that people have basically said it means diddly squat to them...

So, excuse those who find those types of statements to mean they don't care about it. They have a good reason.

Or shouldn't be posting at DU. But one can oppose HRC's nomination without saying that Woman's Rights or LGBT Rights mean diddly squat to them.

Bryant

It's all complete bullshit and I've read it over and over and over again here.

hmmmm...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6532557

Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: ENOUGH ALREADY...God, people. Do you think any of you, on any side of this, can grow the heck up? Supporters of Hillary push me away with the nonsense (and it's why your candidate currently sits in my trashcan), nonsupporters of Hillary aren't garnering my sympathy with the silly they spew either. All of you need a time out. What are you? 12?

Pity the juvenile post wasn't hidden.

In 2008, I had not yet heard of DLC, Third Way, etc.

Now that I have heard of them, I oppose her even more.

My opinion is not based on DU shaming, but factual information I learned at DU or through research that DU spurred me to do did help me come to my own conclusions.

On the other hand, I do not understand anyone's dismissing her advocacy for the Iraq War.

Otherwise, words on a message board mean very little and are ineffective to change people's minds unless one is invested.

Hopefully, though, words trigger something inside us and help us think rationally so that we can make positive choices based on that, but there has to be a degree of good faith and good will in order to rise to that level. That's been my personal experience.

In the age of corporatism, it's about the economic welfare of our citizens at this point. "Necessitous men are not free".

NT

Or cause me to not pay attention to the author, if not the subject matter.

Especially vitriol or hyperbole from media sources. Or ridiculous studies. I look for sources that are even handed, or read through a variety of opinions. Occasionally someone on DU will post a thought-out OP, stating an opinion I disagree with without seeming inflammatory. I can appreciate those.

upon myself say that's how I am too.

used to work on me before I realized that they're just manipulation.


Now they piss me off.


If people want to convince me of something, they should leave the personal shit out of it. Personal, as in, "You obviously don't care about ______".


Just be factual. Candidate A supports X, Y, and Z while Candidate B doesn't.

If X, Y, and Z are important enough to me, I'll consider changing my mind. If they're not, no amount of shaming is going to convince me that I should care about something that I don't care about.

And that goes for anything in life. Not just politics.

My state is meaningless in the primaries, so shame is pointless anyway. I also would like to see more than one Dem candidate, but I can't make that happen. I am pragmatic, I will NEVER vote for a Republican, and I will ALWAYS vote, end of story.

if someone says they want to vote for another candidate despite HRC's strong record on Woman's Rights, it's a betrayal of Woman's rights.

What makes this difficult is that there's no candidate to compare Hillary to; nobody else is running at the moment. But consider, - my most important issue is reigning in Wall Street and making it work for the people instead of continuing along the self destructive course it has been going. That's esotoric perhaps (i'll not deny it) but it is something I feel very strongly about. I don't believe HRC will do anything on that; her history is to be cozy with Wall Street.

That said if Candidate X came out of the woodwork, proposing exactly what I want to see happen on Wall Street (a well regulated open exchange for derivatives), but also said "And by the way, in order to get this I plan to put up conservative anti-woman, anti-LGBT judges on the bench" I still wouldn't support Candidate X. In a choice between someone who is going to get tough on wall street, but is going to be lousy on Civil Rights, and HRC, I'd support HRC.

I take it as read, however, that most candidates who are genuinely going to take on Wall Street are also going to be strong on Woman's Rights and LGBT rights.

Bryant

people telling me on a democratic progressive board, that there is no difference between the two parties. NONE. and that any issue that is different is of no significance. it does not matter. minor issue.

when supposed democrats tell me not to vote 2016 because the $ is too important. fuck you.

ya.... i have an issue and i am going to argue it.

it is not about clinton. it is about a part of our party, that calls themselves a separate party, telling me not to vote if it is clinton. let a repug in.

letting go of the supreme crt is womens lives

you reduce it to, .... not that big an issue. me? i think it is pretty damn big as a democrat.

oh

and a woman

with young girls in my family

that will be effected, horribly.

ya. that

Well than just to underline what I've said elsewhere - there's no excuse for not voting for HRC in the General Election, in my opinion. I can understand the impulse, but given the importance of the election, if she is our nominee we need to vote for her. All of my arguments on this issue are related to the primary alone.

Bryant

i am all for the populist. until the tell me they will not vote '16 if it is clinton. and that i do not matter. literally being told this out loud. i tend to challenge, that yes. i matter. (women, gays, blacks... all. old, young. all.)

if you allow the supreme crt to slide right.

that would be fact. that would be from the words, you give me.

and i say it out loud. you do not like it. sorry. tell me where i am wrong.

Yes the issue I care most about is regulating Wall Street; but I would not be willing to give up control of the Court to let that happen. If a candidate seemed like he would support what I want on Wall Street, but would also be weak on Civil Rights or elect a more right wing court, I would oppose him (and up supporting HRC).

Bryant

to address this. i wont stop.

will be weak on regulating corporate power or on dealing with the surveillance state or on continued military adventures in the middle east also feel the right and responsibility to bring those issues up.

Bryant

you say you will vote in 2016. actually you will vote democratic 2016. not seeing where it applies to you.

The one you mention is not specific to Clinton - it applies to whoever the Democratic nominee ultimately is. If you don't vote for the Democratic nominee you are voting to set LGBT, womens, and a whole host of other rights back decades because of who will populate the Supreme Court.

The other is more insidious and is specific to Clinton: If you oppose Clinton (regardless of why) you are misogynistic. Sometimes stated that blatantly - other times more subtly. But the clear message, from far too many, is that any opposition to Clinton is because of her gender.

I will not vote for Clinton in the primaries. If she is the only candidate still standing by the time my primary rolls around, I will not vote in the presidential race to send a message. I sincerely hope another candidate enters the race who is electable - and that we, as a party, get behind whoever that may be. And that position has NOTHING to do with her gender. It has to do with the fact that she runs (and to some extent, based on how she handled herself in the SOS role) based on the polls, not from a position of principles. To the extent possible I vote for candidates who share (and will act from) principles similar to my own.

i have only been listening about a week and half. what happened prior, i do not know. the drama in '08? i did not play. it was on both sides. i was into listening to the issues.

but. from what i have seen this couple weeks, no. i totally disagree. i know the argument is there. support hillary or not supporting women. i have addressed it, and i am not seeing that at all. i am seeing this being given to clinton supporters. but, i am not seeing clinton supporter state this.

so. i do not agree and really what i am doing.

primary? i am all for it. and i really want a lively crowd. i love this. i cant wait to see what sanders does. i think those are gonna be the two, unless we get a surprise.

but, stupid criticism, or what i only see as fabricated criticism, i am going to call out.

It's there - and a lot of it is along the lines you just suggested: judging someone else's criticism as stupid or fabricated. Just because you don't agree with the criticism doesn't make it stupid or fabricated - or as many have labeled criticism they deem stupid or fabricated (e.g. any criticism of the annointed one) - sexist or misogynistic.

i state how i feel about issues. i am not shy. like i said. i am not a clinton supporter. allows me to listen to all.

do i bash? none of our dems. i do state what i stand for. that would be like dealing with the issues, educating myself, and defining my position, like in '08. i did not do the drama.

when there was sexism, toward clinton or palin, i said something. when racism to obama, i said something. i feel we are better than that.

i was an obama supporter in '08.

The last thing you want to do with US politicans is let them think they can rely on your vote.

I'm a dirty degenerate, gun-humping, ammosexual. I actively campaign for the rights of straight, white, male Christians to gun down children with fully automatic machineguns.

So no.

Seriously though, shaming has no impact on me. It really just demonstrates desperation on the part of the shamer, regardless of what the topic is. Gotcha arguments, appeals to emotion, and straw-manning in general just make me shake my head a bit and carry on. If someone isn't going to appeal to me with an adult argument, I don't give them the benefit of consideration which I would give any adult.

Gotcha seems to be the rhetorical weapon of choice here these days...

To me, it's simple enough deal. I will support HRC in the General and in the CT primary (I voted for her in the primary in 2008 because I wanted to vote for a woman for president in my lifetime, even if it was in a primary).

Right now what I truly want is to pull Hillary more to the left. I think she is seeing that Warren's arguments about income inequality are getting more and more traction in the voters' minds. I intend to be another voice in that direction.

Here's the deal: we can't let a republican get hold of the White House. Period. And yes, it is all about the Supreme Court when you get right down to it. I fully expect a better outcome in the next House and Senate races that will be held in 2016 because I think we'll have a better field.

Also, did I mention that I have 3 granddaughters whose lives would be significantly impacted in Roe was reversed?

In the U.S.A. political system, those who can be shamed are called "losers."

The worst Republicans are utterly shameless and dishonorable.

Yet the two qualities of shame and dishonor are entirely unrelated, even though they often appear together in people like Dick Cheney or Karl Rove.

It's quite possible to be both honorable and shameless.

I'll shamelessly vote for the Democratic candidate who can beat the Republicans.

Since the days of Richard Nixon the Republican Party has been controlled by a gang of shameless and dishonorable criminals, misogynists, racists, and fascists.

I'm not going to futz around apologizing for any of my Democratic politics. I'm an idealist in my opinions and practical in my politics.

because none of the rational arguments have worked!'

If I hold a minority view that is being subjected to shame (and I want to note here that my approach is in contrast to dealing with rational adversaries - members who are on my side in general - to whom I listen with an open mind and either change my mind, or don't based upon rational persuasion), I simply trash each and every thread which has, as its topic, that issue, and place on Ignore those members who help to spearhead such things.

This is just a little internet discussion board, not some global policy think tank or online Harvard University, lol - discussions amongst ideological brethren are fun, but no discussion here is important enough to ruin my day or mood when it doesn't don't go my way. I just move on.

I trust everyone here can think for themselves.

I'm often impressed with the different kinds of experiences people have here at DU.

Browbeating type posts often make me laugh and think more of the other side to the argument.

Great question.

I thought this was going to be about the 'shame the water wasters' thing going on in California.

No, 'shaming' doesn't work, whether it's 'water shaming', 'fat shaming', or 'HRC shaming'.

children's rights is deliberately inane.

Also, I think the argument that if one does not support HRC then one does not care about women's and children's and LGBT rights is very off-putting because it assumes that no other Democrat cares about women's and children's and LGBT rights. And also off-putting is that the argument is asking people to assume that Hillary is indeed the only choice we have, and to not support her means say hello to President Cruz.

I actually believe that supporting Hillary would likely lead to saying hello to President Walker. And, of course, that will be blamed on liberals and progressives.

But supporting someone like Bernie Sanders against her
I could understand.

Nobody should be shamed because their hierarchy is a bit different than another persons. We all have our own priorities.

A couple of weeks ago I was having a conversation with someone and I mentioned that I couldn't support HRC because she was pro-war, and I made a commitment decades ago that I would NEVER vote for a candidate who expressed support for war (and I haven't). The person I was speaking with was horrified, and said that I was being unreasonable because I was eliminating "very good candidates" over one issue. She started to rail against litmus tests for candidates, even calling them "the tool of the unthinking".

So I turned it around on her: "What if there was a candidate who was pro-environment, anti-war, pro-jobs, anti-1%, and basically checked off every box on the list of ideal Democratic candidates...but they promised to work with Congress to pass an anti-abortion Constitutional amendment if they were elected? Or what if another candidate checked all of the boxes including support for abortion rights, but they hailed from Georgia and stated that the Civil Rights Act had outlived its usefulness, and promised to end federal oversight of state election practices?" Her response was predictable; "That's DIFFERENT! Anyone who opposes the Civil Rights Act or abortion rights isn't a REAL LIBERAL!"

So, I asked her, "Why are your litmus tests over abortion and civil rights more important than my litmus tests on war and the environment? Who decides that your issues are more important to the world than my issues?"

She conceded my point in a huff.

We all have our own priorities and standards. Nobody is "wrong"....well, nobody on the left anyway

they are usually inaccurate straw men. An easy thing for the self righteous to say.

for example you get this "The TPP is awful!" and you say "Maybe it's not." Now you are "for the TPP." It's the for us or against us thing. You can't possibly really disagree. It has to be that you are an awful corporatist.

Like some post the other day insisting the "Centrists" don't want single payer. We want single payer. We disagree about whether it could really have happened with the Congress of 2009-10. But when you talk about that, you are accused of not wanting single payer. It comes from the person's conviction they are so absolutely right, that disagreement is impossible and implies some type of moral corruption. this is classic from the right wing, but I've learned they aren't the only ones.

Only the candidate, doing or saying something *I* regard as meaningful (in my worldview), will sway my opinion. The rest is noise to be filtered out.

based on "those who support her/him/it..." have no effect on me. It isn't an argument, it's an attack, and as such carries no intellectual weight. If someone wants to convince me to change my mind, they should come with reasons for doing so.

but I am too busy to actually care... beyond the entertainment value that is. I must say that logo "discussion" was the height of irony, and so far, my favorite of silly season.