Eliminating it from your screen would likely cut down on about 90% of the Sanders posts.

--and that naturally means that a solid majority will support Sanders.

found a candidate that represents THEM. Maybe they are just sick to death of the triangulation and the pretenses that Corporate Funded candidates really, really are on our side, when we know that is not the case.

Maybe we are sick of being taken for fools. 'Just vote for the Dem even if s/he is the lesser of two evils, because if you don't, the other guys will win'.

Maybe because we have done that for so long and not only does nothing much change, things are getting worse.

War, it's worse now than when we were working to get rid of Bush, handing our party all of it, only to see more war and more drones and more of what was supposed to be fixed once we elected Democrats.

Maybe what was used to get us to work to elect Dems isn't working anymore. Maybe we want actual Democrats, not Third Way war supporters, SS privatizers, Education and Health Care run by private entities etc.

Maybe Bernie is finally the person who is not just talking during the campaign, he has a long record showing that with him it isn't just talk.

Maybe the Dem Party needs to start listening to the voters for a change, rather than BLAMING them when they lose the House and Senate that the voters gave them and then were instantly ignored.

"Maybe because we have done that for so long and not only does nothing much change, things are getting worse."

Things are indeed getting worse, despite demographics, increasing voter turnout (at least in the presidential election years), exit polls, pre-election polls, issues that are favored by 60% of Americans, etc.

Does it ever cross people's minds that the voting machines might be part of the problem? The recent book CODE RED by Jon Simon, like scores of books preceding it, details the process of the gradual complete take-over of politics by one party, arguably the most disliked major party in American history if polls about Congress are to be believed.

Another Real News report, presently on DU, praises Simon's book and details some of the phases of the process of destroying democracy though computer technology.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017288838

elections, we were told to just 'move on'. Are there no elected officials willing to FIGHT this abomination of all voting machines being in the hands of Republican affiliated corporations? Airc, the PEOPLE were ready to fight but something else I recall, on Daily Kos eg, a supposed Liberal forum, it was a BANNABLE OFFENSE to even mention that the 2000 election was stolen.

Why? Why when this was an issue that should be beneficial to Dems was any discussion of it quashed on a prominent Dem forum and on other Dem forums when it was discussed, attacked as a CT?

A lot didn't make sense back then. Why were there no Congressional hearings regarding the lies told to get us into war in Iraq, why were Dems supportive of the Bush gang's forever wars?

And people are looking at all this, and they are not getting any logical answers. They were told to basically stfu by Rahm Emmanuel re Gen Betrayus, which turned out to be true eg.

So yes, that voting machines which control our elections are still controlling them and both parties appear to be fine with that.

And it seems logical that people who are passionate about traditionally "Democratic" issues are going to be disproportionately drawn to Sanders rather than something closer to the status quo.

Many of the Hillary people seem to be saying, sure, what Sanders says sounds good, but Clinton's less ambitious approach is more feasible. Maybe their slogan should be "No we can't."

I think I'll keep them ...

Check out Omaha Steve's links to various candidate pages for donations, and Sanders supporters have FAR outstripped supporters of other candidates in terms of money sent off to the campaign.

Honestly, if I wanted someone else for President, I'd still donate to Bernie, just to put my money (literally) where my mouth is about Citizens' United.

it has always been a part of the tos to support the cause, and that means people who are prominent democrats, whether you agree with them, whether they suit the majority or not.
disagreement is supposed to be respectful.
it is not that hard to respect the careers and accomplishments of prominent dems even if you disagree with them. that is what being a democrat is supposed to mean. big tent and all that. the worst dem is still better than the best republican. doesnt mean you have to settle, but it should mean some respect.

the rules on this have never been strictly enforced, and are now enforced via opinion of the membership.

i love bernie, but i also have a lot of admiration for hillary, and the tough battles she has faced. same with biden, o'malley, hell, i even have some large admiration for dws.

it saddens me to see the nastiness around here. it silences good people who just cant take it any more. it is a loss to us all whenever someone leaves, or is suspended.

attention to the standards that we would all like to expect should be the member's yardstick when on a jury. sadly, it is often not.

--don't you think that will go a long way toward solving the problem? At least among Democrats anyway. The alienated 63% are another story, and they don't do political message boards.

and there is not much hope of reaching the alienated with the toxic soup that this place turns into at the drop of a hat.
truly sad and frustrating.

I posted a poll here last week (later locked as against group policy) asking whether people in the group would vote for Clinton if she were the nominee. 72% said yes.

That includes me--like most Dems, I am a strategic voter and not an alienated voter.

and Family Guy, and get their news from people like John Oliver and Jon Stewart ('s successor, now).

I doubt very many of the 'alienated' are here at all.

Except us chickens. I suspect most of the posters here are older GenX and Baby Boom, and speaking for myself, I'm pretty alienated.

has changed. It has to suck to be a Clinton supporter here, at least for now. I saw one post in their forum where somebody bragged about putting 100 people on ignore. Think about that. But most likely they will have their nyah-nyah moment.

i would not be surprised if there were 1,000 ignore-worthy trolls. more.

i also wouldnt be surprised if a big chunk of those 100 are already gone. mirt is a busy place, we all work hard, but many slip through the net. and many are already imbedded.

Truth.

Look how long PretzelWarrior lasted. There are several others that have survived. How? I am not sure. There have been many comments that should have got some of them tombstoned. Sex & marriage to a toaster comment comes to mind from recent past.

225,712 user registrations and 69,296,394 posts since 2001

now, a handful of people count for a few thousand of those users, but still.
and many have walked on, some literally, if you can say that about a metaphor.

i would bet 50,000 daily users, 10,000 daily posters?

I love that it annoyed sid so much he created a graphic:

Not too surprising from someone who thinks that emoticons are rational arguments.

I give that one a big DU kick!

I think DU is like the general electorate. When they learn of Bernie they love him. What's not to love? But there are always the stubborn loudmouths who will say anything, true or not, just to support their 'team', right or wrong. And they will try some really sleazy stuff to smear their opponent.

when you could've wrote about something you support--whether that be political or something else.

Time is an asset if used properly.

when you could've wrote about something you support--whether that be political or something else.

Time is an asset if used properly.

And identifying its source as the information junkie setup of DU.

I thought I read that - maybe in the Hillary group or Announcements?

like this one so I obviously misunderstood. Only 100 likes on the facebook page?

No wonder they are thinking about Biden or Gore.

emphasis on small "d".