Bait HRC supporters. Because it's the Internet and some people like to argue.

And now apparently, we are just like the mob that killed Jesus. The personal insults leveled at Bernie supporters is much bigger and meaner and nastier. That is what is so upsetting. But you are right. It is the internet. People on the internet are mean. Plain and simple. We can't really expect any better.

from his hands.

Out, damned spot!

.... but thanks for a perfect example of a hyperbolic and in my opinion RIDICULOUS comment about a democrat. As I said in the post above, if this were my site I would give people a time out for comments like that.

I guess it must have slide on by me. I like Bernie, but there is no way he can win. I'm not going to waste my vote on anyone who runs as a third party (should he decide to do that).

The HRC bashers are terrible. And honestly, always have been here. Makes me sick to see it coming from people who identify as democrats. If it were my site they would get a time out.

Stealth republicans trying to sabotage the Democratic party?

...there's no need to sabotage the party.

- He's got that all wrapped-up.

[URL=http://www.sherv.net/][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

that we will switch to another candidate.

It works both ways here.

Is not the DNC nominee I will vote for the nominee. If they have a candidate then get the candidate step up and say they are running. I think the reason why more capable candidates do not step up to run is because of attacks, they font want to be subject and have their families subject to the attacks.

Just sad.

Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 12:33 AM - Edit history (1)

home because he's not playing.

This OP itself is just that.
A baiting opinion piece.
Pfffft.

n/t.

If you yourself don't feel that way, a lot of HRC supporters here seem to.

You take care of yourself!

For the "people" (aka fatcat assholes) on Wall Street maybe, as well as the corporations - don't forget, they're people too! - making up the defense industry.

I am more encouraged by Sec State Clinton's approach to limiting campaign money.
Unfortunately she is up against the billion dollar Koch pledge. To get to the 2016 Presidency where this can be reversed, any Dem candidate should use any & every tool that Citizens United gave them.
Beat them at their own game if that's what it takes.

The alternative is game over for all of us regardless of Party or candidate preference.
Not a difficult concept to understand.

Bernie Sanders .

Humphrey, Truman, and FDR weren't.

.voting block. They had huge Union support.
We have splintered into unforgiving groups. Though necessary & good to keep politicians in check, the end game in 2016 is still one or the other.
Lesser of two evils one may declare but that is up to the voter to compare the two & determine who has the best interests of this country.

With some its a crap shoot. Others it's a no brainer.

Anymore, every politician has had to negotiate & set policy with the 1% in mind. They are powerful this day because Dems gave the Senate & House away & bitched about it later.
We allowed this.Lazy, uninterested or gerrymandered & voter blocked.
All I know for certain is without a Dem win in 2016 we can look forward to a RW gov't. The fears we discuss today will become the reality.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Private groups are for supporters only.

to reach out. Judging by the posts generated ,they're doing it because DU seems to love having these useless arguments over and over and over again.

the Democrats are baiting me MOM!




Rather...the DEMOCRATS on DU are fighting back...and now the Griefers are having a sad...

Stop with the nouveau McCarthyism already.

People who aren't big fans of Clinton aren't Democrats, apparently.

But when bullshit about Hillary or sexism about Hillary gets posted, I will refute it.

So there you have it.

But what qualifies as "bullshit" is subjective. Certainly this goes both ways, where attacks on people who question her polices stances could be seen as bullshit.

Take for instance comments like this:

I'll let you worry about the rest.

P.S. Please feel free to show my bullshit (and when you do have a link handy to where it's at).

What does that make them?

Can't think of a better way to defuse the hostile triggers in our rhetoric.

And I for one will not take it from the other side.

Is that the point of this crusade?

If you want to give them a pass on the bullshit that is posted go ahead, if you want to give them a pass on the sexism that get's posted go ahead. But do not I repeat, not not expect me to do the same.

And if you are claiming not to see it, then you have my pity.

Most people won't admit to really hating on-line rivals. Shows an unusual degree of commitment.

Busted yet again.

the subject of hate of adversaries here. Please clarify what you were getting at there.

Just goes to show that a lot of the stuff that get's posted is bullshit. That was just an example, there are plenty more.

At least I know for sure where you are coming from now, and it's good to know.

Passivie aggressive always shows itself.

I feel free to tell HERE and now your beating people up for something that isn't their fault,, She reeks of Esoteric Agendas, and the Guilt of drinking from the same well as the Misanthropes that have Robbed our country from us .

and I got kicked out for making a " Personal Attack " , but yes I knew .

Sorry but you need to read the sop of the room before you post in there.

Off with his head!! How dare s/he speak so of the queen!?

And you know perfectly well nobody but Republicans oppose HRC because of her gender.

"And you know perfectly well nobody but Republicans oppose HRC because of her gender". They are there, you just have to open your eyes.

not sure "crusade" is synonomous with...
oh shit I checked it is.
never mind.

until and unless this entire board gets turned into a giant Hillary Clinton protected space.

but we will see.

In other words, CYA.

the rhetorical skills they have.

And the rhetorical skills we have are built around hyperbolic disrespect for republicans, and groups used as proxies of evilness that should be applied to republicans.

When we go into primary season and face nothing but our fellow dems we do it with the same enthusiasm for disrespect and hyperbole.

That we have to emphasize small differences among ourselves to maintain some sense of identity.

To me it seems a textbook definition of the over-the-top enthusiasm for the Us-group that leads to chauvinistic bigotry. What I've read on DU includes a peppering of the use of the mentally ill as third parties who stand as icons of what's wrong with the opposing side's heroes, activists/advocates/etc. Sad that the tolerant socially concerned folks we think ourselves to be, do this. But, we seem to willingly do it for 'the cause'

I'm not sure if I'd say it has to do with narcissism. I'm not well read on narcissism, but I understand it is built on developmentally early 'narcissistic wounds' that require being fed with 'narcissistic supply' of support, rising in some cases from need for adoration. In that respect, I do think some of the chauvinism is to say "Look I'm one of the ___-group, too! Take me in!" Which I suppose could be considered an appeal for narcissistic supply.



Without trying to overthink this, it could be said that we're just poor at being advocates without being oppositional.

I like your point about the contempt we have for the Republicans we transfer to each other during the primary season. You couldn't be more spot on.

They've said so over and over and over and over and over.



Sid

any polling data supports the idea that most Sanders, O'Malley and Webb voters wouldn't vote for her? Supporting other candidates in primaries is not a proxy for Naderhood.. Never was. Treating them like Nader voters is the stupidest campaign tactic I have ever witnessed and you are prime offender.

will not vote for her under any circumstance. So, the preface of your argument is false.

Obama spoiled the Clinton coronation. Did that justify calling all Clinton supporters Pumas? Oh I forget Obama's gang did do that. It was dumb though, and the fact they are on her team now is her biggest liability, because her native supporters never liked them.

There are some DUers who have said that about Clinton. There are also many who have said something along the lines of "I really hope someone other than Clinton gets the nomination, but in November I'll vote for the Democratic candidate, even if it's Clinton."

Pretending that the latter group doesn't exist is convenient for disparaging anyone who doesn't support Clinton, but it's simply not accurate.

I want a primary and for all contenders to show up and let us know what they have better. If they won't run, they don't need to be discussed here.

and it was immediately jumped on by the anti-HRC crowd.

Here's a thought. How about everyone showing more respect for others opinions instead of messing up every single thread with arguments.

Criticisms of other candidates are generally based on smears of their supporters as being naderites to not really democrats.

was it necessary to mess up someone's endorsement thread?

like the TPP? Can't say anything about that either?

The endorser was just endorsing HRC. That's all. Is it a freakin' crime to you?

Why in the world would you feel the need to dump on someone's endorsement thread? That's strange to me.

Start your own thread about your dislikes and reasons for opposing HRC. Don't dump on others.

And yes, I will say the same thing for those who bring up valid points to oppose HRC. There is no reason to dismiss those threads either.

Gosh people, I live in a household of 5, and we don't all agree, but we aren't at each others throats, name calling and belittling each others thoughts and views. My husband, and my youngest daughter, are not anywhere near committed to HRC at the moment. I respect their views. And they respect the views of me, and my other daughter and son.

also talk about issues I do not agree with but we are not allowed to disagree because her supporters see that as an attack.

If it is just an outright endorsement with no discussion of issues then I would never attack the poster. That is part of supporting your personal candidate. It is what we all do.

I will not ignore the issues though.

But the thread I'm referring to, was just simply an endorsement thread. That's it. And some people felt the need to add their negative thoughts. That is no way, no how, right in my opinion.

no matter what "feelings" hillary h88ters may have they'll bend and quietly vote for her. Until then everyone likes having a little fun with the deniers out there.

Exactly...The compass you cited demonstrates that HRC is politically indistinguishable from her fellow Democrats. Whoever suggests she is anything else, be it markedly left or markedly right of her fellow Democrats, is just being silly or deceptive.


Not that it matters but I pulled -5s on the compass and was in the left part of the left quadrant with the Dalai Lama and Gandhi...

But I choose between the choices I am given...I don't walk into McdOnalds with $5.00 and expect Prime Rib.

Will end up center left if he runs in the primary and they include him in the analysis as might Elizabeth Warren, but I doubt at this point she will run, no matter how much we need her to, so she will not likely make it on the graph.

What I posted shows is that Hillary Clinton is right of center as is Obama (no surprise there to those who have been paying attention). it also shows as we all knew in the '08 primary that she is to the right of Obama (again no surprise).

To claim that she is far left of center as your novelty chart seems to show is just plain silly, misinformed, or a deliberate fabrication. I have no way of knowing intent so I will refrain from choosing an option, but if it is any consolation I am not leaning towards deliberate deception regarding your potential motives.

If we stipulated the chart is flawed then why would it be flawed for one candidate and not the other?


The other chart shows that Clinton, Biden, and Obama are pretty much in the same place...That seems to me indisputable and unremarkable.

They are where most, not all, national Democrats are. That seems to me indisputable and unremarkable as well.


BTW, here's HRC's ADA ratings by year...Her voting record was virtually indistinguishable from Ted Kennedy:



http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2001.pdf


http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2002.pdf

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2003.pdf


http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2004.pdf

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2005.pdf


http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2006.pdf


http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2007.pdf



http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2008.pdf

Unless Warren runs I will have no chart that is not a toy to graph her on, but at least as far as economic issues, everything she has DONE as well as said would place her left of center. Regarding other issues, I don't know about her but would be open to learning if she ran.

The chart actually clearly shows most of the Dem candidates are divergent if you understand the scale of the chart, but true most are center right to varying degrees with some more authoritarian than others, that is quite clear.

I think Hillary Clinton is reasonably liberal concerning social issues, such issues are important but only half the equation. Equally important are her pro-corporate trade stances and her Rubin/Summers economic philosophies that show me that economically she will take a third way approach to economics and that is simply unacceptable to those of us like myself that have already been driven into poverty by them as well as to those even now being forced into poverty (all while the rich enjoy nearly ALL of the money that was returned via the recovery). Also disconcerting is her rather extreme hawkishness.

WE don't need more support for welfare reform, free trade, deregulation (as per Rubin/Summers advice), war or a politician that still favors a bipartisan commission that would reform SS as well. Had enough of that, too many poor people already, I don't need any more neighbors.

I can understand how someone living comfortably, that perhaps owns more than one car, and doesn't fear eviction month to month could just brush off the right leaning economic philosophies of hers. Vote according to your comfortable interests I guess, but I warn you, next in line after they are done pushing the blue collar to the bottom in the worldwide race to the bottom is the middle and upper middle classes even if you can't see it yet from a place of comfort.

Vote as you feel is wise for yourself, just don't say nobody warned you.

that enabled your loss. Such is quite well know and few dispute that had they kept banking regulation protections in place rather than eviscerating them, there would have been no Great Recession.

Between supporting your candidate or voicing concerns about another and sounding just like rush on a dem board.
I haven't once voted for someone I agree with on everything. I don't expect to. I think warren and sanders have been great for the dem party. OMalley is making some powerful arguments. Webb is appealing to a demographic we lost. I support Hillary but I would vote for another dem if I thought they had a better shot to win the GE.
The reason I could support Obama in the GE in 08 after supporting Hillary in my primary is because I didn't take it personally when some Obama supporters bashed her. I voted for the candidate not the handful of angry supporters. I saw the same thing from the puma wing. It was ridiculous.

are given and with out any back up to prove their point. Actually they sound like the same points I heard from GOP candidates this weekend. Say what you want about Hillary, but they are not entitled to their false facts.

...imperious attitude, wouldn't you say? Like it's their due and they won't contenance any objections nor detractors.

- To paraphrase James Carville's edict to the Bill Clinton campaign workers in 1992, ''It's the Hillary, stupid.''



K&R

And I bet they hate sports and yet they behave just like obnoxious Ohio State fans.

If, say, Bernie wins the primary, will they even show up at the polls? That's what they project. I suspect many won't.

CALLED IN FAVOR in history . IF Bernie wins the primary intelligent Republicans will vote for and even Hillary will , just like she did for Barrack .

... if she's the candidate" posts are plentiful here.

I've yet to see any HRC supporter state that they will not vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination, or would not vote for Warren had she chosen to run.

If you have any links to same, feel free to post them.

statements that they will vote for the Democratic nominee in the GE. That's been my statement all along. Whoever is the nominee will get my enthusiastic support and vote. Frankly, in primary races, I'd prefer to see people sing the praises of a particular candidate they favor and explain why that candidate is likely to win in the GE. Attacks on other primary candidates simply do not help. Instead, they tend to harden people's opinions and to support not voting if the person being attacked wins the nomination.

From all appearances, Hillary Clinton is the most likely nominee, and it would take something akin to a miraculous primary candidate to prevent that in 2016. Barack Obama was that candidate in 2008, but I don't see one so far for 2016. So, I don't see what is gained by trashing the front-runner in the way people have been doing.

I'd vote for any of the candidates that have been mentioned if that candidate wins the nomination. I'd work to get them elected, each and every one. The Democratic nominee, whoever it is, will have me walking my precinct and helping people understand why they need to vote and vote for the Democrat. That's what I do for every election, and have done since the 60s.

We do not help our cause by infighting about who should be the nominee. We do not help our cause by attacking the front-runner. We help our cause by promoting the candidate we prefer and trying to convince others to join us. Nothing else works.

The Angry Army is guilty of a preemptive strike against other Dems. They're making a straw man fallacy then going off into ad hominem attacks.

It's a Primary!

They skipped a step. If Hillary is such a flawed candidate that she can't beat Biden or Sanders or O'Malley, if she's that horribly flawed, how could she possibly win the General Election?

A rational thought like this has never passed through the collective mind of the Army. Lock and load with bad logic then strike first.

candidate and their supporters? This is part of the problem. If we cannot talk about the issues than what is the purpose of DU?

Because very few of the Clinton supporters were supportive of Obama after the Democratic convention.
All summer long that year, there was a thread in GD bashing Obama for going to a church that had a preacher that did not support marriage equality.

Someone else will have to ask. No one responds to me

To clarify, projection (as used in my above post) is a defense mechanism. It's what people would do but accuse someone else first. My guess is, some here are projecting onto others.

don't fool yourself, the Angry Army is so smug and collegiate, they'll give the late comers hell.

If you're not part of the Army, it doesn't apply to you. There are a few in bunkers on all sides. Don't fool yourself. That's called denial.

in 2008. Seems to be the nature of the beast.

... reaching out to people who consistently regurgitate RW talking points - when they're not busy divining secret messages embedded in HRC's campaign logo, or critiquing her announcement video as though it has any import?

HRC already has a large base of enthusiastic supporters in the real world. What goes on on DU is not reflective of reality, nor does it have any impact in the great scheme of things.

If DU doesn't matter, why post here?

People post on all kinds of sites that don't really matter.

Pretzel, salted or plain?