after 8 years where anyone that did not support Hillary was branded a sexist, and where Bill Clinton did racist dog whistles that he still has not apologized for, and when DU had daily things about how anybody who supports Bernie is a racist (even though he embraced and worked with jesse Jackson and others long before it was cool to do so), then i say, ha.

SOME Clinton supporters have no problem being Uncivil. Those who oppose them are called Ratf**kers, traitors and supporters of the right wing. What makes it worse is that the people asking us to hold hands are often the very same people that tried to drive us OUT of our own party by calling us ratf**kers.

Including yours.

but that is my point. If we don't do everything we can to get Bernie elected, we might be hosed.

I welcome their hate as the man said. I'm talking about the people who are saying that Bernie can't win this. Bernie not only can but Bernie is going to win this. Why because the country is ready for a steady hand, the hand of a person who is unflappable, a person who does not check the direction but rather makes that direction that we follow. Fuck that wind monitor. I want a Leader and Bernie Sanders is that leader today. I wish he and I were younger but as long as I have fight I am up to the challenge. I feel he feels the same. Its not about me or him or you its about my 8 year old grand daughter, thats why I get up in the mornings. Thats who has my undivided attention. I want to check out of all this knowing full well I did what was right for everyone not for some other reason. I'd love to have a woman president but I'll be damned if I shoot myself in the foot to get there!

That to me is what this election is about. When FDR said that, he was talking about the 1%. I believe that is the real threat to your grand child and my children, not Al Qaida, but the billionaires and corporations which poison our air, water and food. The ones who are destroying the earth and believe their wealth will somehow save them. That is the insanity of so-called "civilization."

I believe it is the natural impulse of people to become more inclusive over time. But those natural impulses are countered by religions and media outlets which promote white nativism, etc. But time is short and unless we start geting real and justice, wealth distribution and the survival of this planet, we are screwed.

The filthy rich are the real enemy. The rest of us, to the extent we fight amongst ourselves, play into the hands of the enemy. We need to band together as many people as possible, take to the streets and start a revolution.

republicans or other right wingers rather than fellow Democrats and liberals. Just because we have a different candidate. Welcome to ignore.

but respectful discourse should rule the day. Despite the fact that we support opposing candidates, the debate on their merits or lack of should be conducted in an adult civilized manner.

Politics has been classified a "blood sport" as someone commented on this tread, but the drawing of blood is not required, literally or figuratively. Unfortunately, most of us hs been victim or purveyor of the snark running rampant. It's not serving any purpose.

If one is compelled to replace valid argument with irrational insult, what's the point?

That is what is worth fighting for.

Without a valid argument to give HC supporters, my only reason for supporting Bernie (or a couple of others), is that I just don't like her.

Should I try hypnotism?

Hillary supporters admit it takes big money to win the GE. Of course there are no invisible strings attached to that money ...right? Do people really believe that in this world?

but even if these things were not true, and they may not be, and HC will enter the convent if she loses and devote her life to taking care of lepers like Mother Theresa did, I still don't like her.

I felt the same way about Nixon before Watergate.

The need for a transformative president on climate change is the most critical issue in the last 10,000 years, literally. And the need for wealth re-distribution is the greatest since 1941, at least.

My point in OP is not that we shouldn't shout-- we should. My point is because this may be the most important election in world history, how we go about mobilizing people after we win the nomination. Because just electing Bernie will do very little, don't you agree? My point is I think in line with Bernie's main point-- we will need millions of people in the streets *after* the election in order to have a chance to pressure Congress.

That's what happened in 1933. We were close to a revolution and people were out in the streets. FDR started off very badly, letting some austerity guy cut WWI veteran disability payments. After several veteran suicides, public outrage over that and other things empowered the New Dealers in the cabinet to start re-distributing wealth in the proper direction.

and worse. There's been quite a bit of that. And these posters know his stellar record and his history of civil rights activism. In fact, you ignore the attacks on Bernie and his supporters altogether, despite GD showcasing them prominently, particularly over the past couple of days.

In any case, since I have no intention of halting my criticism of Clinton's record and rhetoric, I'm fine with countering the attacks launched by HRC supporters.

And after that, he'll make the plea to O'Malley supporters.

The PoC slur is nasty but easily rebutted. And of course there are all kinds of attacks here on Bernie and his supporters. That's the kind of stuff that gets me pissed off and before you know it I'm in a thread where everybody is raising alerts.

I'm trying to distinguish between vigorous debate and unnecessarily alienating people who may well be allies after the nomination. Of course there are tribalists who cannot be made to see sense. In that case, all we can do is state the facts.

I would also point out that Bernie is deliberately avoiding going negative because the facts are on his side. Hillary has a heavily-checkered record and he does not. More importantly, she can't speak very effectively extemporaneously about populist themes because she doesn't believe it.

Hell yes, let's debate. The facts are overwhelmingly on our side. But let's try to transcend some of the infantile tribalism and alligator-brain responses that are self-defeating for our larger purpose. We can't keep the HRC side of the street clean, only they can do that. But given that we are facing the end of history without a president like Bernie, we have a moral imperative to keep our side of the street clean.

Personally I get the feeling she doesn't want to make any promises to progressives. We get a lot of rhetoric and prose out of her camp but not a lot of policy specifics. Whenever I press anyone for specifics here, her supporters seem to struggle a bit to present something other than platitudes and glittering generalities.

I try to keep my anger and frustration in check but there are some of her supporters that seem to be on here JUST to redirect any conversation to "optics" or whatever nonsense other than policy.

Don't get me started on Hillary, that will defeat the purpose of my post! I think the issues are definitely on our side when you compare their records, so we do experience some defensiveness about her record. But sometimes I can engage a Hillary supporter in such a way that an appeal to reason works. E.g. I have one daughter who supported Hillary in 2008, but I think she's coming around!

What I have found useful is to start with points of agreement. For example, I can think of many nice things to say about Hillary, which makes it more palatable when I turn to the IWR, fracking in Eastern Europe, her hawkishness, her relationship with Wall Street, etc. I think this has helped my daughter to see her with more complexity.

He is, however, calling them out on policy and silence and rhetoric.

eom

n/t

don't you think? Much of it in the Eye of the Beholder. For example, coming on a political board extolling everyone to fall in line within a very narrow scope of behavior/conversation would seem to be somewhat of an irrational request.

Actually I think I was advocating for additional modes of discourse over the limbic stuff occurring in many of these tribal threads.

I think that word (phrase) does not mean what you think it means. (OK, someone I need that graphic.)

You're wanting to limit the modes of discourse, and, not surprisingly, you did not get the results you expected. If you do not like the discourse here, wouldn't it be more logical to go to a site that offers the type of discourse for which you are seeking instead of going to a site with it's own history and culture and style of discourse, and trying to change everyone's style to fit your liking?

is falsely re-characterizing someone else's argument so that it is easily defeated. My argument was that by surrendering to ego and shouting past a Hillary supporter, some Bernie supporters are being counter-productive in two ways:

1) alienating those whose support we will need when we win the nomination (a traditional need); and

2) alienating those whose support we will need in the streets after we win the election (an extraordinary need).

I went on to suggest that instead of engaging in the endless bickering since about 2004, we should try to be more civil. I think those are ways to broaden the debates and make them more productive. Nowhere did I suggest not debating- we need that. It's just that most of it is snark, puerile or personal. Look at all the crap on this thread for example. Most of the responses are mindless snark. The sad thing is that many of these people are above average in education and intelligence. Doesn't speak well for critical thinking in this country. If we don't evolve soon much of this country is literally going to be under water.

You're the one who started an OP suggesting that we, (and only Bernie supporters, mind you) should be more "civil" which pre-supposed several things not in evidence. Then you claim that you are really advocating expanding our discourse style when in reality you are advocating exactly the opposite.

Now you are again mischaracterizing your point saying you were advocating that "we" should try to be more civil when your OP was clearly directed at Bernie supporters.

As you point out, many people here ARE, indeed, above average in education and intelligence and, therefore, can discern complete puerile bullshit when they see it.

Again, if you find it so distasteful here, perhaps finding another site more to your liking would be in everyone's best interests.

Now, unless you have some new "insights" to add to your diabribe, I'm done here.

I suggested that people expand their behavioral repertoire past the traditional snark some display. It certainly wasn't aimed at everybody in the "Bernie" tribe. It was aimed at those who might need it. The reason it was aimed at the Bernie tribe is because I want us to win in the larger sense, i.e. get his program through Congress.

so damn predictable.

Go figure.

n/t

Similarities to here and now. Establishment candidate versus more progressive upstart. The McCarthy people were utterly on fire for their guy. Hubert Humphrey was unfortunately tied too closely, as Vice President, to LBJ and therefore also to Vietnam. Humphrey prevailed in the contest for the nomination. But the McCarthy people REFUSED to unite. They turned their backs and went home to pout. And they stayed in that position on Election Day.

And we got Richard republi-CON NIXON in the White House the following January.

Wonder if anybody asked the McCarthy people - "happy NOW??????"

Hey, I understand sticking by principles. But when you have to be practical, sometimes you have to adjust - in order to gain the greater good.

It's very clear that Bernie Sanders people are fired up for the sake of the greater good. That's what his campaign is all about. That's what the progressive vision is all about. That's why we as Democrats believe in using government as a force for the GREATER GOOD. For the collective. But then, what happens when we find ourselves looking at the OVER-ARCHING greater good? What happens if Hillary Clinton DOES prevail and win the nomination? The over-arching greater good at that point would seem to be - HOW DO WE KEEP THE WHITE HOUSE?

I guess my biggest issue stems not just from being a Hillary supporter and trying to show respect, and getting beaten up by some of the snark and snide comments and insults from the other side - COMBINED WITH assertions that it's "Bernie or Bust" - if he doesn't get the nomination then they're gonna go Gene McCarthy on us and stay home and pout. Thankfully, not all Bernie people are like that. But I feel compelled to point out that I have yet to see ANY Hillary people, myself included, who are threatening to do the same thing. I've yet to see ANY Hillary people saying it's "Hillary or Bust" and screw the rest of you if we don't get it OUR way. If Bernie beats her to the nomination, I am SO there in the Bernie camp. With bells on! I will advocate and help and have his back and vote for him with eagerness and enthusiasm. No staying home and pouting for me! And you can take that to the bank. With some Bernie people, I would hope to see that same commitment coming back this way, and I don't. And that worries me - that we're headed to another Nixon-type result. One side is rigid and one side is more flexible. Therein lies the most troubling rub. I've seen this happen before. I DO NOT want to see it happen again! Believe me, everybody, YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN AGAIN EITHER!!!! The very fact that Bernie Sanders supporters stand so staunchly with him proves that they certainly don't want to see another GOP-controlled White House, either. But where will they be if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination? Can we count on THEIR support? Dear Admiral, you already have repeated vows from me that you WILL be able to count on MY support if it's Bernie over Hillary. I just feel great trepidation that there will not be a corresponding effort to unite from too many of our brothers and sisters if it's Hillary over Bernie.

I find that the sting I still feel from the recent barbs and brickbats thrown at me tempt me to say "well screw you AND the candidate YOU rode in on." And I CANNOT allow myself to go there. NONE OF US CAN AFFORD TO DO THAT!!! WE CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER CON IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!! Bernie people, that means YOU, TOO!!! Because the REAL prize, FOR THE GREATER GOOD, is to keep the republi-CONS OUT of the White House. At least until we have a change to replace some of the scalias or thomases on the Supreme Court.

And btw, I'm no "concern troll." Which is what I see to explain away other efforts like mine, to try to remind our friends in the other camp of the possible reality of the conundrum we may ALL face. If nothing else, my post count should prove that.

PLEASE remember - we face a common enemy. We all share a common enemy. Both we Hillary supporters and we Bernie supporters - are up against the SAME ENEMY. And we share the SAME overriding objective: TO KEEP THE WHITE HOUSE IN DEMOCRATIC HANDS. Let's NOT forget that!

But our side didn't have to help - at convention time or afterwards.

Last edited Wed Jun 17, 2015, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)

At beating Humphrey for the nomination. It was gene McCarthy who enabled RFKs run. Bobby would have reunified the Democratic Party and beaten Nixon.

Our adherence to ideological purity delivered the White House to the Republicans on a silver platter, back then. Do I like a lot of what Bernie is proclaiming? Of course I do. Do I think he's the strongest candidate we have? Not by a long shot. Nothing matters more than keeping the Presidency away from the Republicans, and keeping SCOTUS secure from any further conservative influence. Putting forth a self-proclaimed independent socialist as our candidate would be an absolute disaster. If it happens, I'll vote for him...but then, I voted for George McGovern, as well.

The "ideological purists" on the Republican side learned their lesson. Only thing is, the lesson they learned was to organize, organize, organize, to keep putting their candidates up wherever and whenever possible, to not give up and run away. 16 years later we got Reagan and the Right Wing Raw Deal, and the Democratic Party has been selling its soul and selling out ever since.

your point was lost on the most fervid of them.

'insurgent'. Perot, Nader, Anderson, none of them were Democrats. They all ran against Democrats. Bernie is running as a Democrat.

I never even considered voting for any of those persons I listed (other than Dean). My point was about the "whiteness" of their support and the need for a big tent for Bernie.

the arrogance and dismissive attitude of Clinton's most ardent supporters are what fuels these battles. Add in bullshit like 'Sanders doesn't like immigrants' or 'Sanders is a gun nut', and it turns into a full blown conflagration.

Amazing how OP asks people to be civil while slipping straight into how Vermont is too white.

I simply said Vermont is lily-white and it is. That's not a value judgement, it's a fact. I would be glad to live in Vermont because it's got a much better social safety net than the red state I live in and is much more enlightened.

This.

It cuts both ways.

We all have most of the Bernie supporters on ignore. There are still some who are civil that we like to post with but other than those few, we no longer do much responding.

So yes, we are on different sides during primary season and we've been through this before...it always gets a little nutty. I wish we could express our reasons why we do or do not support a candidate and question their policy actions without it offending others. Personal attacks on the candidate and/or the DUers who support them is unnecessary.

apparently many of those who would benefit from reading your comment will never see it.

since you're apparently not interacting with most Bernie supporters.

But it does make you wonder doesn't it since they are all within the last month.

That's one away from a forced vacation.

supporters. It could not POSSIBLY have anything to do with the hidden posts.

that when one gets a hide or even a string a hides that it would give pause to reflect on ones behavior as opposed to blaming everyone else and bemoaning alert stalkers and packed juries.

But I would be wrong.

Why is it possible for me to say both were snarky? Not horrible but snarky.

Like Skinner says "You take your chances."

It ain't some grand conspiracy.

I freely admit that.

I constantly roll my eyes at what I described here.

Very good!

I took my chances and the jury did the right thing, I deserved both of my hidden posts .

And Skinner gave us Hillary Mojo which is awesome.

I haven't had a hidden post since I threw one away at a banned troll a couple years ago - I had 2 in the last two weeks for fairly innocuous posts. That is, compared to the viscious attacks that are allowed to stand these days.

You have a target on your back, and they'll be looking to get you to 5 at the next opportunity. Mark my word.

Apparently, someone has already checked you out in that regard. That should tell you something.

Was good advice from TPTB

That's just proof that you're still in a bubble, and there is a very rude awakening for you.

I don't need anyone telling me how to behave here, thank you very much.

The second word in title is "plea."

All these failed-reading-comprehension and chest-pounding machismo posts simply make my point.

That ain't straw.

"I don't need anyone telling me how to behave here."

I'm pretty sure I didn't tell anyone how to behave. I made a request to consider an alternative path to snark and hubris, which I sometimes unfortunately see amongst my own "tribe." So I renew the claim of straw man. I will give you the last word and let the audience draw its own conclusions. Over and out.

For example, the other day I posted in reply to an original post in the Sanders group in a favorable manner and was immediately pounced on by someone in my DU email essentially saying I was wrong, wasn't truthful, didn't know what I was talking about, Sanders can't win. After researching where that person usually posts and figuring out why they didn't post those replies to my post in the Sanders group, that person is now on ignore (I've only done that 3 times in 10 years and currently had no one on ignore).

that all the problems are not in the Bernie tribe. My point is analogous to what Chomsky sometimes says: of course the North Korean regime is horrible, but our main moral responsibility is to affect the bad actions of the American regime.

To watch people make dumb statements.

how Bernie is the wrong choice, can't win, wasting our vote, etc. I didn't put them on full ignore, just so they can't clutter my email inbox anymore. I wouldn't presume to keep emailing someone I disagreed with outside the forum venue. It's like someone from the Atheist Agnostics forum needling a person through email who is a member of and posted in the Religious forum about their beliefs.

When they're put on ignore - like a return to sender rejection notice.

To watch people laugh about dumb statements, who seem to believe that they don't fall into that category themselves on occasion.

Funny stuff...

Last edited Wed Jun 17, 2015, 01:09 PM - Edit history (2)

If a person's candidate's history being sighted constitutes disrespect, I plead guilty. I won't be bullied into pledging my support for someone who is less than believable, offering up Johnny-come-lately platitudes just to grab my vote. Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt to prove it. I don't forget getting played.

Nor will I be shamed into silence, there is too much at stake, nothing short of the future of my grandchildren. We MUST take control of OUR government back from the corrupt corporate oligarchy that has stolen it. To that end, there can be no compromise.

If the price of speaking the truth that there is only candidate addressing the ACTUAL issues with the PROVEN history of fighting for us, the 99%, is faux offending some, I guess I'll pay it.

I'll debate an issue with anyone. I Probably will not change their mind, but maybe we can at least gain a little knowledge.


I will also call out BS posts when I see them.

What I really hate is when someone accuses someone else of sexism when they have legitimate gripes over policy.

Someone attempted to bait me other day but it backfired.

If I admit it and try to change and encourage the kettle to do likewise- isn't that a good thing?

each in his/her own way. Hostility to some is passion for others so let's just let everyone be who they are without unhealthy repression or trying to adhere to what other people think we should be, say or do.

That's my proposal.

We victimize so many innocent people

there's not a snowball's chance in hell that I could ever support the man, a favorite co-worker of mine is really jazzed about him. We still respect one another, but we differ in our opinions re: the nation's top office holder. She's originally from Iowa, maybe that explains it.

I live with a couple of 'em.

Quite pleasant.

That's what this election will be. How did you make your billion$ and was it legal? Then we'll be mired in financial paperwork, instead of issues of working people/income inequality, Medicare/Medicaid/improving the ACA, environment, chemical contaminants, oil vs. green energy, etc.

Good stuff!

"The purpose of this post is to caution Bernie Sanders’ supporters on DU..." Caution us? Jesus, get a grip. You're way out of line. No one here needs these kind of patronizing posts. Let that serve as a "caution" to you.

I went out of my way to say that I have succumbed more than once to the temptation to bait people or attack unnecessarily. My point is to to try to make us, collectively, as Bernie supporters more effective. This might be the most important election in American history. We may not get another chance for a candidate of this quality before it's too late to save civilization. Most Bernie supporters are high quality people, imo. But some have devolved into that same old crap I have observed for decades. I'm appealing to people to suppress their egos and try to do the right thing by being an active, compassionate listener.

They are just as anti-Hillary as pro-Bernie, maybe even more so.

I'm really looking forward to next week's installment of Bernie Sanders: Gun Nut.

NRA-sponsored legislation just because he voted for it. Not sure what that's about, but, yeah, clear-headedness seems to be lacking sometimes.

Let's try again, shall we?

If someone were to bust up my knee with a baseball bat, should I be able to sue Louisville Slugger?

You'd lose, and you're also going to end up having to pay all of Louisville Slugger's legal expenses because the already laws against frivolous lawsuits. But, in principle, you should be able to file such a lawsuit, even though you're in the wrong. Access to the legal system is a basic right -- the courts are who decides.

The gun law is nothing like that, of course. People were suing gun manufacturers for negligent and misleading business practices that resulted in guns getting into the hands of criminals. And the reason that the NRA wanted this law so bad is that, unlike your hypothetical example, some of these lawsuits were actually successful. They didn't want the gun manufacturers to play by the same rules that you and I have to. So they got congress to make a special rule that protects one industry only.

Which gets me back to my original point. Any Bernie Sanders supporter who pretends to be against increasing corporate power but supports this law is the worst form of hypocrite. And the fact that so many are lining up to defend this tells me a lot about where their heads are at vis-a-vis their asses.

The bill was put in place because people were suing gun companies and the NRA didn't like it.

If you were already a gun nut prior to this Bernie thing, then I get it. Gun nuts gonna nut, and I don't really feel like trying to reason with them any more than with creationists or global warming deniers. But the interesting thing is to watch normal non-gun-nut supposed progressives fall over themselves to defend a horrific corporate giveaway to, of all people, the gun industry.

Yes, I own firearms.
Yes, I support common-sense gun laws, such as universal background checks, limitations on magazine capacity, and mandatory waiting periods. I also support mandatory training and licensing for owners of firearms, as well as liability insurance for gun owners. Does that sound like a gun nut to you, Dan? Or is anyone that has ever owned, fired, or even looked at a gun considered a gun nut in your narrow-minded little world?

more bizarre. How hard would it be to just say, look, I like Sanders, but when he voted against the Brady Bill, or when he voted to give the gun industry special immunity from civil lawsuits that no other industry enjoys, he was simply wrong. Do you feel like you have to defend every position the guy has ever taken?

Another thing, the rhetoric about frivolous lawsuits that you hinted at with the Louisville Slugger example is straight out of the right-wing playbook. Guns aren't the only issue where the right has been working hard, both at the state and national levels, to prevent people from suing corporations for damages. There's an excellent documentary about this topic, called "Hot Coffee", a reference to the lawsuit a woman brought against McDonalds because she burned herself with their coffee.
http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp

Like you did with the Louisville Slugger, it's easy to laugh at this woman ("she bought a hot coffee and then sued because it was hot&quot , and this incident became a poster child for supposedly frivolous lawsuits, which the right used in its propaganda offensive for tort reform. The film does a very good job explaining what actually happened, versus what people think happened. For one, the woman didn't just "get a little burned", she ended up with third degree burns which required skin grafting and a week-long hospitalization. The pictures are pretty unsettling. She also didn't immediately jump to sue, she first asked McD's to cover her medical expenses, and it was only after they refused that it ended up in court.