My god the BASHING of actual Democrats here today is FUCKING AMAZING

[Eliot Rosewater]

Last edited Sat Jan 11, 2020, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

WHY IN THE FUCK DO PEOPLE DO THIS

WHEN OUR ACTUAL LIVES

OUR ACTUAL LIVES

ARE AT STAKE?

I see message auto removed, I always worry one of these rightwing assholes is going to go too far...they are not good people. We are all in danger.

[JoeOtterbein]

1. It's called a Primary Election.

Do you remember when any Primary was a Rose Garden?

[Dem4Life1102]

12. Never this bad before

If we adopt the same tactics as Trump and his supporters we are no better than they are.

[TwilightZone]

20. Actually, it's been worse.

2016, certainly. 2008. 2004. All three were pretty brutal.

For what it's worth, I think DU is doing a better job as a community of filtering out a lot of the worst of it this cycle than it did in some prior elections. It's definitely not as free-for-all nuts as 2016.

As for tactics, this is pretty much the norm around here at primary time.

[Submariner]

23. It all goes back to a corrupt radical right wing activist judge

who saw the vote recount going in Gore's direction, so Scalia decided to turn the country upside down and I hate the bastard for it.

Everything for Democrats and the party has been shit since January 2001.

[Bluepinky]

83. Yep, the George W presidency should never have happened.

Worst Supreme Court decision in history. In retrospect, I wish that decision had been fought to the end, it was totally illegal. Sandra Day O’Connor wanted a Republican as President when she retired, which she knew was going to be soon.

I don’t think our party has ever recovered from that hostile decision. The Republicans were emboldened by it and have become ever more corrupt, and it has brought us the major mess we’re in now.

[Dem4Life1102]

35. Wasn't referring to DU

Was talking about the campaign in general. Don’t remember it ever being this bad.

[The Mouth]

49. Well, I do

2016 was brutal. I liked Bernie, but the behavior of others who also liked him was depraved and shocking, although many, we now know, were trolls, bots, and Russians.

2008 was, in my opinion, worst of all, pretty much every Hillary supporter was accused of Racism by some Obama supporters, or at least it seemed that way.

2004 was not a lot of fun.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

51. No - 2008 was this bad

I wasn't here for 2004, but I'm told that the Dean/Kerry blowups were epic.

[aikoaiko]

69. This is the best I've seen it on DU.

[California_Republic]

2. Flag it. The jury will take it down

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. Too many, cant flag them all, you can see one person here already agrees we

should BASH democrats.

If we lose again I am going to hold certain folks personally responsible.

[empedocles]

6. Some history repeats

[Eliot Rosewater]

25. Add to it FB And Zuckerburg are working WITH RUmp putin to reelect him...

we are in such bad shape

WAY worse than people realize

and to think of purity folks doing what they do makes my FUCKING BLOOD BOIL

[empedocles]

36. 'Follow the money'. 'Power corrupts'

Also:

'Remember
no hum condition
is ever permanent.
Then you will no be
overjoyed in good fortune,
nor too sorrowful
in misfortune.

- Socrates

[The Valley Below]

15. Yeah, I'm positively sick of it.

[TwilightZone]

21. We're all just anonymous people on a message board.

What we fight about here isn't going to amount to much in the overall scheme of things. Try not to take it personally, though I understand where you're coming from. Some posters seem more interested in antagonizing others and fostering division than plugging their candidates.

[Eliot Rosewater]

22. Lemme tell you why this is wrong...I am talking about the millions of fence sitters

who hear people talk like this and then they dont vote, they figure the both sides lie, etc.

I have explained it too many times, too tired to do it again.

Say negative shit enough about dems and you will stop a dozen or so people from voting. multiply that by thousands

[Autumn]

38. Those millions of fence sitter don't have any idea of what is said on a message board

and it would't make the difference of a spit ball in space if by some chance they did.

[Eliot Rosewater]

39. Ridiculous of course, NOT AT ALL what I meant!

The ATTITUDE displayed here by the BASHERS, they know who they are, dont they, they dont just do it

HERE

you see

they do it

OUT THERE where people are paying attention...I bet THEY know what I mean.

That you are LAUGHING tells me EVERYTHING...so when you BASH Hillary or Joe at a dinner party or in line at the grocer it has no impact?

SIGH

The fucking laughing, THAT is what I will remember if somehow the FASCIST KILLER stays in power...I hope people who LAUGH at our situation are SHAMED NEVER to show their face again if that happens...THAT is what I hope!

[Autumn]

41. That's what you said Eliot. You are talking about what is said here and in the real world

and what is said here means nothing

[George II]

42. If that was the case why do you post here?

[Autumn]

44. Because I'm a member? Have been for years.

Millions, or even thousands of people don't lurk and anything said has no impact on their view of anything in the real world.

[George II]

47. To quote: "what is said here means nothing"

[Autumn]

52. In the real world it doesn't mean anything, if someone says something about one of the

candidates it has no impact on them out there.

[Eliot Rosewater]

54. And said poster is again IGNORING my point, what is said HERE is not the point

what certain folks SAY HERE they say OUT THERE and when people hear it , they are turned off to voting.

By
the

MILLIONS


I will NEVER forget that laugh


Remember how few votes putin needed to not have counted to steal those 4 states...why do I need to make this argument HERE, what the FUCK...

Dammit...this is SICK

Worst of all, if said poster actually doesnt understand the damage this can do, all the more scarier.

[R B Garr]

64. Exactly, and these proven facts are being ignored

by only one campaign. Again. It’s proven fact that online trolling was amplified via SOCIAL MEDIA. The attack was on Democrats. It’s proven fact, and it’s just willful “strategy” to ignore it now.

[lapucelle]

76. For some context...

Those who know little to nothing about a specialized topic should probably refrain from making broad, general pronouncements, especially any that demonstrate a misreading of something as basic, facile, and superficial as a magazine article.

[whathehell]

78. It.means something to those posting here,

the vast.majority of whom are not "fence sitters", but Democrats committed to "voting blue, no matter who" in the general election.

[George II]

79. That's exactly right, thanks. I find some of those comments dismissive, uniformed....and insulting.

[George II]

77. "basic, facile, and superficial as a magazine article..."

[Autumn]

82. I'm doubt I'm the first person to post a magazine article on how to teach children

to fight hate, that magazine article really must have triggered you. Say what you really mean George, if you want to insult me really go for it. Don't do it indirectly and do it where I posted the article .

[cwydro]

74. Completely agree.

No one is hanging on the words posted here.

Laughable anyone thinks otherwise.

[ehrnst]

40. Until something is said about Senator Sanders that isn't flattering...

then its BASHING and DIVISIVE and will GET TRUMP REELECTED!!

[Hortensis]

70. Would that be an excuse for behavior that empowers the Republicans

and threatens to put them in power in 2021-25? Again? To repeat 2016?

It'd be an inadequate one, if so. A lot of people are dropping by here now who don't post. It's once again the season to google political terms and names.

Seriously, isn't there a way of supporting a candidate AND the Democratic Party strongly as well, without effectively endorsing smears on other candidates and Democrats in general?

[Autumn]

71. I'm not responsible for anyone's behavior but my own so find an excuse elsewhere. nt

[Demsrule86]

3. Who the hell knows?

[R B Garr]

5. Five years of this!

Not a frigging thing gained from it.

[Eliot Rosewater]

8. Oh but that is where you are mistaken, the gain is making sure NO Democrat

ever gets the WH again, this is the agenda of some.

But around here that is absolutely Ok I guess.

Fuck this...not worth it...not anymore.

[R B Garr]

13. True!

I also meant to say there is nothing to show for it, either. Nothing gained, nothing to show for it. That appears to be the goals ...you are so right.

[Kurt V.]

11. you got that right

[Hassin Bin Sober]

7. Yes! Stop bashing Bernie!

[msongs]

14. poor bernie nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. That would be nice... but, you and I both know that's not gonna happen.

Last edited Sat Jan 11, 2020, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)

It only serves to create divisiveness within our ranks... and could very well result in Dolt45 getting re-elected!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[R B Garr]

48. Russian trolls helped Bernie and Trump. Documented fact

in the Mueller report. Apparently Putin found their smears against Democrats useful to his goal of defeating the Democrat to get his puppet in office.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

53. Bash bash bash bash bash

[R B Garr]

58. Yes, they did bash. Thank goodness it's documented fact now

so we can call it out.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. It never ends... all it does is create divisiveness, which in turn helps Dolt45.

When we nominate our candidate, we will need to unite like never before!! All the Bernie bashing won't help in that effort.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Kurt V.]

9. what do mean... Actual democrats?

[pnwmom]

16. For example, people who aren't already registered as Independents for a future election.

Or other people with one foot already out the door.

As opposed to Michael Bloomberg, for example, who's already committed to putting his substantial campaign operation, with 500 employees, behind the election of the Democratic candidate in November.

[Lordquinton]

17. So, you're against bashing the billionaires?

but not a strawman that doesn't exist?

[R B Garr]

18. Isn't the juvenile bashing of "billionaires"

the real straw man??

There are two billionaires pledging money and time to defeat Trump. Thanks “billionaires”!!

[pnwmom]

24. Has Steyer made the same promise? And you're wrong about the straw man.

One of our non-billionaire candidates is already registered as an Independent for an upcoming Senate election. This is a fact.

[MH1]

55. Steyer was quoted on Rachel saying the same thing in a more nuanced way

First of all, Steyer doesn't have quite the operation or the same pile of cash that Bloomberg does.

Secondly, I think the nuance was about avoiding committing to support the nominee in case the nominee is someone really awful. Most of us have one or two that we would consider awful. Steyer DID say - I don't have the exact quote - that he would absolutely continue to support progressive causes as he has been doing. Considering he left business and has been putting his $$$ behind progressive causes for years, that seems pretty solid. Obviously, electing a Democratic president would be an important progressive cause.

He may have come out with a more direct statement since. I don't really expect it though. I DO expect that if we nominate a decent candidate, Steyer will be buying ads that will directly support the Democratic candidate and/o platform.

[Gore1FL]

33. It's way to attack Sanders that supposed to sound subtle and thoughtful, I think.

By providing a pointless delta, it allows people to complain about bashing and still bash.

[getagrip_already]

60. There is a line between attacking a candidate to damage them permanently...

And discussing a candidates weaknesses and past behavior (which could be an indicator of their ability to be be effective and sane).

It seems too often, any criticism is flagged as a violation of rules. The juries are busy. The bots get votes as well.

But there are also real attacks going on. The bots are active. And sometimes the not so innocent questions they ask are designed to create controversy and split open existing fissures. That is wrong. But it's also wrong for the candidates campaign to use the same tactics.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. BIIIIIINNGGOOOOO!!! BUT THEN, ISN'T IT OBVIOUS?!?!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[getagrip_already]

56. good question....

I've been juried over comments on 2 people who ran AGAINST actual dem candidates in an actual presidential election as a 3rd party candidate and arguably cost us those elections. Another actively campaigned against clinton right up to election day over things.

These aren't democrats. They don't support democratin pres candidates in the GE. They aren't candidates in the election. They don't hold office. They aren't registered as voters in the party.

But the bot swarms decided otherwise. They are out to get people banned.

[Kurt V.]

59. Independents were big player in the blue wave. i just don't care for term.

there are the elected and electorate. Sometime they get mixed together here.

[Dem4Life1102]

10. When some people are convinced they are right

and everyone else is wrong, others are no longer people who disagree with you, rather they are evil. Thus, any lie, attack or underhanded tactic to defeat them is justified because you are fighting evil. This kind of self-righteous behavior has permeated on the right for decades. It is sad that some on the left are adopting the same behavior.

[Wawannabe]

30. For what it's worth

https://m.

Buffalo Springfield

[dewsgirl]

19. Most of the juries I have served on lately, relate directly to this

topic.

[rzemanfl]

80. +1 n/t

[NYMinute]

26. Some candidates can only win by bashing Democrats

with a holier than thou attitude.

Did you miss the movie the last time it ran in theaters?

[Dream Girl]

27. Some of them are Russian Trolls.

I’m sure of it.

[Eliot Rosewater]

28. Yep...something I have said for years

[melman]

37. It might surprise you to know this

but opinions can differ on just who the trolls might be and what kinds of things they might post.


Just saying.

[R B Garr]

45. It certainly was no surprise when the Mueller report

said Bernie Sanders’ and Donald Trump’s campaigns were helped by Russian trolls. That is a documented fact.

[Dream Girl]

57. Not opinions, but there is a pattern and cadence to how they post

They’ve changed it up a bit but there if you think about how they post you can sort of,tell. For:me it’s a little game. Spot the troll.

[cwydro]

75. Some call other posters trolls simply because they disagree with them.

I see this here more and more lately.

[nini]

46. Absolutely.

It’s really not that hard to figure out. Some folks have no street smarts to see through it but it definitely is a problem here just like everywhere else on the internet.

[bdamomma]

31. I thought

we were going to rally around whoever the candidate is. We can't repeat 2016 again.

I will support whoever the candidate is. We are in the fight for our lives.

[Eliot Rosewater]

32. Wishful thinking I guess, again.

[Gore1FL]

34. In fairness, we don't have one yet to rally around.

I'm undecided and plan to remain uncommitted until the contest nears MO.

[nini]

43. I just put them on ignore

I refuse to feed the trolls in any way. To be clear I’m talking about disrupters versus simple differences of opinion.

[Demsrule86]

50. Did you see this one? Attacking Klobachar because she votes for judges who will get on no matter

what...we came damn close to losing Minnesota in 16...such unfair attacks on a purple state senator is just wrong...we will never get the Senate back if this doesn't stop...some don't get that moderates are our only route to the Senate...and we don't want to lose Amy.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287417153

[MineralMan]

61. Yes, and the funny thing is that Amy Klobuchar is no threat

to any of the leading candidates at all. She won't become the Democratic nominee. She has been a very effective Senator, though, and might possibly be someone's VP choice.

Did she vote for some judges? Which ones? Will the ones she voted for be bad judges? I don't know the answers to any of those questions.

During Republican administrations, Republican Presidents appoint conservative judges. During Democratic administrations, the opposite is true. Senators from both parties vote to confirm those judges, either way. Why? Because without judges in our federal courts, cases don't get heard.

[Hortensis]

65. Many attacks on Democrats are now actually attacks on democracy.

And that's scary.

All our best, most ethical Democrats are now constantly attacked for doing the very things they're sent to Washington to do, to work with everyone our nation sends to represent them to create solutions that all can agree on.

The bills quietly passed through bipartisan cooperation to keep the roads open, school lunches funded, and lights on are claimed as proof that most Democrats are really conservatives and just as bad as Republicans. But the absurdly unbelievable is believed by those who've become subverted.

To anti-democracy agitators on both left and right, cooperation is now proof of corruption. And that's extremism no matter which side it's coming from.

Ocasio-Cortez can actually be cheered by some for saying most congressional Democrats who've always worked in and for progressive government shouldn't be allowed in our progressive caucus. That's crazy. Only extremists would only allow themselves: It's practically the definition of extremism, and it's the very antithesis of representative democracy.

Amy Klobuchar is villified for working with conservative senators to do what the people who elected her to Washington sent her for. Only extremists could see a democratically elected congressman serving as her constituents wish and to the best of her ability as betrayal instead of duty.

When turning on and fighting democracy itself is seen as virtue, that is anti-democracy extremism.

Very to the point, our intelligence services say Russia is trying to grow and join left wing extremists with the conservative right to take down our government. Ironic that cooperation is required, but it is a proven method of destroying democracies so it's happening while we witness.

[Eliot Rosewater]

66. Beautifully put...personally I dont want to ever work with cons again on anything, but I am not

a politician and never will be.

This purity shit from the far left, which is ANYTHING but far left, pisses me off.

Far left

Dear god, please...How many of them want to:

nationalize all energy as in oil, electricity, etc....ALL

nationalize access to cell towers and the internet...

nationalize healthcare and up to a limited point RX research...

make all education tuition paid thru taxes, NOT by students...


I could go on and on...progressive, PLEASE...

I am for those things and I am NOT a progressive, I am a LIBERAL.

[Hortensis]

68. Love hearing good people practically yell that they're LIBERAL!

But I'm yelling that I AM A LIFELONG PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL.

Frankly, I doubt I've ever met a liberal who wasn't also a strong believer in progressivism in government. You are. Of course. Government of, by and for the people is the very core of progressivism.

Sure, some did self-proclaim themselves The Only True Progressives. But extremists always soil their labels and have to keep changing them. And rejecting the progressive Democratic Party to help anti-progressive Republicans take over our government is the antithesis of being progressive.

I noticed that most of the sorts we're talking about stopped using that label, anyway. Maybe the hypocrisy was too painful? It seems far more likely though, that others, who are genuinely and naturally committed to progressivism, just got tangled up with them, then realized after 2016's dreadful anti-progressive losses that they were hanging with the wrong people and stopped using the word.

And, of course, some have been moving to and trying on a socialism label. I noticed it apparently wasn't comfortable when first tried in 2017-18 and mostly dropped for a while; but in the divisive passions of the primary season, it looks like some're finally developing some commitment and getting more used to it.

It'd be nice if they'd look up a definition or two, if only to know something abuot it, but they never did find out that progressivism was more than just a label to slap on their foreheads, so I won't be holding my breath. And meanwhile, our 200 or so progressive liberals in the two main house Democratic caucuses are what they've always been. Progressives. The real thing, and I'm hoping to see more standing with them for progressivism in government.

[Eliot Rosewater]

72. Thanks for the compliment, and the way you identify is what it is all about.

You can't be a liberal and not be a progressive...you however can be a progressive and not a liberal, as we have seen.

Liberal encompasses ALL that is good about progressive, and then it goes on to do much more, as you know.

For instance a liberal will ALWAYS put civil rights above economics.

[Hortensis]

73. Yes, civil rights! Equality especially. Attitude toward individual rights

is the main huge difference between those who move too far left and the more mainstream left. Communal thinking accepts the sacrifice of individual rights necessary for collectivist solutions that elevate the good of the many above the individual.

"You can't be a liberal and not be a progressive." Plus, liberal progressives have had allies in the past in many moderate conservatives. I mention them because, with all our differences, besides progressivism we also have in common the respect for individual rights that are seen in the New Deal and Europe's capitalist social democracies, but not democratic socialism's communal ownership solutions.

I really doubt most of Sanders followers understand what they're following. It's a mixed socialist-populist movement and for the latter opposing what the mainstream supports is the big goal in itself.

[Eliot Rosewater]

84. And i see my prediction that he and his group would BASH THE HELL out of Liz is coming

true

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-quietly-goes-negative-on-warren-097594

[Hortensis]

85. Lol, "quietly." His surrogates are snarling attack dogs.

Among the anti-truth spin is the article's claim that Sanders and Warren are longtime friends. She once used the word to describe their professional relationship, as pros do.

But she lunches and discusses issues and events with other colleagues, not him, and she refused to endorse him in 2016, though he wooed and asked her to a number of times. Warren was the real thing, the shoes he was trying to fill for voters, and he badly needed her backing. But she endorsed Hillary as the one who most closely shared her goals and could make them reality.

[Eliot Rosewater]

86. I will not criticize Bernie but I will report what he is doing.

I hope whoever is the nominee, if elected, no matter their history of getting things done or not, have a pissed off electorate that will insist on certain things like healthcare.

And the idea that we cant tax people with massive wealth one percent or something like that

BIGGEST SIGH OF MY LIFE HERE

anyway...keep the good fight going on!

[totodeinhere]

67. We are talking about some very serious issues here and people can get very emotional about it.

And sometimes people in support of the candidate of their choice can get carried away. These are the times that we live in. I am not defending bashing fellow Democrats, but sometimes there is a fine line between a passionate advocacy and bashing. But we also need to keep in mind that DU has a few thousand active users and in the total scheme of things what is said at this forum probably won't make much difference in the long run with the millions of Democratic voters.