Notice - they aren't attacking Bernie Sanders because they can't. They're attacking so-called "Bernie Supporters", citing e.g. posts by twits on twitter as a general indictment of the entire progressive movement, no doubt 9/10'ths of 'em false flags posted by themselves or by a certain campaign, then "retweeted" or whatever the twits do. Any fool can set up a rack of twitter accounts. They're attacking the whole movement, and there's no way to win such an argument because the demand, which is to end all the twitter idiocy including their own false flags, is absurd. If a person tries to defend in any way they'll use it as an excuse to brand you as (insert malicious baiting term here). They're totally solid with a certain campaign, they aren't attacking Bernie Sanders because they can't, and they use false flag tactics as a mainstay, and that's all one needs to know.

This is just the first wave.

Rovian -- and it won't ever stop.

The only way to proceed is to keep on being honest.

But that is what Bernie does: honesty.

Let it roll off your back, delrem.


No bother.

who raised hell about Bernie supporters trashing Hillary supporters on DU. When I get tired of hearing people bitch, I turn them off. I'm not paying any more attention to it. Trolling is trolling, and I don't have room in my life for such nonsense.

Last edited Sat Jul 25, 2015, 06:51 AM - Edit history (2)

. . . to delete the cartoon I'd posted here---not funny, especially after I finally read some of the other stuff that's being posted elsewhere on this site.

more assholes going on Ignore

I mentioned on another thread that in nearly eight years here, I have only put a couple people on ignore, and never for more than a week or two. In the past few weeks, I've put twelve on full ignore. It's really the only way I can read DU these days without stroking out.

They're pretty much all Hillary supporters, as far as I've seen. They're pretty vulnerable on the racial front.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251471268

Private Prison Lobbyists Are Raising Cash for Hillary Clinton
Lee Fang - TheIntercept
July 23 2015, 10:49 a.m.

<snip>

As immigration and incarceration issues become central to the 2016 presidential campaign, lobbyists for two major prison companies are serving as top fundraisers for Hillary Clinton. Corrections Corporation of America and the Geo Group could both see their fortunes turning if there are fewer people to lock up in the future.

She also is about the least likely Democrat I can think of to actually attempt to dismantle the police state.

Then there's this one, not sure how I feel about it, it's about Libyan blacks getting murdered, ostensibly as a result of State Department policy.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/24/five-inconvenient-truths-about-hillary-clinton/

5 Inconvenient Truths About Hillary Clinton

5. She’s scored points on the campaign trail by saying that ‘black lives matter.’ When considering this, it’s worth looking at the actions of the rebels she supported in Libya.

“Racist pogroms…were characteristic of the Libyan rebellion from its very inception, when 50 sub-Saharan African migrants were burnt alive in Al-Bayda on the second day of the insurgency. An Amnesty International report from September 2011 made it clear that this was no isolated incident: “When al-Bayda, Beghazi, Derna, Misrata and other cities first fell under the control of the NTC in February, anti-Gaddafi forces carried out house raids, killing and other violent attacks” against sub-Saharan Africans and black Libyans, and ‘what we are seeing in western Libya is a very similar pattern to what we have seen in Benghazi and Misrata after those cities fell to the rebels’ – arbitrary detention, torture and execution of black people.”

To be fair, most Hillary supporters don’t know about any of this—but how much can African lives possibly matter to people who do know, and who support her anyway?
I'm sure there are many more such conflicts of interest that go directly to their use of race as a wedge issue. Their candidate puts them in an untenable position to make this argument.

I was wondering if that counterpunch article was the reason for today's offensive against counterpunch on our site, did others see those threads? I asked in one of the threads, got no answer, anyone know what kicked up the fuss about counterpunch? The anti-Hillary article was published there last night, right before I noticed the counter counterpunch threads.

I would think, with enough research, we could so thoroughly discredit their candidate when it comes to policies related to POC, that they would no longer use this argument. HRC's nods to race are mostly theater IMHO, her policies are set by her funders, and her own instincts differ only slightly if any from those of her funders, her core values are corporatist, not populist.

Her funders will want cheap immigrant labor (probably gets them some points with latinos but it actually works against blacks who are competing for many of those same jobs), they'll want to keep their police brutality, they won't allow community police review boards to get any real power over their police departments, they'll be against expanding entitlements or more likely in favor of reducing them, they'll block poverty initiatives, their prisons need tenants, they want the war on some drugs to continue so they can use it as a hammer against certain people, they won't support a $15 minimum wage, etc. I really don't see how Hillary supporters have a leg to stand on when it comes to race.

Just my two cents. The truth is on our side. We could duck and cover and hope things clear up or we could make the case, Bernie is far better for POC.