Do you have a link to this piece?

for the link.

for the link.

More mindless, linkless projection.

They have a very narrow view of what is politically correct -- which is defined by whatever Clinton says or does.

Slightly more conservative than Clinton? You're a right wing crazy.

Slightly more progressive than Clinton? You're an "angry leftist."

It's very depressing.

And that "writer" is complaining that Sanders supporters are narrow minded?

.

doesn't do editorials. This is one writers opinion.

There are many writers that submit pieces to Salon. The fact that you choose to promote the pieces that support your view is no surprise. We all do that. To believe that it's anything more than that is a stretch.

starting to play this tune:

don't agree with him dismissively and even with contempt. There are plenty of stories from people back when he was a mayor, and he's famous for lecturing his congressional colleagues on the proper way to think about issues.

CrowCity, very rigid views and feelings of strong superiority and righteousness, as well as rejection and hostility toward those who don't join them, are strong characteristics of a far-left extremist personality, along with absolutism and often authoritarianism. Of course, there's a range in everything, from mild to strong; and although I've decided Bernie clearly shares the extremist tendencies of some of his followers, I at least haven't been able to guess how strong or weak they are.

Sanders has been able to vote with the Democratic caucus over 96% of the time for 25 years, while at the same time frequently expressing pride in not being a Democrat. I'm just not actually sure if that denotes some ability to flex and cooperate or something else.

I have trouble seeing any major differences between Sanders and Clinton. I don't think either one of them are corrupt and I think that either one of them would support the same basic goals. Clinton might be more likely to succeed in implementing those goals, but if she is elected, I think Sanders will be supporting nearly all of her proposals. I think it was a real mistake for Sanders to label himself a socialist (particularly since he doesn't seem to be a socialist), but that is water under the bridge. Sometimes we do things that foreclose some of our future opportunities. At this point it doesn't make much difference - Clinton is going to be the nominee and Sanders is not going to run as an independent.

Sanders (and his supporters) will come around. It just takes time.

Wow. And the sad thing is I think you actually believe this.

And, while I don't see large differences between the proposals of Clinton and Sanders, I do see significant differences between their supporters. Sanders seems to have been successful in persuading his supporters that he is just an ordinary citizen up against all of the politicians of the world. I know that both Clinton and Sanders are political animals with much experience. I know that Sanders doesn't see himself as Little Bo Peep, but a lot of his supporters seem to see him that way.

Who could have guessed that he would be a bitter sore loser after a statement like that?

From anotehr article by the author:

Oh--and you FORGOT THE LINK to that quote. It provides the context you so sorely need. She's not tolerant and understanding of BIGOTS--not sure why that is a problem for you.

Here, I found it for you--so we can all have the full flavor of the context:

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/18/christian_right_voters_get_in_line_behind_trump_because_conservatism_has_always_been_their_true_religion/



Christian right voters get in line behind Trump, because conservatism has always been their true religion

mean spirited narrow minded hypocrisy.

I'm far from a defender of Trump or the right. I actually agree with the writer on many things.

But she's a goddamn hypocrite. She claims to be ever-so-progressive, but her vision of liberalism is limited to the very narrow spectrum that Clinton --- the Goldman Sachs, Monsanto Candidate -- and the so-called "centrists" represent. She attacks anyone who deviates even slightly to the right or left from her self-defined only "political correct" position. Everyone outside of that narrow little spectrum is excoriated.

Meanwhile, he own writing is a perfect example of what she whines about. She gripes that Sanders and his supporters are closed minded jerks who see anyone who disagrees with them as assholes and dupes....But her writing is filled with examples of dismissing anyone who disagrees wither her as being assholes and fools.

You ARE defending Trump -- you pulled out (without link or explanation) a little snippet from her article, and hoped to stoke some outrage with it.

Anyone who votes for Trump IS a close-minded jerk--and likely a racist, a xenophobe, and an asshole to boot. I've not met anyone who votes for Trump who can't be persuaded with almost no prodding to say something offensive about some minority group or immigrant sector.

Have you read the TOS here, lately?

This is an article by a woman with profound powers of discernment, yet you're getting all upset that she calls Trump as the overwhelming majority of us here see him.

Hmmm. I don't think you understand the goals of this site. We want to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans--not defend racist scumbags like Donald Trump.

And, as for your assertion that she is somehow being "mean to Bernie" you might want to read what you cite:

I'm not defending Trump or the Christian right.

Just pointing to the hypocrisy of a columnist who blasts everyone that does not fit into her narrow view of things and then claiming they are nasty and narrow minded. And a writer who practices the same sins she is criticizing Sanders and his supporters for.

I think you're smart enough to know the difference between defending Trump and Christians and using her attacks on them as an example of her own double standards.

up a quote without citing it, not me. I was the one who did the work and found out it was talking about Trump.

It's only reasonable to question your motives when you conceal such an important element of the quote you--not me, YOU-brought to the table.

You're the one decrying the writer for saying bad things, and the bad thing you cite is about that lunatic Donald Trump.

There's nothing "bad" about calling an ass an ass.

There's nothing wrong with calling an ass an ass -- but if one does it in a way that's also being a hypocritical ass, they are also open to criticism.

Her criticism of the Christian right would be the same whether the subject was Trump or not. Point is she's doing to them what she claims Sanders does.

That big fat headline didn't give you a clue?

Christian right voters get in line behind Trump, because conservatism has always been their true religion

Rather like most people do.

But since she hasn't opined that someone you favor is The Way and The Light, she's getting some shade from you.

That's fine, that's YOUR opinion--but let's not pretend this is anything more than you not liking her particular perspective about someone you prefer.

Yet another Republican tactic adopted by conservative Democrats

Confused and frightened when the line between "winner" and "loser" isn't clearly defined. Not qualified to write on modern American politics.

Many university students today aren't open to opposing opinions.

Bernie is just following the kids' lead.

I thought the corrupt oligarchs were the elites. This whole time it was the people calling them out for screwing over working and poor Americans that are the bad people. Imagine my embarrassment.

Make up your mind!

Hahahahaha! Damn, I'm good!

Another right wing dumbass argument or at least a 1st cousin of one. You know the good old chestnut that liberals aren't really inclusive because their idiotic, failed, and generally bigoted nonsense has no place in a western democracy. This time just omit the bigotry and the same lame argument is sitting there.

Guilty as charged, I have nothing but disdain for demonstrably failed, stubborn wrong-headedness that destroys our future abuses our present while making much of our past progress for naught.

I though, am filled with contempt for this.