with this the people's view blog posts

They are coming out of the woodwork, and this guy was banned from DU for being a troll.

They know it's not legit, but they are all throwing his shit all over the forum, because they are so pissed that Bernie is doing so well (and going to Rome).

Just ingore anything posted from The People's View.

Don't respond. It's troll bait.

That shouldn't matter to most people.

Do you understand why?

What's your point?

What's YOUR point in asking me what my point is?

Which is WHY I even ASKED.

Have a gif it's soothing

Of course, bigotry against "old white men" would seem to raise questions of ageism, racism and sexism as well, but hey, "In for a penny, in for a pound".

I am married to an old white man. The bigotry has been from the other side.

Nothing in that questionnaire pertained to your accusation.

and I think all regular readers here understand exactly who I was alluding to and why.

And yet you felt obliged to jump in and deny that my comments applied to you personally.
I can only wonder why.

I have never seen you before, either. But I have a right to reply to anyone here. Or have the Bernistas changed that rule, too?

Just as I'm free to comment on them. Meh.

Trash

Will the media continue to give him a pass? Or just let him fade into obscurity?

That's how disgusted a whole lot of people are.

For real...

I was wondering when the Clinton side would call for him to be primaried. Whether he runs as a D or an I, it would be funny to see Sanders challenged. He got more than 80 % in the presidential primary. Not even Howard Dean would be able to make it a contest.

I say bring it on, the Clinton side will get crushed.

I tell ya there's not an ounce of conscience in the whole bunch.

"I think he should be primaried"


You act like he is new to all this. You do realize he has waged successful campaigns for 20+ years? Against both Democrats and Republicans?
That in the 2016 primary he carried Vermont with 86.1% and that HRC wasn't even viable?

That in his 2012 election, 63% of eligible voters voted and he won 71% to 24%?

That in 2006 Senate election, he won 65% to 32%?

Before that he won his House seat in Vermont every election from 1990-2006 when ran for Senate

If you are keeping count, that is 10 successful campaigns in a row, beating all comers as an Independent?
He is the most successful Independent candidate in the history of Congress since the advent of the two-party system.

FYI, he has caucused with the Democrats every one of those years, sometimes being key to a ensuring a Democratic majority.

So talk all that trash you want, Sanders has that seat because the voters of Vermont want him there.

Unseating a Senator is no small feat. I'm sure whatever it takes is very serious. I think this should be more widely publicized.

It is really getting boring. Don't you have anything else to go after so vociferously?
Give it a rest.

critical posts about a Jewish candidate seriously.

Don't you love the assumption that we are supposed to actually care what invisible internet people think?

Of course the creepy stalking is disturbing...

people who just remember seeing it.

Did you read them?

If they really didn't care what other people on the 'net think they wouldn't be members at a Hillary supporter site that keeps certain sections hidden from new and non-members.

It gets very strange very fast with obsessive types

Anybody with enough time on their hands to follow people around the internet and stalk them is a sick fuck. Usually pathetic. Lack of friends. Feelings of grandeur. They needs help.

Believe me, I don't follow you. But your remarks on Jews got quite a bit of notice, as I'm sure you're aware. That's all I know about you, and all I want or need to know.

Since there is considerable more to "know" about Bravenek as I'm sure you are aware.

Here's what I know about her:

Though admitting to not liking Clinton, almost every post she makes is devoted to tearing down Sanders, who I think she's claimed to like.

Why do you bring it up here.

very slimy attacks on a Jewish candidate.

If David Duke wrote an article on 'Barrack Obama's suspicious behavior', I think we'd all assume his previously stated opinions on black people was... let's just say tainting his commentary a bit, right?

about religion in this thread when religion is not the subject of the article. Are you following her around?

Denying that only makes you look as bad as she is.

Look, I know you're desperate to turn this around and make me the bad guy. But you need to ask yourself a question. If the bigot wasn't pro-Hillary... would you make excuses for them? Let's say, for instance, that some Sanders supporter went off on a misogynistic tirade, said they despise women, and then posted constant attacks on Hillary Clinton.

Can you honestly say you'd ignore their past comments and just engage them on each smear, one at a time, giving them the benefit of the doubt that it's not at all connected to their misogynistic streak? Of course you wouldn't. You'd be an idiot and a sucker to do that. So don't ask others to do it.

There have been other angles. All are very obvious.

You still haven't explained why you brought up religion on this thread since the article is not about religion, besides the personal issue.

Did you read the article? The first question was a home run for me. I've often thought that about Sanders -- why leave a diverse state like New York if he was actually interested in politics and policy and go to a small place like Vermont. Those two actions don't match up.

Read you loud and clear.

Racism obviously.

the reason was in this thread. Look again. But it does show *your* fixation on race.

This is really a prime example of how little her attackers have even read what she has said. Someone just posted down thread a screed that is really off base from what bravenak* actually said. This is obviously done intentionally so maximum offense can be taken as justification for following her around.

*disclaimer: I don't always come across brave's posts/threads, and I'm certainly not trying to speak for her in any way. It's just obvious she is followed here. Just look at this thread. Not one attempt was made to discuss what she actually posted.

....because someone "previously" said something about it weeks, or months, or maybe even years ago?

You know, this has been mentioned before, and each and every time I see that accusation I ask "where was the hatred of Jews", or "where was the anti-Semitism", and each time it goes unanswered.

If someone posts an "attack" (i.e., an inch short of a glowing review) on Sanders, it's because he's a candidate one doesn't support, not a "Jewish" candidate. If you posted something negative about Clinton, it wouldn't be an attack on a "woman" candidate, or a "New York" candidate, etc. It would be a negative comment about a candidate. Period.

So, apparently you're supporting Sanders over Clinton. Wouldn't you think it ludicrous if someone asked you "why do you hate women?"?

If they'd done that, I think everyone here-- not just Hillary supporters-- would be obligated to point it out when they made attacks on Clinton. That is, if they somehow escaped a very well-earned ban.

I recall the brick post. I have seen Hillary called a whore, referred to as Shillary, called a liar. The posts were allowed to stand. No one pointed out anything.

There was no anti-semitism here. You are trying to start an argument where there is none, and you are being hypocritical in your comments.

A troll alerted on me. Lied said it never happened then was PPRed an hour later. Where is the justice in our justice system?

I did not know that. I am sorry you got a hide for posting the truth.

I'm sure we'll go around in this circle again the next time that charge is posted.

don't know what you think you're accomplishing.

**On edit-- riderinthestorm posted a link to the quote for you in post #139. Thanks again, riderinthestorm.

So his comments are moot. You should mention to him that they're posted now on the thread...

Quoting them gets you a hide. Marr, wake up. All this crap is left by jury .

so that you can get them PPRd because the latest argument is that showing what she wrote somewhere else is posting private information. Things that are obvious are obvious. If you don't know what she posted that was anti-Semitism, then just go back through her transparency page and look at the hides. Some of them have to do with that discussion. I know that will take some time because she has so many hides, but you'll find it.

Is there no low too low for Sanders supporters?

....was first levied. Never got a response, just a vague reference to ludicrous "dog whistles", the blanket "justification" for that false charge.

And yet the unsubstantiated claim is still repeated over and over again.

And her antisemitic comments are pretty easy to find here now.

I've no interest in discussing your malleable moral code. Have a nice night.

.... rational questions could be.

You're directly impugning someones character and have shown little proof, it sounds like this person apologized either way.

Full disclosure: I was #6

Sid

So, there's that. If you don't want posts hidden, this would be a good primer on how not to do that.

But I'm sure Skinner will take off the flagged for review yet again so she can come back for her 14th hide. FOURTEENTH. Hip, hip, hooray for amnesty.

It will be interesting to see how such an incorrigible recidivist is treated.

Right? The worst part is that she doesn't even care to space out her really horrible remarks by 25 hours so that she doesn't get flagged. She will be reinstated before morning and just do it all over again. It's really hard to say that there is any discussion of standards on here when people get to have 12 hides.

I fully expect admin to do sweet fuck-all wrt to any kind of punitive action.

Several of her comments are verging on direct threats.

that none of the posts deserved it...

There was no mention of religion in this posted article, yet she was attacked just to alert on her posts.

yet again.

This abuse of the jury system has even gone so far as to get her another 3/4/lost count in this thread by blowout jury decisions.

Those kind of results can only happen when people abuse the jury system.

When someone is on record saying they hate Jews, it sort of discredits everything they say about Jewish people. Maybe you should get a friend to post these links for you?

OR racists or sexists or bigots of any kind.

Bravenak made a mistake and in the heat of passion said something she shouldn't have. Everyone is guilty of saying things they regret later. The difference is that she did it on the internet. She then wrote a heartfelt apology -which is more than I've seen anyone do here. She apologized. Can you move on and stick to the issues? Or is your candidate so weak and flawed that all you have is insults for his opponent's supporters?

And after a heartfelt apology.

Honestly he made that comment in anquished despair when his wife was terribly ill and he discovered the ACA wasn't sufficient for her so he had more "reason" to make his comment than "heat of passion".

He was in fact hounded off the board here and he wasn't an anti-Semite.

applying to almost every President since at least 1945...

But hey they claim a triple standard when an antisemite is called on her antisemitism. If she meant it, she would have changed her behavior and it would still take years.

Speaking of the subject, yesterday I scored at Goodwill, they had a copy of "The Return of Anti-Semitism." It has a whole chapter on it in the United States... can't wait to read that chapter. It is not like we have not seen the disease spread here to DU.

attacks on Sanders. Her 'apology' was lacking in any evidence of contrition, she admits to hating Jews but she still wants to attack them on DU under the guise of 'supporting Hillary'? Asking for forgiveness for such a thing requires not doing that thing anymore. She showed her truth. Let her forgive herself, the rest of us owe her nothing.

prove she is not an anti-Semite? Don't be absurd!

Nothing she posted is biased against Jews. NOTHING

The very real and serious issues of anti-semitism being used as a stick to beat Bravenek with. I suspect the beginning and end of those ever-so-concerned about anti-semitism from certain posters begin and end with using that stick.

Bravenek is a powerful voice for her people. There is something very unsavory and racist in these constant attacks.

>>>Bravenek is a powerful voice for her people. >>>>>

>>>>There is something very unsavory and racist in these constant attacks.>>>

I really don't think playing the victim is going to work here. It really just makes your own feverish defense all that much more suspect.

I thought she was talking about Smurfs. Something about noses being three apples high?

Except maybe...

But actually she's a victim of nothing ....except her own propensity for emotionalism and irrationality.

And the peculiar and disturbing egging-on she gets from her not-so-small fan base here.

If you don't want to be accused of anti-semitism. Don't post anti-semitism on the internet. Doesn't seem too hard of a standard to hold to. "Powerful voices" might have different thoughts, I guess. When people that are white (my people, I guess) say anti-semitism things, I tend to let people know they don't speak for me.

indicates any apology was pure bullshit. What are you saying, that some racist bigotry is ok with you and the Hillary group? That's what it seems like to me.