A liberal is someone who has empathy for folks in distress, a warm and generous spirit, and stands with those on the margins of life.

I consider myself philosophically liberal, operationally pragmatic, a fair redistributionist, and temperamentally cautious. All this nuance gets lost on a message board.

Having billionaires among us doesn't offend me nearly as much as having folks mired in poverty and despair among us does. If we can take some of the money from the former, while letting them keep their fair share of it since they earned it*, and spread it out among the latter, we would have a better society, for everyone.








*that's a whole other discussion

"radicals" advocating shared prosperity as the working model for an enlightened, advanced society.

In any kind of system you need incentives because in the absence of incentives a lot of folks will be content to do as little as possible.

Incentives can come in the form of money, status, prestige, and even sex. How many rock stars first picked up a guitar so they can meet girls?

I believe in a honest wage for a honest day's work but if a man or women has figured out a way to make a ton of money I am content to let them keep their fair share of it, but the rest of it should be spread out among those less fortunate.

are you supporting hillary because you think she is more empathetic to those in distress, in other words, on issues, or because you think she is more electable (the pragmatic approach)?

i understand if you want to pass. its kind of a personal question.

The latter. I am more concerned about keeping what little I have which in this case is my Medi Cal than taking a risk in the Fall, and having the Republicans control all three levels of government. It's not just me...It's the 18,000,000 other Americans who are getting free or subsidized health insurance as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

I am also afraid of having a GOP president nominate three Supreme Court Justices and overturning Roe V Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, and even Lawrence V Texas.

And I am also afraid of mass deportations of undocumented workers, some of whom are my friends.

I am in California, which is almost a nation in and of itself, so I will be largely immune from GOP misrule... A lot of other people won't, and their concerns are mine.

The barbarians (GOP) are at the gate. I don't want to risk what we have gained for the promise of what we might gain when I don't see a reasonal chance that promise can be fulfilled.

Is Hillary empathetic? I think so. Compared to whom, compared to a Republican, she is emphatically empathetic.

and i meant to edit my post to add that, since i was asking, the least i could do was share. i am with bernie on issues all the way, but i also happen to think he is more electable, so unlike some, i am not forced to make a choice between "head and heart." both candidates will have strengths and challenges in a ge, especially if the gop nom is an expert flamethrower (trump, of course).

and i think everyone on du can agree that the republicans are most definitely NOT empathetic, except perhaps to each other, and i honestly doubt even that.

many are not die hard Democrats-many admit that and have very little loyalty to the Democratic Party-it certainly isn't reflective of the Democratic Party. 99% of Democratic Party officeholders are supporting Clinton yet many on this board have no regard for the opinions of our own Democratic leaders whether they are DLC, moderate or liberal. I know I would never consider voting for anyone but the Democratic nominee and have never vilified the character of Bernie Sanders who only recently became a Democrat

and not ROUTINELY cast aspersions that they are traitors and bought and paid for. If you really think that all these officeholders are in the tank for Clinton because they are bought and paid for then why are you Democrats and why are you on a board named DEMOCRATIC Underground. And yes I'd expect that their would be some consideration of the reason 99% of our office-holders are supporting Clinton-maybe they know something you don't

Sanders has Keith Ellison. Not comparable at all-as pointed out by a 538 article from last year

Endorsements

We talk about the endorsement primary a lot at FiveThirtyEight. That’s because no other variable has been as consistently predictive of who becomes the nominee. Obama was trailing Clinton in endorsements in 2007, but he still had plenty of support from governors, House members and senators. Sanders hasn’t yet received a single endorsement from anyone in those groups.

Clinton, meanwhile, has 307 endorsement points2 on the FiveThirtyEight endorsement scoreboard. She has 99.7 percent of the endorsement points earned by Democratic candidates so far. She had 122 endorsement points as of Aug. 17, 2007, or 61 percent of the points then in play.



http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-youre-no-barack-obama/

essential. I am not seeing Berners make any commitment into the future. Looks like their hopes will die with Bernie and they will go back to doing what they did before- nothing. I challenge them to prove me wrong.

"After Bernie is situated for a year and he gets change rolling, the People recognize that he is worth fighting with. So give him a year. "


"He gets change rolling"...please explain how he does that with a Republican House of Representatives....its not going to happen so stop with the silly promises.

And there's going to be a whole bunch of movers and shakers within the Democratic Party who would not be willing to go to bat for him, either.

....they were already meeting and plotting to make sure Obama's Presidency was a failure.

a couple of years. That is the most optimistic prediction I have read- but granted I have seen few that even want to wade in on the discussion. I'm curious about the slate he is helping run in November and what plans there are to expand upon it.

It would appear that a congressional endorsement is an anchor and chain.

But Congress has an amazing reelection rate because most people like their member of the House and their Senators.

Conflating the two isn't accurate.

No I wouldn't expect too many of those, since they all eat from the same troth... the very one he wants to take away.

we don't owe them any respect. Why should we when they show their constituents no respect?

Plenty of time for Congressional Democrats to get to know Bernie. Stallion makes a good point. Where are the endorsements from even the most liberal Congressional members?

the air, yeah, the air...

To be honest with you I think both parties are dying and America will be a better place for it. I am indeed not a democrat. I think the so-called two party system has led to complacency in idea and goals. You are either RW and a republican or LW and a democrat and you have to take whatever those two fucking dinosaurs offer and like it even as it destroys the nation.

I've posted the evidence from both 538.com and Wikipedia in posts yesterday

In Wikipedia search for List of Endorsements for Hillary Clinton and then Sanders

538 had it at above 99% albeit in a dated article but its about 39-0 in Senate and 158 to 2 in the House (Keith Ellison I think is the only Representative) Opps also Raul Grgravjl (sp) from Arizona. 12-0 among Governors

Independent, so 40% of Americans such as myself don't have to be loyal to the party, and no you don't have to be a Democrat to be on this board.

The Party doesn't want me, why should I want it?

… are self-described liberals/progressives. That doesn’t mean they actually are.

Many posters on DU are self-described Democrats. That doesn’t mean they actually are.

Don't you wonder why an extremely liberal website tends love Bernie?

No, I wonder why what purports to be a Democratic-supporting site allows the bashing of Democrats day-in and day-out.

All DU Polls and a majority of posts favor Bernie!

Of course they do. By Skinner’s own account, at least 85% of the posters here are BS supporters. That’s because the HRC supporters have pretty much left the building – along with the Obama supporters who have already left - along with supporters of other candidates who are sick of the bullying, the vitriol, and the personal attacks.

That also means 85% of the jury pool is BS supporters – which in turn means that anything remotely critical of BS is “hidden” while the most vile things posted about HRC are always a “leave” – which in turn means that anyone who doesn’t kiss Bernie’s ass doesn’t bother posting here.

Why are the people who sniped at Obama & the Dems for years, while posing as “disappointed Dems”, the same people who are now sniping at Hillary & the Dems while claiming to be doing so because they’re BS supporters? Amazing coincidence, I guess.

Why do so many “Bernie supporters” only post anti-HRC and anti-Dem posts, but never post anything pro-Bernie?

If DU is such a great liberal site, why has its traffic gone down and its membership dwindled for years? Why didn’t DU break even financially last year, as per Skinner’s own OP stating so? Why has DU, a “political website”, actually been losing traffic since the debates started and two states have now cast their primary votes?

Think about that for a while.

DU is now completely controlled by BS supporters. And you know what? You can have it. It’s all yours.

But that will end soon enough, and some wonderful people will reemerge. It has happened before.

I've been here a long time, and this is some stuff here! It's like Lord of the Flies!

With disgusting vitriol to a poster who's been a DU member for many more years than you have.
You're proving our point. Bravo!

DU is losing traffic. SBS supporters aren't joining in enough numbers to fill the gap left by the absence of Hillary supporters

Since the "anti Obama" group started up soon after he became president, and their numbers grew, more people did stop posting, I know I did. Now we not only have the same group of anti Obama posters switching to Hillary to bash, we have lots of new posters showing up trying to stir things up and cause trouble by dividing the board members, and sadly it's working.

As for the long time members who have been tombstoned, well maybe they pushed their luck to far and deserved what they got!

When you bully people in real life you are actually taking a chance, as those being bullied have a recourse.

Deny she calls Kissinger a friend. Deny she is supported by Wall Street. Deny she has a history of changing her views to fit the current trends. Deny she spread racist rumors in 2008 about President Obama.

Just try to deny the absolute motherfucking truth that is staring you in the face.

Somehow I never get tired of the "but what about HER!?!" response to anything and everything.

... how posting that HRC is a warmongering, bribe-taking, Republican water-carrier for the 1%, etc., could possibly be construed as "comparing" the candidates.

I don't see how telling posters that if they vote for Hillary, they basically stand for everything Democrats abhor is a "comparison" of the candidates.

I don't see how posting links to RW bloggers, authors, pundits, or publications containing RW smears against HRC is "comparing" her to Bernie.

I was here in the thick of it in 2008. I was an Obama supporter. I was never told by an HRC supporter that I was an unpatriotic imbecile who should be purged from the Democratic Party - nor do I recall any Obama supporter saying such things to Hillary supporters.

Of course, we still had Mods back then who enforced the TOS rules. Now we have "juries" who are not expected to follow the TOS (as per Skinner's own words), and with 85% of the jury pool being comprised of BSers (real or alleged), the most vile things said about HRC are left to stand, while even a hint of criticism about BS is removed. So tell me again how that circumstance leads to honest "comparison" of the two.

... HRC is a warmongering, bribe-taking, Republican water-carrier for the 1%, etc., is not comparison. It is name-calling. If I said Bernie is a hypocritical self-serving idiot, that would be name calling, too – not a comparison of the candidates.

Telling posters that if they vote for Hillary, they basically stand for everything Democrats abhor is not a comparison of candidates; it’s an attack on a candidates’ supporters. HRC stands for MANY things that Democrats have always stood for, and has fought for those things her entire career.

Posting links to RW bloggers, authors, pundits, or publications containing RW smears against HRC is what it is – adopting RW smears and proferring them as though Democrats should accept those smears as truthful and honest. I’ve seen Vince Foster mentioned here, for fuck’s sake. What’s the “comparison” here? That the RW never cooked-up stories about Bernie murdering his friend?

In 2008, I was never told by an HRC supporter that I was an unpatriotic imbecile who should be purged from the Democratic Party - nor do I recall any Obama supporter saying such things to Hillary supporters. Again, attacking the supporters of a candidate is what it is – it has nothing to do with the candidates themselves or any comparison of the two.

I never said the jury system is “rigged”. I pointed out the obvious fact that 85% of DU’s jury pool are BS supporters. We’ve all seen jury decisions here – and many jurors add comments about voting to “hide” or “leave” based on whether the post alerted on is from an HRC supporter or a BS supporter, and how that affected their decision.

” … there is no way that could prevent you from making a positive case for your candidate.” That’s a pretty ironic statement, considering that the majority of posts from BSers consist of anti-HRC screeds rather than stating anything positive about Bernie.

We can all read. Pretending that what goes on here is actual discussion comparing the candidates is ludicrous.

Like you, I'm a long time DU member who is tired of the anti-Democratic Party crap being flung here by the BS supporters.

Everything you say is true. Most Hillary supporters have left DU. With the turn DU has taken in the last few months, it won't be long before supporters of Obama, Biden, Bill Clinton, the CBC and any other Dem politico who has been a D for longer than the 7 months BS has pretended he's a D will be gone from DU as well.

This place has turned into a Berniebot cesspool.

I find it hard to believe that all the posters that show up here, the new ones, are "ONLY" for Bernie and from day one they start out bashing the other candidates. They continue to go after Clinton, they are negative about Obama, they hate the DNC, they hate just about everything about the party, and yet they "claim" to be progressives, and liberals? I kind of doubt that myself.

There are "real" supporters of Bernie who post things that are NOT inflammatory, who will admit that if Bernie is NOT the nominee, they will support Clinton. Those who constantly see they will NOT voter for Clinton, or they will write in Bernie's name do not song like REAL progressives, liberals or democrats to me.

"you know what? You can have it. It’s all yours. "

Not the first time you've announced your departure, yet here you still are.

I said "you can have it".

But I'm still posting here, aren't I? And I can still post here whether "you have it" or not.

Feel THAT burn.

... who responded to your OP about HRC's electability with the sarcastic words "I feel you pain", which you then told everyone was her sarcastic response to your having lost a child due to inadequate healthcare?

Just want to make sure we're talking about the same person here. I know you would never want to mislead anyone.

On Sat Feb 13, 2016, 05:55 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Was she the one ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1220520

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Why is this person bringing up someone's deceased child? This is way too personal and is the definition of over-the-top.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Feb 13, 2016, 06:05 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It seems like personal, painful information that maybe the poster should have had permission to post before doing so.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: this is getting so ridiculous. It's not over the top considering the posts above. These stalking alerts are getting out of hand.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: ALthough it may be "tasteless' ... in the context of this thread it sadly fits
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

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

?

Because that is not at all what happened.

... in an OP of his about HRC not being electable. I sarcastically said "I feel your pain" and referenced HRC's poll numbers.

A few weeks ago, said poster said in another thread that I had posted that comment in response to his loss of a child due to inadequate healthcare coverage. I didn't even KNOW he'd lost a child until he accused me of having posted a sarcastic response to that news.

Said poster literally took a comment of mine on one topic (HRC's electability) and persisted in claiming it was a sarcastic comment in a discussion about people dying needlessly due to inadequate healthcare coverage.

Here is a link to the thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251704260#post107

As you can see for yourself, the discussion had nothing to do with healthcare, or the loss of loved ones, and neither did my "I feel your pain" reply at Post #107.

So you might want to stop accusing me of "bullying someone over a dead child".

for cybertrashing of a Democratic Presidential candidate and for cyberbullying of her supporters.

Real progressives and liberals would not participate in either activity.

And you know something "real progressives and liberals" don't participate in this kind of activity. The ones who do this are not really who they claim to be. The are here to stir things up, divide the board, and most of all destroy Hillary Clinton so that even if she wins the nomination, the damage done will hurt her in the primary. They also want to convince as many people as possible to NOT vote for her in the general election, or to write in Bernie's name. Now what group would try and do that? Not Democrats. Not liberals. Not progressives. Oh wait, maybe the GOP?

I have nothing against Bernie, and I know there are real supporters of his here who do not participate in the trashing and bashing, but it's way to obvious what some who "claim" to be supporting him are really doing, and it's not helping a Democrat get into the WH.

as well.

See my longer sig line below.

Thank you.

or are you sticking around for the pie?

PS> Skinner controls DU and, last time I looked, he supports Hillary. Just sayin'.

and I don't remember one instance where the post wasn't hidden at least as far as the jury's I have been involved with. Not that it never happens but I think the fact that 85% of DU favors Sanders and so many rude anti Hillary posts are hidden shows how fair most of us who Support Sanders are. That being said, because it is such a high % who do support him the probability of jury's getting it wrong on anti Hillary posts increases, but that's more of a probability issue not an issue with the vast, vast majority of Sanders supporters who are fair people. There are a handful of very nasty Sanders and Hillary supporters who post a lot who make both sides look more extreme than they are.

I was the second person to alert - only my second alert ever. This is what I was told.

I've never alerted or been on a jury in my life-I'm not interested in playing that game- but after about 100 of these types of posts EVERY DAY its time to start exposing the fact that you're probably not really a Democrat if you continually insult 99% of our own officeholders

and swift boating of someone who has been honorable in civil rights is over the line. "Ratfuckerty" is an unfortunate choice of words but had you worked hard for civil rights causes all your life and then someone tried to smear you as not having done those things would you not call that "Ratfuckery"?

Had Sanders tried to Slander Hillary's record on an issue she had a stellar record in I would be just as upset.

You speak for many of us.

Conversations on the site reflect the state of public opinion about Democratic candidates and the Democratic party. Nothing more, nothing less. At this point, the number of independents in the voting public outnumbers party members. Personally, I tend to describe myself as a left-leaning independent rather than a Democrat, although I'm often a member of the state Democratic party, I vote predominantly for Democratic candidates, and the people in my circle vote Democratic for the most part. And yet, I still am very critical of HRC and the whole Clinton legacy, which I believe is responsible for a lot of the party division, for many years running. I tend to post mostly during the primary season, when I'm doing organizing myself and the outcome of these discussions matters more.

I can't speak for all BS supporters, but there are many lifelong Dem voters like myself who are strongly dissatisfied with the overall policy direction of the party. Just like when Obama was running, Sanders has brought that energy, impatience, and passion to the surface. This is part of the pent-up energy that triangulation has left untapped.

I generally try to disagree respectfully, but this election matters. The stakes are high. And as a black liberal voter, I'm a part of the two most underappreciated and taken for granted segments of Democratic support. I want that to change, and that will come through in what I post.

are leaving, but apparently not enough Sander supporters have joined to fill that gap?

That's a reflection of several things, including younger people feeling that established institutions, such as the DEM party, are not serving them well enough. And I think that's a very fair critique of the Dems. Sanders' candidacy brings this to the surface. A candidate made viable by highly enthusiastic younger voters, and a party establishment that is so deep in the tank for Clinton that they can't figure out what to do with an epic new level of support for the rising candidate. So the Establishment pushes back, dismisses the youth vote, dampens expectations, continues to fundraise from the usual suspects. Is at any wonder why the Sanders voters tend to be less supportive of the party structures?

Only about half of the public votes at all. The rest are disaffected or apathetic about our national political culture.

Party identification among the remaining 50% is about 30% DEM, 40% independent and 30% Republicans. That's right, despite how much we love Obama and Clinton, 30% of likely voters support the clown car over the Democratic brand. Given that fact, mainstream Dems need to accept some accountability. It's not just gerrymandering that keeps Republicans in power, you can't gerrymander US Senate elections. It's the lack of a message that resonates deeply and widely enough.

I think among partisan Dems it's close to 50/50 with Sanders and Clinton, with the more Netroots wing of the party tipping toward Sanders. The Netroots wing is younger, more motivated in certain ways this election season, and growing in number. Clinton fatigue is real with this group of voters which is why many among the Netroots supported Obama in 2008. And these voters are all over DU. It's a family fight among Dems that's not going away. My advice to the Clinton wing is stop bashing the Netroots voters and BS supporters and figure out how to reach them based on issues. The stakes are high and Dems need to win.

I stepped away several years ago for several of the reasons that NG notes. A Clinton supporter, I returned a few days ago to see what's going on. Same old, same old. Liberals with minority views still being vilified and personally insulted. I'd wager that DUers like me who left are a large part of the reason why DU is shrinking in size and not growing.

But I'm staying because there are at least a few Bernie supporters who don't immediately attack Clinton supporters. Those exchanges are the most interesting and worthwhile.

NG, I hope you will stay for awhile and not give up. The scene here is approaching mob rule but there are a few opportunities to engage with a Bernie supporter and certainly with other Hillary supporters.

There are MANY BS supporters who do not engage in this kind of behavior at all. They understand that, while we may support different candidates at this stage of the game, our end goal is the same: to defeat GOers in 2016.

I think by and large juries behave fairly. True, close calls may tend to go more Bernie's way than Hillary's, but truly vile stuff about Hillary does get hidden. Here's an example:

... to say that juries by and large behave fairly.

We've all seen jury results posted here, and they are often rife with comments about whether the poster alerted on is an HRC supporter, and how that is a factor in their decision as to whether to leave or hide.

We have all seen jurors state in their decisions that they will ALWAYS vote to hide Hillary supporters, will hide anything posted by known members of HRC-supporting sites, etc.

These things are known due to jury decisions being posted on a regular basis. We can all read them. It is not surmise or supposition on anyone's part as to what goes on with juries - we SEE their comments.

For the most part, I and many here can compartmentalize which allows us to passionately disagree with people on some issues, still respect them as people and stand in solidarity when we agree.

Primary season always gets ugly here but this time feels different.

In conclusion, I apologize for harsh words in the past on matters of disagreement and I'm working on doing a better job of keeping that in check.

and that its administrator supports Hillary? Besides, Sanders is not even really a Democrat. Therefore, Hillary's supporters have as much right to participate here as those who support Sanders. If some of you don't like it, you can start your own website dedicated solely to Sanders' supporters.

You laid it out very well why membership is declining and revenues are down. The type of attacks on DUers you just expressed make DU suck. Good Job!

I always thought this was a community for discussion.

I've seen far more Bernie supporters chased off and banned. I did not know DU existed for Hillary alone.

Color me surprised and confused.

Oh and it probably may depend on "what the definition of is is"..........