Wow.

Thanks for posting this.

We need to Tweet about it, now, too!

Clinton's repeat crap doesn't fly.

on DU in 2015? That goes with the one this morning about some Hillary supporter starting the birther movement so now we all are just as bad 7 years later.
I never bought into that original sin thing back in Catholic school.
See you can't hold people responcible for something someone else did 7 years ago there is no original sin.
On edit;
None of us on DU supporting Hillary hate Bernie.
Another edit: I know we don't hate Bernie because we would be saying shit about him on our other board and that just ain't happening.

According to HC supporters he's a racist, a gun nut, a Republican man with his head between women's legs, who protects the minutemen militia, pedophiles, racist cops, has rape fantasies and thinks that orgasms prevented cancer.

support he gets. See the reaction to David 'blinded by the right' Brock's feeble attempt to attack Bernie. All it does is demonstrate how corrupt our system is and how honest a person Sanders is, and they are actually HELPING him win with their nasty, negative attacks.

We've been fighting the smears for months.

and rising above it. I wasn't worried, and I doubt he was either.

The more negative they get, the more disgusted people are.

The bright side is that, when I right-clicked all your links, my tabs blossomed with the beginning of the "Message hidden by jury decision" notice.

It's quite a collection, of course there are many others that didn't get hidden but I only have so much time.

Good to see you posting in here, Jim.

You are projecting your feelings onto others yet again. Most Hillary Clinton supporters like Sanders and many of his positions. I personally like Sanders and according to that online quiz, Sanders positions are closer to my beliefs. I keep on asking the same question that most people ask which is how will Sanders be viable in the general election and I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation.

Viability is a very appropriate criterion to use to select in the primary process. If you want to see Sanders' appeal expand beyond the very very narrow base currently supporting him, then a good explanation as to viability will be needed. I simply doubt that Sanders will be the nominee and if he is the nominee I will support him but I would expect him to lose badly. I remember the 1972 election too well

I will not support him in the primary process because I do not believe that he can win in a general election contest. Your projection of your own feelings toward other Democrats is not an effective means of winning the support of these Democrats. Name calling is never a good way to win undecided voters.

Someone can support a candidate other than Sanders for a host of reasons and that does not mean that they are anti-Semites or other silly claims

Since you didn't bother to respond in my thread I'll just repost this info here so that people can see what it is you're defending, because it's not me you're disagreeing with:

I am and your posts are really sad and wrong. The relationship of the American Jewish community and Israel is complex. Your claims are not well reasoned and sad. I will raised this with members of the ADL but they will laugh at your claims. Do you want to compare who has given the most money to the ADL?

What's sad and wrong is how much bigotry some HC supporters are willing to overlook in support of their candidate.

And like another poster once told you, you're not posting in good faith so I think we're done here.

I am amused that you consider this to be offensive. I will raise it at an ADL meeting if you want just to see how many people laugh at this claim.

I am posting in good faith but it takes a well reasoned argument to change my opinion. I am sorry that you are mad that I am not convinced by your attempts at formulating a convincing argument but I am honored to be on your ignore list.

And again, please feel free to lecture the Jewish DUers who were offended by the anti-Semitic attack against Bernie by HC supporters.

Just do it in the thread where it can be discussed by other Jewish DUers instead of in here where you can pretend it's not blatant bigotry.

And I'm telling you that dual loyalty is a well-known and recognized Anti-Semitic trope.

It is specifically referenced in the DU TOS, it's that widely acknowledged.

I expect that the ADL board will be laughing at this claim

In that case, are you willing to disavow Prof. West for his racist comments about President Obama?? Wests comments are far worse than the NPR comments. If you want to be consistent, then you need to also reject Prof. West who is an official surrogate of the Sanders campaign. NPR and Diane Rheem are not surrogates of the Clinton campaign

1) No one said "NPR was part of the Clinton campaign team"

2) This sub thread is about anti-Semitism not Cornell West, a black scholar and activist whom you called a "racist"

3) Calling Dr. West a "surrogate" for Bernie Sanders is offensive as hell


But keep digging, I've got this thread bookmarked already for the next time you lecture someone about bigotry.

Have you told the Sanders campaign this??? The Sanders campaign is promoting West as a surrogate http://scdp.org/sc-dems-release-chair-chats-interview-with-dr-cornel-west/

The Sanders campaign sent West to South Carolina as the campaigns surrogate. Maybe the Sanders campaign has a clearer idea of who is one of its surrogate than you do.

I dislike calling West a surrogate for Bernie, especially since he struggled about whether or not to endorse him.

He didn't make the decision lightly or out of loyalty to anyone.

Well, whaddaya fuckin' know.

ADL: NPR's Diane Rehm Plays into Classic Anti-Semitic Charges of Dual Loyalty

The claim that NPR and Diane Rheem is a surrogate for the Clinton campaign and that these comments have any relevance will be fun to discuss

anti-semitism.

Don't put your back out moving those goalposts, though.

I was not impressed. These are really weak claims.

The polling that I have seen show that Clinton will do very well with Jewish voters. In Texas in 2008, Clinton carried the Jewish vote in the primaries. I really doubt that the charges set forth in this thread will have any effect on the support of the Jewish community for Hillary Clinton.

I must have missed that, please post the link.

tia!

You are basing your rather sad claims on the Rheem example. She is not a surrogate for the clinton campaign and your attemptto use the Rheem example to attack posters on the other site is not well thought out.

Again, if you want to throw rocks, then you should not live in a glass house. Your attacks on non-surrogates of the Clinton campaign have no real merit unless you are willing to apply the same standards to an official surrogate of the Sanders campaign, i.e. Prof West. West's comments on President Obama are truly disgusting and the fact that you are not condemning these comments render your attacks on the other site somewhat less effective. Double standards are such a pain to deal with in the real world

the democratic nominee whoever that may be. Sanders supporters 90% refused to say they would vote for Hillary I guess I have to post an open thread on that topic today.

In Texas, Democrats are outnumbered by the conservatives and so I see nothing wrong with passing on Sanders related material to a Texas Sanders supporter. The enemy in my world are not my fellow Democrats but the members of the GOP who trying to rig elections and suppress the vote.

I will support the Democratic candidate no mater who that candidate is.

It is the basis of the du. It is reality. It is who we are. I get that the GOP does not want Hillary non supporters to vote for her in any event. I just don't know why they would be here schooling Dem supporters on the DU.

School' of politics which was started by the Chicago School and is the very same thing. Our current prime minister has changed some of the rules of government funding of research to only research that a corporation in Canada will fund first. They have also gotten rid of the detailed census that looks into issues such as poverty. Like that? Because it is coming to the USA one day. Your right wing 1% guys create the ideas that get spread around the world. I'm fighting the right wing where it starts. With information from others' experiences of it. I'm fighting over there so I won't have to fight at home. But I see asking people if they are going to vote for the democratic nominee, the basis of DU membership, really hit a nerve in the agenda of some. This is the inter-web after all. One is supposed to participate and notice trends.

We have to answer to the owners then, not to you now.

Or ever.

loyalty pledges.

There was exactly as much time between 1928 and 1972 as there will have been between '72 and 2016.



The voters coming of voting age next year were BORN in 1998.


Using 1972 as a guide for 2016 is as ludicrous as McGovern using Herbert Hoover as a useful model would have been.

The passion of the McGovern supporters with respect to the war in Vietnam reminds me of the passion of the Sanders supporters on the issue of income inequality. I remember this campaign well and this ad is typical of that campaign http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9323459/mcgovern-sanders

because again, an equal amount of time has passed.

Some people are in deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep denial here, people of a certain..... er, demographic. It explains not just why they write off Millennials, it explains why they don't even seem to realize they even exist.



The folks voting for the first time next year were born in 1998. Got that? Born. They maybe remember 9-11 the way I remember Watergate and the end of Vietnam, i.e. as a toddler.

Sanders is running a very similar campaign to the McGovern campaign. Sanders is relying on one issue (income inequality) and is making the case that he is not the going to have the money to be a viable candidate. McGovern ran on one issue which was the Vietnam war and was also not able to raise sufficient funding to be viable.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Here's some history. 2004, when we nominated the supposedly "stronger" candidate in the general, whom we had been assured would be invincible to republican attacks because of his history as a war hero and his vote for the IWR.

I heard the Bin Ladin endorsement of Bush while I was voting early so that I could go to Florida for the Kerry Edwards legal/voter protection team. That endorsement gave bush the win https://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/050711.html

I doubt 3 million voters switched due to that thing.

And you are " mis-speaking" ( I will use a euphemism Hillary uses) what I read there was hate filled and anti Semitic
Made me run for the mureen to wash my eyes
I hope everyone there knows that there's no walking back on racist hate like they have exhibited

It's a word:

mis·speak
misˈspēk/

verb

gerund or present participle: misspeaking

express oneself insufficiently clearly or accurately.

At least I got the meaning right

Anything to deflect the truth about the kind of campaigns the Clintons run, eh?


Oh..

... BTW...

You are also just plain fucking wrong:

eu·phe·mism


/ˈyo͞ofəˌmizəm/


noun

noun: euphemism; plural noun: euphemisms




a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
"“downsizing” as a euphemism for cuts"


synonyms: polite term, indirect term, circumlocution, substitute, alternative, understatement, genteelism

Make up your mind.

So what was "misspeaking" meant to replace?

I care about internet bullying tactics and the ethics of those that use them.

for "lying".

Only when the underlying statement is provably intentionally false. That some characterize "misspeaking" as a euphemism - without evidence of intent - is either laziness, animosity or ignorance.

"It's no accident that politicians have grasped for this phrase ("misspeaking&quot , says Cormac McKeown, one of the editors of Collins English Dictionary. They often do so when they don't want to say they told a deliberate untruth. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7314726.stm

Whew!

if you really believe it.."
---one of the great minds and great liars of the 20th century, George Costanza

..... i don't know the specific context, but in general, when a politico us caught telling a streacher, they "admit the truth" by saying they mispoke.

You should probably be aware of things like that before attempting to correct others with incorrect information.

The "it's a word" was in reference to the poster's use of the "mis-speaking" invention.

And you are correct, of course, that euphemisms are words or phrases. They are also, with rare exception, euphemisms - terms invented to replace other, generally offensive, words or phrases.

Misspeaking, however, isn't regarded as a euphemism. I ask again: for what is it a replacement?

"Dissembling" is deliberately misleading. "Misspeaking" is unintentional.