General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIm really beginning to wonder if all of these Hillary/Bernie posts arent more shit stirring
Whos purpose is to keep us divided and angry. Think about it. What constructive purpose could they possibly serve? If these are legit,it is really time for us to get over it and move on. We cant continue to relitigate the primary and the general election. If they are troll driven, We need to ignore them, need to unite and fight for the future. Dont let the trolls win, mmmkay?
Ok Im not to beginning. to wonder just the way I word things.
YessirAtsaFact
(2,064 posts)Pluvious
(4,332 posts)Back before the election, right before "hackers" took us down, I started replying to every shit-stirring post with...
"Please stop, you are not being helpful."
If everyone would start doing this, the hardcore trolls will start to stand out.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)you mean detailing truths? See, I like to KNOW what's in my milk shake - not just obediently slurp it down and smile a grin of solidarity. When I was in the military, I had to march in lockstep with my fellow servicemen - I understood the purpose of that. But if an NCO marched us into a swamp (Remember when just such a tragedy took some Marine's lives some years ago?), there was no choice but to stay with the group. I don't have a commitment to do that now. I rarely start threads for ANY reason - let alone for the sake of agitation. But stand up for truths or against contorted facts - yeah - I'm guilty. Guess that makes me one of them "hardcore trolls" you're sure are in your closet.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)"Please stop" is good, but it would keep bad threads from dropping and disappearing, which they can do very quickly if ignored.
Imo, better would be Starsky's approach. We are innundated with malicious intruders, both amateur and professional, and letting them stand out often enough to identify would be a wonderful thing.
Adding to that, commenting on worthwhile threads, a positive, would also move those up and the dumpster fires down.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)is the intelligent way to go here? Have you ever read about the radar operators who picked up a swarm of planes coming towards Hawaii ? They called their superior to report what they were looking at and the superior dismissed it as a glitch OR a group of American bombers they were expecting from the mainland. He told the operators to shut down and go to breakfast.
I'm registered as a Democrat, but I'm beginning to doubt I am. I ask too many questions.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)You offer two here, but the first one is a discard as it's not really meant to elicit information. You might examine it for purpose to see what I mean.
Fwiw, the answer to the second is yes. I give that bit of information freely but question its value to development of knowledge, much less eventual contribution to wisdom.
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)Saves a tremendous amount of time and sanity.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Waste of time.
anneboleyn
(5,611 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)PubliusEnigma
(1,583 posts)Helping Trump get elected once just wasn't enough.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,131 posts)and so on.
Now even that awesome guy Steyer is backing someone after Feinstein's seat, does even HE not understand how seniority works?
sigh
If they would just stop attacking democrats.
So sad to see people purposely misunderstand how seniority and experience works in the Senate. In the House as well. I think the anti mainstream dem folks actually want mainstream dems to lose.
KPN
(15,673 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)how the system works.
KPN
(15,673 posts)use or apply in life, work or politics. That's not to say that a senior person can't be a better person than others not so senior -- but it depends on skill and ability, not longevity in my book.
And just so you know, I don't have an issue with ZPelosi. She's been great overall and would be a great Speaker again should that come to pass.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Here in WA we used to have a powerful majority leader, and we saw the loss of influence when we lost him.
Go ahead, CA, shoot yourselves in the foot.
UPDATE: No, don't. We also need leaders who know the ropes and can work the system. Her ability to do so is all we have to keep DT in check.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)KPN
(15,673 posts)Unions are a good example of where seniority is fairly applied, i.e., as a deciding factor when all else is equal (job description/history and acceptable/adequate performance). That's not the case with Speaker role or any other high level organizational/institutional leadership role. Two different things.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You can of course, support this premise of yours with objective evidence illustrating precisely how a union's use of seniority is not in any form, used my the Democratic leadership in CA, yes?
Otherwise, your allegation is merely another bumper-sticker.
KPN
(15,673 posts)seniority is used in the CA Dem Party then? Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you can clarify that piece for me.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)It's hard for many to accept that inevitable change.
Bernie has a lot of new ideas that a lot of golden oldies think "can't be done."
We shall see.
The changes we face are sparked by social problems like racism, lack of healthcare among many others as well as environmental challenges and technological advances.
As a result, politics must, inevitably change too.
The question is whether we can work together, especially we who are Democrats, discuss the issues without hate, without holding onto the ideas of the past when they haven't worked and forge our way into the future. To do that, we need to discuss all kinds of ideas without fear and without snark. It's important that we not simply censor people who bring us new ideas based on who they are rather than on what they are presenting to us.
Being fair in this way is a challenge. Not everyone is capable of it. But if we don't meet this challenge, if we indulge in knee-jerk reactions and hatred against people, especially if they are working on our side in general, we will allow our nation to succumb to people who offer quick, easy answers.
Personally, I think that is why we ended up with Trump. Our entire Democratic Party, on all sides at the grassroots level, succumbed to anger at others who dared to support whichever candidate we didn't like.
Germany's democratic forces did that when they faced the challenges that required change after WWI. They divided and did not embrace each other. They failed. They failed to win elections. They failed to offer appealing answers to the challenges of their nation.
Let's don't fall into that trap. I see that reaction very strongly here but also on other angry websites.
Focusing on past rivalries, infighting, blaming each other, snarking and closing our ears and minds to new ideas and new people will not help us solve the serious problems that face us.
Bernie and Hillary are just two people offering ideas and solutions. In our democracy, we need to listen to all voices, not just theirs, but also both of theirs, listen and think about their ideas and then maybe we will find solutions.
Dismissing someone who is offering ideas and solutions is just a huge, huge mistake.
Don't mean to insult, but I think we have a lot to gain as a nation by keeping open minds and considering the ideas of a wide variety of people.
And above all, we have to maintain even when it hurts, receptivity and acceptance of people who may have hurt us in the past. Holding on to anger is not just harmful to a political cause, it is very unhealthy.
Our primary focus should be on bringing Democrats and Independents who lean Democratic together to win in 2020. We cannot have another four years of Trump. But we have to be united if we are to succeed and win in 2020.
Therefore, we have to really change our focus from wanting to be right to wanting to find the right solutions for our country including finding the right candidate for 2020. We should welcome any liberal who wants to try.
Gothmog
(145,805 posts)Sanders campaign was based on a promised voter revolution https://www.vox.com/2016/2/21/11081086/bernie-sanders-nevada
This is in contrast to the incrementalism of Clinton's campaign, which recognizes the confines of a bitterly divided American electorate and offers to fight for whatever gains are available.
Sanders rejects the limits of this system. His "political revolution" is based on the idea that Democrats could win big with a message that gets a massive number of new lower- and middle-income voters continually engaged in the political process.
Bernie Sanders, Running for President, Promises a Political Revolution http://observer.com/2015/05/bernie-sanders-running-for-president-promises-a-political-revolution/
Mr. Sanders, set to speak in Burlington, Vt. a little after 5 p.m., said he would not launch personal or negative attacks against the unequivocal frontrunner in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton.
Today we begin a political revolution to transform our country economically, politically, socially and environmentally, Mr. Sanders will say in prepared remarks provided by his campaign. Today, we stand here and say loudly and clearly that: Enough is enough. This great nation and its government belong to all of the people and not to a handful of billionaires, their Super PACs and their lobbyists.
Sanders claim that the millions or billions or trillions of new voters would force the GOP to be reasonable https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what
So what then? How would a President Sanders get Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to pass any of his big-ticket items? This is the model he proposes:
What we do is you put an issue before Congress, lets just use free tuition at public colleges and universities, and that vote is going to take place on November 8 ... whatever it may be. We tell millions and millions of people, young people and their parents, there is going to be a vote ... half the people dont know whats going on ... but we tell them when the vote is, maybe we welcome a million young people to Washington, D.C. to say hello to their members of Congress. Maybe we have the telephones and the e-mails flying all over the place so that everybody in America will know how their representative is voting. [...].
And then Republicans are going to have to make a decision. Then theyre going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, You vote against this, youre out of your job, because we know whats going on. So this gets back to what a political revolution is about, is bringing people in touch with the Congress, not having that huge wall. Thats how you bring about change
Sanders magical revolution failed https://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11497822/sanders-political-revolution-vote
Among people who typically vote, these policies aren't that popular. The "political revolution" is only plausible if it's about changing the composition of the electorate: bringing new people to the polls who don't normally vote, even in presidential elections.
I personally agree with Kevin Drum that the concept of a voter revolution was a scam by sanders https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/heres-why-i-never-warmed-bernie-sanders/
I mean this as a provocationbut I also mean it. So if youre provoked, mission accomplished! Heres my argument.
Bernies explanation for everything he wants to dohis theory of change, or theory of governing, take your pickis that we need a revolution in this country. The rich own everything. Income inequality is skyrocketing. The middle class is stagnating. The finance industry is out of control. Washington, DC, is paralyzed....
Why do I care about this? Because if you want to make a difference in this country, you need to be prepared for a very long, very frustrating slog. You have to buy off interest groups, compromise your ideals, and settle for half loavesall the things that Bernie disdains as part of the corrupt mainstream establishment. In place of this he promises his followers we can get everything we want via a revolution thats never going to happen. And when that revolution inevitably fails, where do all his impressionable young followers go? Do they join up with the corrupt establishment and commit themselves to the slow boring of hard wood? Or do they give up?
Sanders promised a voter revolution and use this promise to justify programs and proposals that cannot be passed in the real world.
The real world is a nice place. Change takes hard work and magic does not work. You are welcome to believe in magic. I will spend my time working in the real world.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)at the Democratic national convention.
How do you think he did that? It is quite a large number of delegates.
Was it his ideas? His voice? His personality? What was it?
Hillary won about 3 million more votes than Trump in the final election.
Here in California, Hillary won big, but our votes only count a fraction of the vote of people in smaller states.
We do need some changes in this country, lots of changes. And we should start by ending the electoral college and electing the president directly. Originally we did not elect our senators directly. We changed that. We can change and end the electoral college.
The bitterness about Trump's electoral college win should be changed to a movement to end the electoral college. Twice in this century we have had to deal with a president appointed who did not win the popular vote. Twice. That's too often.
If the energy put into refighting the Democratic primary were put into ending the electoral college, Democrats would be way ahead. We need to unite our Democratic Party and making our presidential elections truly representative of the votes of all the people would be a good way to do it. Good for Democrats.
Gothmog
(145,805 posts)I know that math is hard for some. Sanders got the same amount of vote as Dean did in 2004 or bradley did in 2000. The percentage you cites also include a good number of delegates won in undemocratic caucuses, sanders magical voter revolution was a failure.
Sanders silly proposals needed a voter revolution to work. There was no revolution in the real world. Without a voter revolution, sanders proposals could never becadopted in the real world.
As for the electoral college , the national popular vote interstate compact is making some progress.
progressoid
(50,011 posts)Care to back that up with some of that hard math you talked about? Dean barely won one primary (his home state). Bradley didn't even win one.
Gothmog
(145,805 posts)Here are some facts for you to ignore https://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11497822/sanders-political-revolution-vote
See also Sorry, Bernie Sanders. There is zero evidence of your political revolution yet https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/sorry-bernie-sanders-there-is-zero-evidence-of-your-political-revolution-yet/?utm_term=.cfcba82f515f
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484
...In fact, Sanders won by persuading many habitual Democratic primary voters to support him. With 95 percent of precincts reporting their results as of Wednesday morning, just 241,000 ballots had been cast in the Democratic primary, fewer than the 268,000 projected by New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner last week. Nearly 289,000 voters cast ballots in the state's Democratic primary in 2008.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)So, what you yearn for is a "professional" government??? A government that makes the professionals stinking wealthy? Wealthy while we wait to see if they believe we need a break with health care? Really? Tenure?
paleotn
(18,003 posts)you don't have to like, but it is what it is. And it is important. Forget the Mr. Smith goes to Washington and other philosophical delusions about how democracy works. Like most ideologies, the real world doesn't quite work that way. Democracy is a process of compromise in order to move agendas forward. Sometimes quickly, sometimes by inches. Ideological purity is like throwing sand in the gears and then wondering why the government isn't working terribly well. That goes for purity on the right as well as the left. Just think would could be accomplished if the nut job...umm..."freedom" caucus would stop being so damn recalcitrant and compromise for the greater good. The same applies to staunch ideologues on the left.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Get THE MONEY out of all three branches and watch how many folks make a career out of it. When we DO get a chance to send fresh blood to DC, what does it say that they have to start serving by spending half their day (OUR day, really!) making phone calls to get money? Manage to stick around long enough, and the donors eventually start calling YOU to give money! Yeah, I'm SO indebted to our millionaire class for the minuscule handouts I get from the VA and SS! I count myself LUCKY I have the freedom to not have access to affordable health care! Those tenured public servants deserve a RAISE - dammit!
paleotn
(18,003 posts)but at least have their hearts are in the right place. Beyond that, they're just as destructive to a democracy that actually works.
ChazInAz
(2,576 posts)You are not being helpful.
PubliusEnigma
(1,583 posts)Gothmog
(145,805 posts)gordianot
(15,251 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,244 posts)Dream Girl
(5,111 posts)There are likely trolls who specialize in stirring up racial animosity. They probably study their assigned issues in depth and are intimately associated with the nuances of their particular iarea. If I was running a troll campaign thats how Id do it. Be very strategic about it.
anneboleyn
(5,611 posts)a totally legit topic. Multiple posts that are definitely about (re) triggering the Sanders/Clinton thing are posted daily, and they are distractions from a crucial election THIS YEAR.
I really wish they had their own forum as GD is crowded enough, and we focus mainly on new topics on this board. The Sanders/Clinton stuff should go somewhere else.
Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)Gives them a coffee break...
SWBTATTReg
(22,191 posts)I really don't care anymore, don't pay attention to them at all (don't read, gloss over, thus don't even see)...blah blah blah
Overdone.
Dream Girl
(5,111 posts)DFW
(54,480 posts)I try hard not to feed that ugly beast
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I see no purpose in dragging out the discussion any further.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)R B Garr
(17,009 posts)Thank you for stopping the anti/Biden posts.
We didnt need thatmuch appreciated.
Itchinjim
(3,085 posts)MineralMan
(146,345 posts)I just don't read them. 2016 is over.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,050 posts)It is a fast track to my ignore list.
Dream Girl
(5,111 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)janx
(24,128 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)Dream Girl
(5,111 posts)infullview
(982 posts)The Koch brothers will invest in both sides in order to promote division and prevent policy from coming to a vote. You can control people by creating a "them vs us" environment. These people that try to provoke turmoil are probably paid shills that infiltrate the DU and other groups to make sure we can never agree amongst ourselves on a path forward that might ultimately remove the big money control from politics.
Generic Brad
(14,276 posts)This is no different than what happened during the primaries. Some posters got us all whipped up on purpose. And after some of them were banned or we became wise to them, they came back in as new users or old dormant accounts reactivated.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)she's a private citizen with no further future in elected politics.
Bernie, however, is clearly ramping up for a 2020 run. He's in the news, and is continuously being promoted here at DU.
Posts about Bernie, both supportive and critical, will become more and more common as the 2020 primary contest becomes more active.
Sid
R B Garr
(17,009 posts)the so-called criticisms as part of his brand, and were all supposed to roll over and ask for more. Now there is a real layer to it of the Russia interference that is clearly underplayed...makes you wonder.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)with your usual pokes and jabs at a long serving ally of the Democratic party, who is regarded by the administration of DU, for all intents and purposes, as a Democrat. I don't know if you simply can't see the irony, or you just don't care.
R B Garr
(17,009 posts)thanks for confirming the divisiveness of this thread and what it is really about. It was obvious to me, as well.
And read post #23 that I responded to there is nothing in it but fact.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)to bash Hillary as you do to Bernie? Especially in such a personal way that you stoop to against Bernie. Deciding that everything he does must be for nefarious reasons, and telling as many people as you can your CT opinions.
Sorry but simply defending Bernie, from unfair personal insults, is not anywhere near the same thing as bashing Hillary. No matter how your brain tries to connect them as being the same thing. Its time to stop living in 2015/2016. We need to move forward. And if Bernie insists on helping Democrats win by staying on, even if at times it is with 'tough love', then sorry, you'll have to put up with him.
R B Garr
(17,009 posts)You? Everything you wrote is more manufactured tripe, and it only serves to confirm the divisiveness of this thread. Great job... It wasnt hard to figure out what this was about.
Doesnt the outreach work both ways ??? When does it start?? Im in California, so Bermont politics dont mean much to me.
Sorry, youll just have to deal with reality. No Fox News type distortions, sorry. Complaining about my party is not helping. Not then, now, or ever. Fail.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)And if Bernie would have won the primary I'm sure you'd have been all on board too right? Or what if he actually won the primary for 2020? I can't wait for your admonishing of anyone in here that dares speak out against the Democratic nominee in that case. Personally I think we should have younger, newer blood, and I don't think he'd win it if he tried again regardless, but if he did happen to be the nominee? It might be worth it just to watch some heads explode.
You're from California? Maybe you should try and not insult almost half of your fellow Democrats in that state that supported the other candidate. Almost every major poll was within 2 points heading in. 49% - 47% mostly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Democratic_primary,_2016
And the ironies of all ironies, you wade into the thread with an OP urging NOT bashing either one, with some inflammatory comments about, what else, Sanders being an asshole. And then have the gall to say my calling you out on it, "confirm(s) the divisiveness of this thread"! Talk about 'manufatured' lol.
R B Garr
(17,009 posts)dictates the content of your posts. You gave many contrived scenarios here of what I may or may not do. Where do you find the time??
Reality only. No Fox News tactics of alternate realities.
R B Garr
(17,009 posts)Well-earned doubts about Bernie personal. People who voted for Hillary/Demicrats dont need to be attacked .
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)irony...right there.
njhoneybadger
(3,910 posts)Then wants to use the Democratic party as his own personal vehicle.
elleng
(131,294 posts)I stay out of them. Thanks for noticing.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)I scan but don't bother with them any more.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,112 posts)blake2012
(1,294 posts)Freethinker65
(10,093 posts)Until it fails to produce the desired results for the amount of time, effort, and money put into it.
anneboleyn
(5,611 posts)every single day. I definitely think it is shit stirring as we simply dont need to have four or five new threads on what is now an old topic taking up space on the GD front page. I do think weve had some posters join since 2016 who are simply into posting divisive topics for whatever reason rather than focusing on important dem issues for 2018. There are others who have obviously been here a long time and seem to want to discuss this endlessly. I really wish the Bernie/Hillary posts could be given their own forum.
janx
(24,128 posts)trash, hide, or even ignore!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Yeah annoying, aren't they?
Botany
(70,635 posts)n/t
LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)R B Garr
(17,009 posts)and your efforts to make it personal just confirms it. Thank you for making it more obvious...
Cha
(297,935 posts)Thank you!
paleotn
(18,003 posts)The intent is to keep us distracted from what really matters, right now.
mudstump
(342 posts)that these posts were brought to you by Putin. We need to be smarter and ignore these divisive posts. Ignore and then VOTE!
jalan48
(13,908 posts)BobTheSubgenius
(11,573 posts)How is that helpful? Anything that could have been learned should have been, by now. Perhaps some reexamination will be useful at some point, but I fail to see the good in it now.
Crunchy Frog
(26,701 posts)still trying to fight the primary?
I think anyone who doesn't want this divisive $hit to continue should do what I do and use the "trash thread" feature.
oasis
(49,455 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,124 posts)oasis
(49,455 posts)of the Bernie Group Forum. Announcements of their postings in the Brrnie Group can be made in GD and kicked with regularity. These measures should cut down on the food fights.
krawhitham
(4,651 posts)It is time for a younger crowd to take over the Dems
Bernie would be 79 when he takes office if he runs and wins in 2020
You want young voters, run a younger candidate that runs on re-entering the The Paris Agreement, strong gun control, and legalizing pot (& on undoing most of what Trump has done)
Demsrule86
(68,770 posts)Cha
(297,935 posts)IronLionZion
(45,615 posts)and someone is trying to distract us from building our big blue wave to elect our candidates in lots of elections across the country.
It's so obvious. And so disappointing that so many DUers are taking the bait.
Dream Girl
(5,111 posts)arent real DUers if you catch my drift
IronLionZion
(45,615 posts)but some long time real DUers fall for it a bit too easily.
Response to Dream Girl (Original post)
Post removed
comradebillyboy
(10,184 posts)during the past election cycle. He will definitely be getting a closer and more critical examination as he shows all the signs of running again.
BTW excellent series of posts.
mac56
(17,575 posts)It has helped me identify a few more people to block.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Until then, its just divisive attacks meant to disrupt us before the midterms. I consider any of the people posting anti-Bernie threads before November to basically be helping the Republicans, whether that be deliberate or not.
Sugar Smack
(18,748 posts)janx
(24,128 posts)I trash all of those threads habitually as soon as I wade into GD. I hope others do the same.
Quixote1818
(29,013 posts)followers but it faded pretty fast and Obama was a lot tougher on Hillary than Obama ever was. We know Russia wanted to keep the feud alive for a reason and the fact that it is STILL going on just blows my mind.
Raine
(30,541 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)Because if you cant let go of it now you never will, so talking and fighting about it will never be over.
Just move on or dont. Its nothing more than a choice.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)If the names are there, and the post count is low, I don't click on it.
I concentrate on those who need it for midterms.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I'm not in the Clinton camp but I have a great deal of admiration for her. She has achieved amazing things and broken glass ceilings and having done so, has a very unique level of experience and perspective worthy of being heard and discussed, whether one disagrees with something she says or agrees with it.
When people post negative threads about Sanders sometimes they are legitimate criticisms(I certainly don't think that's always the case, but sometimes) and these are worthwhile discussions to be had today, not because of the 2020 elections which are miles off, but because these are questions of party direction today.
When people post things Sanders proposes or bills Sanders signs onto(typically these posts are pro-Sanders), that seems like a reasonable thing to do as well, since these are policy and direction related issues. How we talk about them at that point is infinitely depressing since the actual proposals are barely addressed except to say "unicorns..." and most of the critical posts are about the man rather than the issues, and we also have the positive posts that bother me as well when there is a blatant fan-boyism that ignores every other person involved in said proposal or legislation to give Sanders a bravo for being the peoples savior. When Sanders signs onto Corey Booker's bill, there's no reason that Sanders name should come before Bookers in a post about how both men are championing decriminalization, and certainly no reason why Booker or any other legislator should be left off a list of names in order to feature Sanders front and center. That is understandably insulting to people, and as such, entirely counter-productive.
For my part, I wish all discussions could be less about the cult of personality (whether pro or con) and more about the specific issue on the table in any given moment, but I reject the idea that these threads should be avoided.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)serves no other purpose...it takes more that posting only Bernie rah-rah OP's (and the inevitable apologist responses) to be a contributing member of DU