she is capable of alienating the people all by herself.

.


The effect it has is make the primary process more hostile to the neutrals, you know, the ones who support Democrats and hold a singular goal to have a Democrat retain the White House--regardless of who wins the Primary.


The bickering, sniping, the snide OPs that inevitably call for the opposition to rebut, all add to the tension.

And the problem is, neither side acknowledges it, neither side realizes how insignificant their actions are.They blindly post OP after OP that do nothing but divide the Democrats and create animosity within the ranks that will last well past Primary season.


You would have better luck trying to convince people in your neighborhood, than people who are politically savy.


.

I feel I'm neutral. I follow both campaigns, donate to both campaigns and do NOT approve of dehumanizing or demonizing either of these two (or three) amazing civil servants. I support Democrats. I want to tear down Republicans. I want to gain seats in the House, get back the Senate and keep the White House. That is my focus.

When I do want to look at the Primary race: I want to contrast and compare platforms and votes and speeches - not have to wade through a sea of snide mockery. I want to read about ideas not hair-brained assumptions and hair-on-fire rhetoric about their intentions or their character. I want to see some fairness and more balanced, MORE SCHOLARLY perspectives, whether optimistic or cynical, backed up with sources and citations.

I have no idea what the content of a neutral forum would eventually become -- but at least various tropes, assumptions, sources, premises could be challenged without being ignored, swarmed, or drowned out.

The other more immediate idea I'd offer is a daily OP limit in the Primaries forum (only that forum) for EVERY MEMBER.
A limit of 2 or 3 NEW threads per 24 hours in that forum - with the idea to use them wisely and allow some DIFFERENT members to join in or drive the discussion for once. Maybe it would encourage deeper discussion or maybe allow some different flavors besides "snide" and "cherry-picked".

There are two cliques, they have lowered the level of discourse -- and the nerds and adults aren't allowed in the club house.

CLIQUES/SWARMS? - The cliques are the two gangs (one from each camp). The gang mentality is hostile, vindictive, immature, self-important, dishonest, coordinated, and LOUD -- it covers the entire board, not just the Primaries forum. It all flows out like a tidal wave over the Greatest Page and the Front Page.

BUT PRIMARY SEASON IS ALWAYS DIVISIVE - Yeah, I get it, Primary season is always ugly, partisan, and a knock-down, drag out bar fight - that is to be expected. This is just different this time.

SO WHAT IS DIFFERENT THIS TIME? - What is different this time is THE CULT-OF-PERSONALITY. THE OFFLINE COORDINATION. VERY SMALL POOL OF VOICES.

NOBODY ELSE CAN GET A WORD IN EDGEWISE. There are maybe 10 - 20 domineering, loud, member-names that appear over and over and over in the Primaries forum. They drown out or ignore or run off any other voices with their sheer volume and attacks. Is it intentional? Who knows. But that forum is THEIR clubhouse. Those members are some self-important drama-addicts who have moved past the candidates - have made this all about THEM and all about BEING MEAN. The candidates are just their "gang colors".

Maybe this used to happen all the time, maybe this comment is too much, maybe it will disappear. (if so, then it's my first alerted comment in ten years - I love DU, never had criticized it or the community before and I just don't break rules, and don't make a habit of rocking the boat, so I'm dead serious to risk it).

But this is what happened. Just check who recommends the most provocative threads immediately. There are two cliques, they have lowered the level of discourse -- and the nerds and adults aren't allowed in the club house.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

eom

He has made me dislike him single-handedly.

Laugh? Maybe.......

Have a great day.

The post was hidden.

Have a great day.

Reasons for not liking Hillary include things like her vote for the Iraq war, and her crafting of the TPP. What reasons like that do you have? Real, political reasons in simple words.

Is what you say offensive. If there's no reason to hide it it had to go through a jury first

Posts bash Bernie all the time and don't get hidden. They can't hide your post for a political disagreement.

There's no way you've never seen any anti Sanders posts.

Language against Sanders, it would be immediately hidden on a bot of at least 5-2.

You're dancing on L00nix's grave a month after the fact.

Convene on some principles and stick with them. You hate Sanders supporters - then own it. Life is easier that way.

Criticism doesn't get hidden.

And I know that you aren't saying the same kind of criticism that Hillary gets here because he doesn't have the same flaws, like voting for the Iraq war, and negotiating the TPP.

Criticism of Sanders gets hidden all the time.

I'm taking a risk of a hide even mentioning that truth.

I am paying attention, and I see the opposite of what you claim. In fact there's someone posting critism just down thread, that alone shows you aren't correct.

It's easy.

The only thing surprising is you weren't banned for it. It's a conspiracy of shooting yourself in the foot.

Cough! 17 Cough!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=815058

Mail Message
On Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:53 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Then I can only assume you are making shit up. eom
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=881120

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

says poster is "making shit up". clever way to get around calling someone a liar. In most cases I'd give poster the benefit of the doubt, but MohRokTah has a long and storied history of uncivil behavior.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:58 PM, 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: Agree with alerter's perspective
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nobody should be pushing the 'Alert' button this deep into a mutual slap-fight. If the alerter is a passerby, then pass on by and let them play. If the alerter is a participant in the sub-thread, s/he should be ashamed.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think that there's something wrong with the Alert button, because there's no way that a serious adult could have deliberately alerted on this mild and wholly inoffensive post. Leave it, obviously.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Indirect way of calling someone a liar.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The fact that this post received an alert proves the earlier comments made the poster are true.

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

I proved you wrong. Boo hoo.

There isn't even a potential version of the 115th congress that is going to make any of the long list of promises he's making a reality.

He's either delusional, or an outright liar, or he's planning on betraying his loving devotees.

I don't vote for delusional people.

I don't vote for outright liars.

If he's planning on betraying all his devotees, then that means he's going to become a political insider, and begin compromising to get the progress that can be made out of the congress that he's dealt.. I'm already voting on the Candidate that's best at that.

Either that or you are being willfully obtuse.

No, that is not what I said. I said it will take compromises to make progress. Obama has been a master at that game. What he has accomplished in office has not been perfect (as many here just love to focus on each compromise as if it was a total failure), but he has really propelled our country forward.

He did bring about the hope and Change that I'd hoped for. If the citizens of this country would get their heads out of their tail ends, and give him a House and Senate that would allow for more, he'd have achieved more.

I think he did great with what he had to work with. I think Hillary is the right choice to keep that going forward.

You want sanders policies to come true? Quit focusing on getting a single man in the Presidency and start focusing on those House and senate seats. He's nothing but a bag of hot air without a House and Senate to make it happen.

...serve it on a silver platter, then want praise for it.

She manages to get some minor loophole closed in the corporate tax code and in return all she had to give up was the EPA.

Even his colleagues in the senate can't believe that he thinks he can win. That should say a lot. Considering 48 are endorsing Hillary. She hasn't been there for four years.

And you better have some serious serious backup to your claims. Hillary voted for the Iraq war, that's a fact. She helped to negotiate the TPP, that is a fact. Sanders has been consistent his entire career, and his ideas are what we need. The only reason you could claim it won't work is because no one is trying.

Also, he's our still one of our contendors, to baselessly call him a liar and delusional is way out of line.

Fair--- enough..

I certainly would not alert on it.
It's just so..... oh, I don't know......silly.

Maybe I will get alerted on for.. something..

I don't mean that YOU are silly of course,, just the statement.....

Cuz governing is unrealistic?

gov·ern.[ˈɡəvərn]


VERB

1.conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people):
"he was incapable of governing the country" ·
[more]

synonyms: rule · preside over · reign over · control · be in charge of ·
[more]

2.
grammar

(of a word) require that (another word or group of words) be in a particular case:
"the Latin preposition “cum” governs nouns in the ablative"

That's what this primary is about IMHO.

Defeatism: The tragedy of low expectations.

Without even going into the intricacy of the house, The Senate alone there is no.. NO potential election arrangement resulting from the elections for the 115th Congress that will be progressive enough to make Senator Sanders policies come true.. at all.. without severe compromises.

That's reality, not defeatism. President Obama learned fast enough that his message of Hope and Change had to be compromised or nothing at all would have happened. Many here have fallen out of love with him for it. Personally, my respect and admiration for him has only grown over time.

Sanders might surprise me, and actually become effectual and compromise to make progress continue like it has under President Obama. For the Primary, i'll stick to the one who runs on reality.

Hillary = political gamesmanship.
Sanders = policy.

Understand now?

Hillary = Running a realistic campaign.
Sandaers = Fantasy based on promises that can never be fulfilled.

Or in yours, no expectations. Defeatism.

I have high expectations from a Clinton presidency. I expect her to keep the progress that President Obama has started going strong. I expect Gay rights to continue to progress. I expect her policies (the ones that have a chance to be enacted) to help our economy continue to grow.. like it has under President Obama. I am hopeful that at least part of her presidency she gets a Democratic majority in the house and Senate and can get the ACA closer to being single payer, and more affordable to our poorest.

As far as Defeatism.. not even close, I'm supporting the Democratic Front-runner who is actually a Democrat and has been most of her life.

Go Hillary!

My oh my how far the Third Way has dragged the party into the mud. Eeyore politics.

Thanks!

Censorship at its most extreme.

Where?

It is very easy to make the accusation without any proof.

"Waah, that person said something I disagree with! ALERT!!"

or censorship like people complaining about the teabagger blog you brought to DU?

But you knew that.

Or link to offensive sources, and you won't get hidden. It's pretty simple. Posting in anger will get you hidden more times than not.

One can disagree with a candidate without racist anti-jewish posts. I am sure yours would not be any of those.

The anti-Hillary posts stand while mine were hidden.

Go figure.

I had a apology hidden, lol

Poll after poll shows ~80% of DU supports BS.

Ergo, out of 7 jurors, a majority will nearly always support BS.

Because of this, I can never post my reasons for disliking Sanders. And believe me, I dislike him as much, if not more than any Sanders supporter dislikes Hillary.

Heck, it occasionally requires the Admins to step in and ban some users for their vile and nasty crap against Hillary that juries allow to stand.

And fail to see the ugliness that the admits who support hillary allow to stand.

I've even seen posts that are directly quoting Sanders be hidden because the quote paints Sanders in a bad light.

Meanwhile vile and ugly sexist language against Hillary stands.

The bias is in the Sanders supporters.

Posts are allowed to stand

....another post totally unrelated to it and on a different subject from weeks before. In fact, one of the jurors said he/she would hide any post on mine for which he/she was called.

Yes, that's true!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=744715

You trying to tell us something?

.... no. Posted first image of a quarter I came across. mm

don't take all the magic out of it.

Well, the universe does provide.

I know how tough it must be.

but it's impossible to find one of those shiny gizmos any where around here.

But if I did...

...I like it!

That's gotta sting, huh?

Sorry, what was that?

I am smart enough to vote for the candidate, not the supporters.

but one can have some fun with the idea, can't they?

that consistently employs practices that I consider to be nefarious and conscienceless ethical depravity for personal and/or collective gain.

Seems strange that the individuals of the unions don't give money, only the PAC. Strange.

to date.

Nov 5, 2015:

Bernie also has a substantially larger number of individual women donors than Hillary does.

You posted the graphic. I commented based off the graphic. Anyone reading this sub thread can see I replied to you and the graphic clearly shows a difference in individual support based off his senate career.

In a subsequent post you bring up the current race tying to say that I'm lying, but again going off the graphic YOU posted I've said nothing incorrect. And I do find it interesting that in his senate career he didn't receive much individual donations.

Maybe you need to update your graphic if you don't actually want anyone to comment on it.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee on ideological grounds.

Her supporters do not make my opinion of her. I am capable of forming my own opinions.

long history with little that is good for the 99%...

Her supporters are not going to change my vote in the primary for Bernie. Not at all. I think Sanders is by far the best candidate because I actually agree with his positions. That's why I'm voting for Bernie, not because Clinton supporters have alienated me in some way.

That whole meme is bunkum. 'Oh, YOUR candidate's supporters have TURNED ME AGAINST your candidate! It's YOUR fault I'm not voting for YOUR candidate! YOUR candidate is going to lose because of YOU and his/her OTHER nasty supporters!"

I mean, come on people. If you were going to vote for Bernie, but have changed your mind because I somehow alienated you with my obnoxiousness, then honestly I don't think you were ever going to vote for Bernie. In fact you are a supporter of another candidate acting as that candidate's surrogate. Seriously.

Same thing vice-versa - If you were going to vote Clinton, but have changed your mind because her supporters somehow alienated you, then you weren't ever going to vote for her. In fact you are a supporter of another candidate and are acting as that candidate's surrogate.

It's nothing more than co-dependency. Unhealthy in personal relationships, and unhealthy here.

So, with all due respect to everyone who reads this, please vote for who you want to, and don't try and tell me that I'm affecting you one way or another. Make up your own mind.

to Herbert Greenleaf.

not supporting and disagreeing is adult thinking. Use your big words please.

are you still with us?

to think it was your fault.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777603

may well have laid the groundwork for much of the crap he's dealing with to this day.

I don't dislike Sanders as a person, but I have learned thanks to this board to strongly dislike a good portion of his supporters. Nothing but nastiness and vitriol emanates from them.

unruly hooligans just refuse to do what they're told to. I don't know how you live with it. Hope life takes a better turn for you, after the nomination process is over.

that would be your response?

And if your wrong twice does that make you right?

Waiting to see if I nail your reply.

however lack of doubt doesn't make you right. Just not very thoughtful. Me? I've got tons of doubts, but I consider things and then chose the best path forward.

However I do understand why so few fight so much against Bernie, actually beginning to repair the damage the last 30 to 40 years have done to our nation is kind of scary. Why even try when it's so easy to settle for less?