a third party candidate - not as a Republican - against Roosevelt in 1936 because of his distrust of wall street bankers.

Beard an Isolationist

... and?

You can can say what you like about Ted Kennedy, but he was neither a Republican nor an isolationist.

So?

Ernest Gruening, editor of The Nation?

William Harlan Hale?

Senator Burton K. Wheeler?

Henry Wallace?

Certainly you don't believe these were all "communists and fellow travelers" and not "progressives."

[denem]

85. Few of the figures you list fit the bill as 'the far-left who despised FDR'.

The left opposition to FDR was predominately Marxist.

Yes, Huey Long certainly does - he was the 'Bernie Sanders of his day'. The isolationists were neither left nor right - there were more isolationists in the GOP. Ernest Gruening was a New Deal Democrat who broke with the party over Vietnam. Henry Wallace LOL - he was FDR's VP.

[wyldwolf]

99. dueling quotes:

Denem: - The left opposition to FDR was predominately Marxist.

Huey Long (not a Marxist): - "I don’t like you and your goddamned banker friends!" the administration is "dominated by the same old clique of bankers who had controlled Hoover." "... "Not a single thin dime of concentrated, bloated, pompous wealth massed in the hands of a few people has been raked down to relieve the masses."

North Dakota Congressman William Lemke (who would run as a third party candidate against Roosevelt in 1936 - not a Marxist) - "The President drove the money changers out of the Capitol on March 4th and they were all back on the 9th."

John Flynn, a financial reporter (not a Marxist) - "Mr. Roosevelt up to now," Flynn wrote," has been using the rich resources of his political talents to preserve the capitalist system intact and he has insisted in every possible way any attempt to make any breaches in the shaky walls of that system."

John Dewey (not a Marxist) - "while the Roosevelt effort showed a commendable bias toward a 'controlled and humanized capitalism' as against the brutality of laissez-faire, the necessary conclusion seems to be that no such compromise with a decaying system is possible."

The New Republic (not a Marxist magazine) - "Either the nation must put up with the confusions and miseries of an essentially unregulated capitalism, or it must prepare to supersede capitalism with socialist. There is no longer a middle course."

Bruce Bliven (of the New Republic, not a Marxist) - liberals are 'a sad lot, shivering in the wintry wind...They believe that the President has let them down badly. I do not think that anything he might now do could restore their confidence in him...Francis Brown summed up the predominant impression for the New York Times. The New Dealers, he reported, 'have little faith in either the President or his chief assistants.'"

Charles Beard (not a Marxist) - "Banks have not been nationalized, nor the railways taken over by the Government. Not a single instrumentality of economic power has been wrested" from the party of big business."

Ernest Gruening, editor of The Nation (not a Marxist) - "Our information from Washington is of terrific confusion, with the money changers whom Mr. Roosevelt drove out of the temples in his inaugural congregating in the White House and telling him what to do."

Senator Burton K. Wheeler (not a Marxist) - "the President, for all his fine talk, really preferred conservatives to progressives."

[HarlanPepper]

25. Internment camps?

[LanternWaste]

30. Reductio ad absurdum.

Logical fallacies: the favorite tool of the most irrational of thoughts.

[LakeArenal]

35. Move it to beat trump. Not other candidates or their supporters.

[MineralMan]

80. There is nothing absurd about the Japanese internment camps.

Nothing absurd about what happened to US citizens of Japanese ancestry. A college friend of mine was born in the Manzanar camp during WWII. After their release, her father committed suicide, because everything the family had was gone - stolen by others. My friend never would or never can forgive FDR for that travesty of justice. She shouldn't be asked to forgive or forget what happened there.

Don't minimize it. It happened. It was a horrendous breach of the civil rights of US Citizens. And FDR did it. He is not a godly figure in our history.

[ehrnst]

144. FDR disavowed that any of his policies were socialism in any way shape or form...

[LudwigPastorius]

17. Yep.

[wyldwolf]

19. "To be sure, these do not represent the majority of Sanders supporters"

I'm not so sure about that. The majority of Sanders supporters may not be engaging in that kind of behavior, but a shit ton are applauding it, excusing it, and justifying it.

[LakeArenal]

38. More than those saying no smears of Democrats.

[dalton99a]

21. Shit. They are on his staff

They are running his campaign

[Historic NY]

33. +1

[justie18]

37. Yes!

I clearly remember Nina Turner's role during the 2016 convention. And Bernie's attitude during the convention. Hard to forget.

[LakeArenal]

39. Exactly.

[krissey]

29. Creating a gauntlet for rally goers to walk still pisses me off.

[link:|

[MH1]

136. The guy on the right holding the sign could be a Trumper.

What an ugly expression.

[Mike 03]

36. Respectfully, I agree 100% with this post.

Thank you.

[Dirtdude]

40. Putin punks.

I, nor anyone else, can be sure that there isn’t an element of outside agitation disguised as Sanders supporters to divide us. I will play it safe and not disparage Bernie supporters because a pile on will surely drive than away from the eventual nominee if it’s not Sanders.

[Warpy]

41. Um, remember "Hillbots" in 2008?

Remember PUMA? You know, that organization created by the GOP to welcome Hillary's sore loser squad. Some of them fell for it, too. Guess nobody remembers that, either.

There are sore losers in every election cycle. Call them what they are, sore losers and soreheads will have to do until we can figure something better out to describe thwarted personality cultists who live on spite.

One personality cult isn't any better than another.

The whole Bernie Bro thing was started by trollbots on Farcebook and Twitter.

[CentralMass]

43. This shit us getting old. Et tu Atticus. Your Bernie hatred earns you a spot on my full ignore list.

[Atticus]

83. Well, bless your heart! You won't see this, of course, since you have me on ignore, but

for those who ARE reading, the above post is an example of knee-jerk Bernie worship. I do NOT hate Bernie and nothing in my OP cane fairly read as indicating that. But, he is not my choice in the primary and I have concerns about him which I THOUGHT it was ok to express here. Sadly, the fact that I dared not to voice full-throated approval of his elevation of the likes of Turner and Sirota to his inner circle gets me ignored.

This sort of unthinking "enthusiasm" is what got Trump elected.

OF COURSE I will vote for Bernie and work to get him elected if he is our nominee.

[Stuart G]

44. If Bernie cannot stop his people from harrassing others, Bernie is no leader. Plain and simple.

A strong leader would have these people under control right away. Bernie does not qualify, and since this is still going on, it shows he doesn't care about what has happened. If he cared, and getting rid of these people would provide another million dollars to his campaign, then we would see none of this. No matter if he cares or not, it clearly is not a top priority to stop this.

Ok, think about this: If all that we are talking about happened when Obama was running for the Presidency, (in Obama's favor, against those who were against him in the Democratic Party ) would Obama have done everything that could be done to stop this?...Think about that for a while..

And I will support Bernie if he is our nominee, whether this continues or not. And I will contribute financially to Bernie's campaign if he is our nominee.

[Rilgin]

120. Thank God that our Leaders do not have the control that you seem to demand

Think about what you just wrote. I hope that we live in a country where we can make up our own minds and have our own opinions and yes our own actions and are not a country where a leader sets our agenda and everyone follows that persons control.

And in fact that is what we are fighting. Republican leaders do control the members of their party so much so that they bend over backwards over every Trump tweet and action. Do you really want our candidates to have the control that your post seems to imply.

Now lets get specific. Name something specific that you think a candidate can do to "control" the uncontrollable elements in the American electorate. I am willing to listen to an answer. Guessing ahead, I assume that you will not advocate shooting wayward supporters. Do you think that candidates should implant diodes in peoples brains? Just exactly would Obama be able to do with his more aggressive supporters (and many existed like they do in every campaign)? Please be specific.

[ehrnst]

122. How about a "This is unacceptable. Do not do this in my name."

Is that too much to ask?

Whenever one of these incidents happens, which seems to be getting more often.

[Rilgin]

124. OK

Ernst, don't do that, I don't approve. You post thousands of posts a day attacking one candidate and all his supporters relentless. Don't do that, I don't approve!.

Somehow I don't think it will work but I could be wrong.

[ehrnst]

125. "Thousands of post a day attacking one candidate and all his supporters..."

This is better than a monologue from a Tennessee Williams play...

Is there a best performance in a drama award for discussion boards? Why was I not told about this?



Goodness, I'd say you were obsessed with me...

Sorry, hon, I'm happily married.



BTW... Sanders is clearly trying to avoid admitting that they're his supporters. You left that out....

Link to tweet

[Rilgin]

147. Guess I was right.

Asking you to stop attacking people didn't work. Honestly, you are giving yourself too much credit thinking anyone would follow you but your name is pretty obvious when you are on every primary thread I have looked at in the last few weeks attacking relentlessly sometimes with points but often in pure bad faith.

My candidate this year is actually Elizabeth. I do not think she would approve of your tactics but I don't know her personally.

Good luck to you.

[ehrnst]

148. Look in a mirror, Hon.

"Pure bad faith..."

[Paladin]

45. Couldn't agree with you more, Atticus.

If Bernie prevails, we're handing trump a second term---which will be fatal for this nation.

[McKim]

46. This is Getting Old and Unproductive

This is getting old and unproductive. I am a 74 year old retired female teacher who sends a check every month to the Warren and the Sanders campaign. I am passionate about Medicare for All after my great niece died in George because it was so expensive to visit the doctor. She had stage 4 lung cancer by the time she did and it was all over for her at 54!

I am tired of being bashed over and over again by the media echo chamber and on this site. Let’s see, I am a vitriolic, aggressive, bullying, spoiled brat, a “Bro”, Brown Shirt, traitor and you name it. At the same time I am expecting to vote Blue no Matter Who. So you want Sanders supporters to Vote Blue No Matter Who, well is this bashing encouraging them to stay with the Democratic Party?

[Atticus]

86. Please reread the OP. nt

[Mjolnir1956]

51. Bernie Loses

Bernie Bro's are vile disgusting group of fanatical bullies....Bernie embraced them in 2016 and and he's wink and nodding at them this time....The Term is accurate....

[the_sly_pig]

53. Yeah... don't care. Will vote for Dem nominee....

Doesn’t matter who it is. They are all leagues above the dotard.

[DetlefK]

55. +1

[mcar]

56. They* are foul

*not all Sanders supporters.

[LiberalArkie]

59. SO, if Sanders wins the primaries, people who support other candidates should stay home on

Election Day?

[Atticus]

88. Where in hell did you get that nonsense from my OP? nt

[Billsmile]

63. Would like to see a study done on this

In 2016 I got blocked from DU in March & unblocked in August for what I thought were issue oriented posts. Seemed unfair.

It would be nice to see a fair study done on the online behavior of the various candidate's supporters.

[KPN]

65. There's a lot of folks who are not, never will

be Democrats in my opinion too. But I wouldn’t call them vile scum-buckets.

Congratulations on taking things to a new low.

[lillypaddle]

66. You got that right. nt

[LexVegas]

67. ...

[airmid]

69. It amazes me that everyone thinks only Bernie supporters are spouting vile and disgusting things.

Here is a link showing that vile people exist among every candidate's supporters. I have no doubt some of these are trolls and bots, just like among fake Bernie supporters. But once again here we are, buying hook, line, and sinker.

[link:https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOieaGhgmp-BFkEGXBTz8SaigFHjpCczlM2_UEP7nz0dDt6_lfZ6NWBlEBhThp79g?key=YTdLbmpoa00wcExHZFI2OElKMENWTWg4ZTJMX1ZB|

[Demsrule86]

71. Nice try...all from 2016...see that is the issue...what you said isn't true... and back it up with

old and questionable stuff.

[airmid]

73. Whatever...if you bothered to look there is current stuff.

[progressoid]

82. Awww, such sweet memories.

Even saw a vile one from our old DUer, Bravenak. No wonder she's been kicked off twitter a half dozen times.

[krissey]

93. We are a Democratic Party running a primary. Sanders himself says nasty stuff about the

Democratic party and our leaders. He has been for five decades. Why wouldn't we be pissed? He hired people in his top slots that did not vote for HRC. Again, why would we think kindly of him? These are his actions, and you are telling us we are not allowed to feel negative because of choices Sanders made.

That makes no sense.

He has worked HARD to create the animosity. And no one could have done that by accident. You do not get to blame Democrats because there is animosity toward Sanders.

[Dukkha]

72. They are populist extremists

on the other side of the pendulum, but still as delusional and irrational as the Deplorables™

[BlueIdaho]

96. Exactly!

Populism is a toxic, un-democratic Methodology that goes against everything the Democratic Party stands for. You won’t find reasoned and respectful debate and discussion in the populist playbook - only the howling mob out for blood.

Not everyone who supports Senator Sanders is a populist, but it’s an organizing tactic he supports.

[Maggiemayhem]

81. Would it surprise you to know Women under 45

outnumber the men?

[D23MIURG23]

84. We'll never win elections without building coalitions.

And you don't build coalitions by denigrating people who might be willing to support your party or one of it's candidates.

You can think whatever you want about Bernie and his supporters. Personally he isn't my first choice either, and I don't approve of how he and his supporters behaved in the aftermath of the last primary season. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to call them scum-buckets and make them into an enemy.

Study the historical meaning of the word "ally". In World War 2 the US was allied to the Soviet Union under Stalin, because he also wanted to defeat Hitler. Does that mean we had a lot in common with the values and methods of Stalin? No. We had a strategic common purpose with Stalin which made some level of cooperation beneficial. That's how military and political campaigns actually get won, which means we need to refrain from demanding political orthodoxy or party membership from people who might vote for our candidate in November. If we start doing purity tests we are finished, and what people "are not and never will be Democrats" will be a decidedly moot fucking point as cheetolini continues to dismantle the basic structures that make our elections relevant.

[Atticus]

95. Totally disagree with your premise. The people who I described as "Bernie Bros" are not at

all representative of most Sanders supporters. To put a finer point on it, I think "Bernie Bros" are the left's moral equivalent of Trump's base and I have no interest at all in recruiting them as "allies".

[redstatebluegirl]

103. Yes, this is how I feel.

[D23MIURG23]

110. You evidently don't understand my premise.

I didn't say or imply that the people you are calling "Bernie Bros" are representative of Sanders' supporters. The proportion of Bernie's supporters who are "Bernie Bros" is irrelevant, provided it is a non-zero number.

The actual point is that we are going to win the election by getting a certain number of votes for the Democratic nominee in the right states, and in the past we've lost those states by very narrow margins. The election doesn't care about your characterization of anyone's morals. The fact is, the more people you are willing to sneer at and label as deplorable, the lower the chance that people voting for our nominee will outnumber Trump's reliable 40% of the country. When I say I want them as "allies" I mean: if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, I don't want those people to be dissuaded from voting for him in November. If you don't want that, you need to work on your strategic thinking.

[Atticus]

114. You evidently don't understand the nature of "Bernie Bros". They will most certainly vote for

Sanders if he wins the nomination. The problem is that they will also vote for Bernie if Joe or Liz or Pete or Amy win the nomination.

[uponit7771]

119. +1

[lark]

90. No fire, just agreement.

He chose the senior people on his staff and it can't be an accident they all actively discouraged voting for Hillary. He personally chose traitors to the party who helped drumpf with his win. The "why" on this hasn't been published that I've seen or heard about, and I don't understand why he's not being held accountable for his personal hires urging people to not vote for the Democrat.

[Roy Rolling]

92. Bottom Line

Thanks for reading this far down.

In 2016, bots and trolls impersonated Sanders extremists and the Bernie Bros label was created. In 2020, when bot and troll-like people became actual Sanders supporters, the inmates started running the asylum.

And sadly, the inability or approval by Senator Sanders to put a forceful end to childish, counterproductive Bernie Bros stunts reflects negatively on his grip over the campaign apparatus.

I agree with nearly 100% of what he says, but managing a herd of cats requires a different set of skills than “wise pundit”.

[Atticus]

98. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am sure it would surprise many of the other posters who

somehow have me in the "Bernie hater" club that I, too, agree with most of Bernie's goals. I just haven't heard any reasonable articulation of "and here's how we get there from here."

[snort]

97. Jackasses

[yardwork]

102. DU rec. I know one in real life and his behavior is atrocious.

[IADEMO2004]

106. Wiki agrees.

Robinson Meyer, a writer for The Atlantic, coined the term "Bernie bro" in an October 17, 2015 article[5] to describe a phenomenon in which young, white, progressive men were accused of "hectoring their friends" on Facebook to support Sanders.[6][7][8]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Bro

[MojoWrkn]

111. I agree which is why I could never support him then and

I'm questioning if I can support him now if he becomes the candidate. I was attacked mercilously during the last election cycle but now I just delete those people.

[redstatebluegirl]

141. I have deleted all of them. I will not put up with

What I did here in 2016. They just are not worth my time.

[Buzz cook]

112. How many Bernie bros are Russian?

How many nasty attacks on Clinton in 2016 came from Moscow.

It was an inexpensive effective strategy back then. Pretty sure the same is true today.

The same is true of the nastiness of any political post. Its very possible its a bot, a Russian, or someone influnced by them.

[ehrnst]

118. How many were made viral by Sanders supporters?

Were they all from Moscow too?

Were all those who reposted and shared bots?

https://www.vpr.org/post/how-russian-social-media-effort-boosted-bernie#stream/0

[joost5]

179. Valid line of inquiry. Russia PLANS to disrupt/ divide/ our Democratic majority.

They want stoke anger and resentment.

DON'T FALL FOR IT!

Together we enact our progressive agenda, divided we get Trump for another 4 fucked up years.

#VoteBlueNoMatterWho

[TheFarseer]

113. It's become a loaded term

To imply his supporters are sexist, racist, homophonic etc.

[betsuni]

116. K&R

[redstatebluegirl]

146. Lots of new people who just joined today.

Good for DU , or not....

[Vendiy]

151. Perspective

Let’s put this in perspective, Which is worse:

Online users from behind a screen being mean and posting harassing content against some democratic public figures involved in our democratic primary

Or

An actual candidate in our democratic primary who himself advocated, instituted and then defended a racist ‘stop and frisk’ policy that was mean and harassed innocent young black men in the streets.


Which of the above two is more dangerous for the future of our party?

[fleabiscuit]

153. The harassment. Can't vote them away. nt

[Vendiy]

154. LOL

Because harassing words on a computer screen is more traumatic than the harassment of innocent young black men thrown up against a wall and frisked (sarcasm)

[fleabiscuit]

155. You posted a good example. nt

[Vendiy]

156. Clarification please?

Please tell me that you aren’t suggesting my sarcastic comment is the example of harassment?

I’m hoping I just read your comment wrong and that isn’t what you meant by ‘you posted a good example’

[Squinch]

158. I'll add one: more harrassing than the thousands of unwarranted incarcerations

that resulted from the crime bill Bernie voted for?

Stop and frisk is rightly getting a lot of criticism. It was immoral and ineffective. But so was the crime bill, yet somehow Bernie's past actions are ignored.

Interesting fact: incarcerations under Bloomberg were reduced by 40%.

I'd hate to be stopped and frisked. I'd hate to be unfairly incarcerated a whole lot more.

[marble falls]

162. Losing to Trump because of stupid bickering.

[samnsara]

157. it truely did leave a bad taste in my mouth for that candidate..still does...

[AllyCat]

159. Benign term for Russian bots.

[Atticus]

160. Convenient. nt

[robbedvoter]

161. speaking of those encouraging people to vote 🍊 on Election Day

Link to tweet

[Jose Garcia]

163. Haw about Sandersnistas?

[KPN]

164. Benign my ass.

[Atticus]

172. What do you believe is an appropriate term for those described in the

OP? You surely don't want them called "Sanders supporters", do you?

[KPN]

178. Doesn't need a term. My opinion: this is counterproductive, gains zero for our party or our

chances.

My feelings about it. It's hypocritical.

Sorry, but I can't support and won't condone by ignoring your statement.

[Atticus]

182. Don't be sorry about stating your genuine opinion. I think your view is myopic and

unrealistic and I am not sorry to say that.

As mentioned before, I WILL vote for Bernie if he is our nominee and will encourage others to do so.

[KPN]

185. Okay, I won't be. And of course you do.

But I disagree. There's nothing myopic about my view. In fact, I would say it's just the opposite. As for unrealistic, what's unrealistic is the adherence to pragmatism in the face of what happened in 2016 and the record over the past almost 50 years regarding labor and middle/working class Americans' economic well-being.

[Atticus]

186. Thanks for your thoughts. nt

[cab67]

166. They remind me a lot of Ron Paul supporters.

For them, it became a matter of candidate over party. When they didn't get their way, they picked up their marbles and went home. If that meant disrupting party functions or voting third-party, so be it.

A couple of differences, though:

- Ron Paul was always a Republican. Sanders is only a Democrat when he wants to run for president.

- Ron Paul's following was large, but never large enough to actually come close to getting the nomination.

[wisteria]

173. YES

[mikeysnot]

175. The Hasty Generalization Fallacy

This fallacy occurs when someone draws expansive conclusions based on inadequate or insufficient evidence. In other words, they jump to conclusions about the validity of a proposition with some -- but not enough -- evidence to back it up, and overlook potential counterarguments.

[wkdjr]

176. Think

Your post reads like a Russian bot, you probably aren't but have been influenced by them. I messed up last page I am supporting Elizabeth Warren now but any democrat at every level.

Take the wind out of your Republican friends sails, tell them to support Moscow Mitch and the rest of the Putin's puppets so they can put an end to "Truth, Justice and the American way"

[Atticus]

177. "Drive by" attack much? You win "Most Disgusting Post" for this thread. Blech! nt

[bobalew]

180. Perhaps we should give them, instead, a Russian Themed Name,

as it appears that that is the source of these culprits, or did you NOT consider that?:

[Atticus]

183. Are Turner, Sirota and Weaver Russians? nt

[ProfessorPlum]

181. Fortunately, no other candidate has supporters who ever act obnoxious online

that is a a phenomenon unique to the Sanders campaign. And it must be true - I never hear anyone else either here or on the TeeVee talk about any other obnoxious online behavior from any other candidate's supporters.

[Atticus]

184. Uh-huh, yeah, "they all do it" and "both parties are the same" and "all the primaries are RIGGED",

right?

[ProfessorPlum]

188. I've certainly never seen such behavior on DU, for example

from other candidate's supporters