Maybe we should have a "I don't like Hillary" group

[upaloopa]

where nobody can say anything nice about her.
Then all the "I am not voting for Hillary" folks can go to talk to people who care.

[SidDithers]

1. We do...nt

Sid

[11 Bravo]

11. I was unaware of that group until this thread, so just for fun, I jotted down ...

a list of names I thought I might find. DAMN I'm good!

[merrily]

253. Oooo, you were able to spot poster who openly criticize Hillary. Impressive.

We see you guys, too.

Guess every DUer who can read for comprehension is a frickin' genius.

[11 Bravo]

321. Relax, you weren't on the list. Hell, I never heard of you.

[snooper2]

325. Bullshit...

[merrily]

329. Much appreciated. I guess life is such a dream for him, that slipped his mind.

[merrily]

328. Patting yourself on the back for spotting the obvious was so mockworthy, I could not resist.

I could give a rat's turd if I am on your pathetic enemies list or not, Nixon. I doubt any liberal DUer does. It's amusing you think we would care. Well, you know, apart from feeling sorry for you for thinking a list like that was worth your time and energy. (We're a solicitous lot, we are.)

Anyway, from snooper2's post, looks like you may have been serenading me at some point. How embarrassing for you to be called out for saying the opposite.

[11 Bravo]

355. I wasn't going to respond to you, but this is so ...

fucking cosmically stupid that I can't help myself. Snooper2 posted the lyrics to a children's round, and you somehow accept that as proof that I have previously serenaded you? Seek immediate help. Such delusions of relevance and/or self importance can sometimes be treated if addressed in a timely fashion.

[merrily]

356. Awww. so adorable.

[rhett o rick]

354. Interesting, the list I mean. I suggest we call it the Blue List. nm

[sabrina 1]

31. Could you link to that group? I've asked already, but so far no link. Thanks!

[SidDithers]

36. Check your profile page...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

45. So there is no such group. That's what I thought. Thanks.

[rhett o rick]

359. They are avoiding using the word "Populist". It's a nasty word to some here. nm

[sabrina 1]

360. I think we just got a populist presidential candidate! So, they will be hearing the word a lot.

Btw, isn't this a meta thread? Is meta okay now in GD, I've seen so many of them, alerted on one, but got no response, so I guess the rules have changed?

[rhett o rick]

361. Yes this is meta. But I don't believe that meta threads are verbotten, only disruptive meta.

And disruptive is subjective and used by some to lock or hide posts they don't like. I don't think that's very "politically liberal".

I've seen threads that were way friendlier than this, locked for being potentially disruptive.

[joshcryer]

88. Heh

[zappaman]

101. Indeed.

[treestar]

136. lol

[NYC_SKP]

38. I'm gonna need a co-host. Interested?

It's actually not a bad idea, but might compete with the current Populist Reform of the Democratic Party group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1277

[sabrina 1]

73. Lol, seems some people have a vivid imagination around here. I have a feeling an 'I don't like

Hillary' group would soon be competing more with an 'I don't like Warren Group' and an 'I don't like Bernie Group' or a 'I don't like Sherrod Brown Group'! than with a group that is about actual Democratic Policies and how best to get politicians to run on them rather than on Third Way/Heritage Foundation policies. That has been a huge loser for the Dem Party.

But it might be fun to see what 'I don't like' groups arise after the one people here are seeing in their imaginations.

[NYC_SKP]

78. I'm having second thoughts about it now that I read the suggestion for a mayonnaise group.

This thread is going places!

[sabrina 1]

86. Isn't this a meta thread btw? I have been told that Meta is not allowed in GD? But it's so fun I

am definitely not alerting on it! Lol!

[seabeyond]

93. meta? a group on du encouraging people not to vote, split the party? i think it is important

democrats learn what we are up against, even in our own party, dont you?

[sabrina 1]

95. This OP is bashing DUers. The entire thread is bashing DUers. That as far as I have been told, is

Meta.

You eg, just accused me of something that is totally false. I have asked you to link to what you claim. So far, you have not provided any proof of your claim.

When an entire thread is about DUers, rather than about issues or politicians or current events, it is META. If the rules have changed, then we can all post OPs like this bashing other Democrats on DU.

[seabeyond]

99. the thread is calling out dems that advocate not voting if clinton wins the primary. that state

both parties are the same, discouraging voters. that advocate splitting the dem party.

[sabrina 1]

217. The thread is meta. So it's okay now to post meta threads in DU. Fine with me, but I hope no one

tells us anymore that meta threads are not allowed in GD.

[merrily]

255. Liberals always get it twisted. Only meta that is pro-Hillary or anti Hillary supporters is

acceptable meta. Meta that criticized Hillary or Hillary supporters is unacceptable meta that is lockable. Not only that, but, if you leave GD to complain about a GD thread lock in the Populist Group, you get followed to your safe haven group by a few posters to be told off.

Fair and balanced.

[freshwest]

225. Skinner will announce when that part of the TOS comes into effect:

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground.

But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them.

In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day.

Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Unfortunately, the 'bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates' is LITERALLY changing the chance of DUers voting during the election season. I also cannot believe this kind of rhetoric ends at DU, because it is so practiced it must be part of a person's permanent mindset and they influence their friends, family and co-workers to be anti-Democratic.

Unless they have some kind of split personality, what they present here is who they really are in IRL. I know NO Democrats in real life in my precinct who say the word 'Democrat' with a snarl as I hear here, calling them all fakes, liars, sellouts, cowards and spineless, etc.

None of them attack candidates on the basis of their actions in all things. If we do not agree with someone (generally a DINO/pseudo Democrat pursing Libertarian outcomes that hurt our work to continue existing New Deal programs) we work around them, but don't waste our valuable time in the knee jerkism as I see here.

Constantly, where the standard narrative is to attack a Democrat without learning the facts behind the headlines. DU Is getting very weak in that regard. This is harmful to being able to motivate voters, such as those who are surfing the net looking for alternatives to Republican lunacies, and find nothing but insults in their searches here. I feel Skinner is wrong on the cut off date of Labor Day.

I don't expect those who say both parties are the same day in and day out, or I won't vote because XYZ, to change their minds after Labor Day in 2016. The Republicans have been in 'permanent election mode' since the 70s and this is why they keep winning elections and we are losing them by not supporting the Democratic Party. That and their strategy plays out here every single hour of the day:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110215862

[sabrina 1]

257. Definitely DU has changed regarding trashing Democrats, like Kucinich eg, I couldn't believe the

attacks I've seen on a Democrat who was so supportive of all of us during the awful Bush years. And Grayson, I actually saw him attacked in his own thread right here on DU when he was running for office, no less, right in the heat of election season.

I don't know when this trend began, but it did cause a few people to go elsewhere I know that, as seeing this kind of attack on Democrats isn't why we come here. I see enough of that on Fox.

[merrily]

256. Call out of other DUers or certain kinds of posts, etc. is the very definiton of meta on DU.

[KMOD]

259. I would love to see some call out the other kinds of posts.

Are you a progressive for Jim Webb?

Is that what your kind of progressive base wants?

Here you have Bernie Sanders giving you the opportunity that you've said that you've wanted, and yet, now your progressive team is clamoring for Jim Webb? That's some weird stuff.

[merrily]

260. WTF? I've never made a single positive post about Webb. Search DU.

[Warren DeMontague]

282. It's "your team"

You know, it's all about which team you're on.

[merrily]

286. I am not Jesus. I don't come here to suffer the lash on behalf of every liberal poster.

If KMOD has a legitimate gripe with me, she can fucking post it.

If she has a gripe with people who support Jim Webb, she can fucking post it to someone who supported him and not imply that I am part of that category.

Besides, I would not be surprised if Hillary's paying him to run in the primary to make her look more liberal.

Barring that, she can get off my jock or, god forbid, make a substantive post for the sheer novelty of the experience.


(Told you. Gloves are fully off.)

[KMOD]

333. Get off your jock?

ewwww

[merrily]

336. Yep. an expression used by a woman in a reality show that I found funny.

Obviously, not to be taken literally.

[rhett o rick]

357. Yes meta. There is no such a group in DU. Those promoting that idea are trying to

distract from issues like fracking and the Terrible TPP.

Democrats by definition are open-minded and do not follow anyone in lock-step.

As far as splitting the party......it's already split. The Progressive Wing supports the 99%. The other Wing supports fracking, the TPP and Wall Street.

[rhett o rick]

351. Meta threads are allowed if they support a certain perspective. However if the Meta thread

is disliked by certain people, it will label it "destructive" meta. It can be used as a tool to lock or hide threads so as to censor the conversation. Not really "politically liberal" IMO.

[KMOD]

89. Members of PU, lol

recommended an article written by a far right wing Ted Cruz supporter this morning, simply because it was anti-Hillary.

[Cosmic Kitten]

103. Recommends isn't the same as "agree with"

Recommending a thread
gives it wider exposure.

People mostly "rec" posts
they find favorable.
Some posts are "rec'd"
to generate awareness.

Don't be closed minded
to the use of "rec's".

A "rec" is not an automatic agreement.

[KMOD]

106. Many were most certainly agreeing with the

Ted Cruz right winger. They were referring to the opinion article as "the truth".

[Cosmic Kitten]

107. My only point is a "Rec" is not the same as "agree with"

I rec'd this thread.

Totally disagree with the premise.
The OP is illustrative of the resentment
from Hillary supporters towards
other committed DU members.

The vitriol from the Democratic "centrists"
will only alienate those left of center.

In fact, vitriol from Hillary supporters
is doing the bidding of the right-wing!
Resentful, posts such as this OP
does more to divide the party than
anything Ted Cruz could accomplish.

So, there's that reality to deal with.
Maybe those angry, resentful members
are right-wing trolls?
They seem to working towards the same end
of dividing the party?

[KMOD]

116. I understand that.

But when you rec an opinion of a right wing Ted Cruz supporter and state that the opinion writer is speaking the truth, well, it certainly looks like you're on the same side as the Cruz supporters.

Most here are able to make their arguments against HRC, and for a more progressive candidate without using RW sources to make their argument.

That's all I'm saying.

[Cosmic Kitten]

117. Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

If Ted Cruz said cancer is bad
we can't agree with that?

[KMOD]

122. Ahhh, see now

It's not just some HRC supporters now is it.

Real cute with the cancer comparison.

Here's an idea. There's a true progressive candidate that you can support who is asking you to support him right now. Bernie Sanders has been very clear that he will run if he can have your support. Why not spend your time and passion on that, instead knocking the only candidate in the party who is currently running. Wouldn't that be a better, more productive way to spend your time?

[seabeyond]

124. +1. nt

[Cha]

183. Yes, I just read on that OP by a rw Hack that got Hidden.. that 27 had Rec it but then it went back

down to 19 when they found out who wrote it. So there is that.

As far as a "broken clock".. that's ridiculous when it's a lying right wing blatherer like the Liz Mair

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026515761

[Bobbie Jo]

189. Ironic

Posting RW garbage was the thing that nailed that one on the last go-around.

"Enough is enough."

Saw the same stunt several times today already.

[Cha]

195. They just can't stay out of the rw crap pile.. too bad it says more about them than their target.

[greatauntoftriplets]

327. ...

[bvar22]

362. Wasn't it President OBama who said tha Reagan had some "good ideas"?

Whats the diff?

[KMOD]

192. RW crap getting rec'd

yuck!

[Cha]

213. As someone stated.. " In their animus toward Hillary Clinton they have become

unhinged.." Enough of the posting rw shite on DU.

[KMOD]

214. unhinged and

aligning with RWers because of it.

[merrily]

261. I know. bc of the DU thought police, I started to post "rec only for visibility"" on some threads.

But, they probably don't even look that far.

Who goes around checking on who recommended which threads anyway? . Bookmarking posts for a future gotcha. Trying to figure out if you were banned in the past, so they can shame you, even if Skinner says he doesn't care. Trying to figure out things about you IRL. DU's KGB.

And it's not even about any of that, anyway. Your real sin is not toeing the line politically. On a political discussion board.

[misterhighwasted]

132. Lol..Ok THAT IS REALLY HOW LOW SOME WILL GO??

I hope that got an alert for RW Troll.
Wtf else do you call someone who links Cruz to attack the only Dem running for Pres 2016..and here on Democratic Underground.!!

Piss & moan about Clinton but FAIL to even get anyone to support them on a 2016 ticket.

Sounds like they want a GOP win.
Smells like a RW Troll alright.

[KMOD]

181. Thankfully, the thread was self deleted.

but not before many were agreeing with and recommending a Cruz supporter's opinion.

[misterhighwasted]

190. Why are they welcome here on DU? Ted Cruz statements are more valid than the Dem that

..has the strength to run against the RW. The Only Dem. No one from their wish list showed up to support their cause so they quote from Cruz?
It really is morphing into P. U.
Ted Cruz? Phewww! Stinks like RW Trolls.
They really do want a GOP President 2016.
WoW.

[KMOD]

193. It really does seem like some here do.

[misterhighwasted]

196. I will look at the vile repuke quoting group here, and then look at Hllary Rodham Clinton's fan base

.. and realize what a meager desperate group we have to deal with daily.
When they sound the same as any RW rag page, it's because that is who they are.
What else can you reasonably conclude.

Sec State Hillary Rodham Clinton..2016 & I am so damn happy I am supporting her.
Happy I do not come from the same sector of society that would support something Ted Cruz says.

[merrily]

262. Why don't you ask the owner of the board?

It's hysterical that you think posters he is okay with don't belong on his board.

[Cha]

197. It was a Hide.. unless you're talking about another rw thread?

[KMOD]

201. There was another thread that linked to

a RW site with an article written by a Ted Cruz supporter.

It was anti-Hillary, pro-Warren, but I don't know if the OP realized that the site was also anti-warren and that the author was pro Ted Cruz so the OP self deleted. But many in the thread loved the Ted Cruz supporters anti-Hillary take.

[Cha]

203. Oh, sorry.. Thanks KMOD.. and sorry I missed that thread..

do have a link?

[KMOD]

204. I sent you a PM

[Cha]

209. thank you.. that was disgusting and really glad it was self-deleted!

[Warren DeMontague]

284. Dude, guess what.

She's not the nominee, yet.

Demanding that she be treated as if she already had it, was one of her campaign's problems in 2008.

I'm sure unlike some of her supporters, she has learned from that mistake.

"She's the only one running" .... and she's been running for, what, 72 whole hours, now?

Guess it's too late for anyone else to get in. Fuck it, cancel the primaries, huh?

It is April of 2015. There are some 560ish days to the general election.

[treestar]

137. There's nobody who would join an I don't like Liz or Bernie group

they are not disliked by Hillary supporters or anyone here.

[Andy823]

141. Exactly!

I have never heard anyone say "I won't vote in the general election if Bernie, Warren, Malloy, or any other potential candidate is the nominee. I have however heard many of the anti everything group say they won't vote if Hillary is the nominee. That to me says a lot about their agenda, and it sure isn't helping elect democrats when you say something like that.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

160. This ^ ^ ^ ^

[misterhighwasted]

191. They are RW Stink. They really want a RW Pres 2016.

Sad & sorry lot I'd say.

[merrily]

307. So is your post.

[sabrina 1]

218. There is no one who would join an 'I don't like Hillary' either.

[KMOD]

219. Why would they need to?

Many of them just announce it in various GD threads every day.

And that's fine. They aren't forced to like or vote for HRC.

But a few of them are like a friggin' broken record at this point.

[sabrina 1]

223. I have not seen anyone say 'I don't like Hillary'. I HAVE seen people say, as I have, 'I do not like

her policies.

I met Hillary and liked her very much. It was in a private setting where I had the opportunity to meet many Democrats, due to my job. She was very nice, even offered to pose with me for a photo, which we did.

You are conflating disagreeing with someone on issues with 'not liking them'.

Here is where those who support Hillary are going to cause her to lose support. Rather than try to explain why they support her, they are bashing anyone who disagrees with her on policies.

I disagree with my own family, who I love, on politics. That does not mean I don't love them.

It is childish and ridiculous to claim that policy differences translate to 'don't like you'. And should be above this forum.

[KMOD]

226. There have been some very ridiculous comments made.

The vast majority here who are not HRC supporters are able to make coherent arguments against her. Those threads usually go pretty well and are not disrupted. And then there are the instigators.

My husband and my youngest daughter want a more progressive candidate. They are not HRC supporters at this point. Again, they are able to make coherent and reasonable arguments.

But some of the shit that gets posted here is simply asinine, and if you don't see it, you either aren't looking close enough, or you're biased.

Edit to add: And I'm very excited to say it will be my youngest daughter's first election.

[sabrina 1]

229. Then her supporters need to stop attacking everyone who disagrees with her on certain policies. That

is 'shit' as you call it. And it is turning people away from her.

When I met her I found her to be charming, humble, I had a chance to thank her for some of the things she and her husband had done. She was accessible, she was at the end of her term as First Lady so could have kept a distance from people she did not know, but she didn't.

I was told later she remembered my comment to her over all those she had heard that day. I meant it. I supported the actions her husband took to try to bring peace to NI.

But when she voted for the Iraq War, I was shocked. Especially because I had so much faith in her.

Then her support for neocon wars all over the ME. IF she was my mother, I would have been as opposed to those policies.

Many people on this forum went to bat for her for years when she was under attack by the vile Right wing. Many of us were threatened with death for standing up for her.

I still have that photo, and treasure it. But I am thoroughly disappointed in her war mongering and in her Wall St connections.

Sick to death of the low level of discourse that has pervaded this forum over the past few years. It used to be a place where actual intelligent discussion took place. No wonder so many of the best minds here have gone.

[KMOD]

230. I only see a handful of posters who go on the offensive for her.

Yet I see a tag-team of dozens who interrupt any thread made by Clinton supporters, who feel the need to state, over and over and over again, how they will not vote for her. That instigating to me.

You're right that there is a very low level of discourse here. But it's up to everybody, HRC supporters and non-supporters to change that. Nobody, regardless of their views should allow any of the nonsense to go on. The overboard HRC supporters are usually called out, why not call out the overboard non supporters as well?

[sabrina 1]

231. The best DUers are gone. The level of discourse isn't likely to improve. I am still here only

because of the few, the very few, who attracted me here in the first place and who are still around on occasion.

But I go elsewhere for real discussion of the issues and of this country's future.

Too bad, it used to be a great site until the Third Way began attacking Liberals and Progressives and those who are actually doing something about this country chose to go where they can do something. I guess I'm a contributer to the sinking level of discourse, but when I see great DUers under attack here, I will stand up for them.

The level here has sunk as low as FR when you have Hillary supporters using old Right Wing memes to attack liberals with.

I think we have been here for a long time are able to see more clearly who is responsible for the lowering of the level of discourse here.

[KMOD]

234. OK, well obviously I'm new here,

and again, I don't know the history.

As a newcomer, I don't think you are a contributor to the sinking level of discourse. I think you are an outstanding poster and advocate for progressive liberalism. And yes, I too will stand with you and fellow great DUers.

But really, you must realize that some DUers are also attacking HRC supporters with Right Wing memes. That's also happening Sabrina, I'm not sure why you're not seeing it.

[sabrina 1]

235. I do see it. But I see it as a response. Because I, who have never attacked anyone personally

nor have I attacked any politician on a personal level, have also been attacked with right wing anti-liberal talking points. So from personal experience, I know where it's coming from. I wish people would not respond to them, but I understand it.

Thank you for your comment, I appreciate it. People CAN disagree without being disagreeable. And you are among those who seem able to do that, so I appreciate that.

[KMOD]

242. I often think that it would be funny, and interesting, if the whole board started all over.

New screen names, zero post counts to start.

I think many of you, probably the vast majority, would find more common ground.

[sabrina 1]

244. That happened on Discussionist, the other forum started by the Admins. Skinner even advised

people not to use their DU names when they registered there. I did and so did a few others, but I couldn't tell who was who for a while. And he made it available to Right Wingers. I find it interesting, in the RL we have to deal with the Right so it's more real imo.

After a while though, you do figure out who is who. And interestingly enough it's hard sometimes on that forum to tell who is actually Right and who is Left when it comes to certain issues. So you're right, it is an interesting experiment.

[merrily]

268. +1

[treestar]

301. I disagree

That's absurd. and your victim stance is fictional. Geez Louise.

[merrily]

265. If you don't want pros and cons, you can post the thread safely in the Hillary Group.

Hillary supporters, though, feel free to post in the Populist Group to debate even to pos Hillary swoon OPs. New Flash: That's what the Hillary Group is for.

Hillary Group swoon threads, strict message control. check'

GD and LBN-pros and cons about Hillary--not acceptable to Hillary supporters.

PG no Hillary swoon threads or challenges to members of the PG group-also not acceptable to Hillary supporters.

Yet, you guys are the ones starting 90% of the call out threads in GD.

Typical.

[KMOD]

332. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[treestar]

300. Oh they need to just shut up and agree

They are not attacking you they are disagreeing with you.

[treestar]

299. Non issue. Most of us haven't met these people personally

And we are only talking about their policies.

How nice to be so privileged to meet important people.

[treestar]

298. And they can post with impunity on a board for Democrats

It's amazing how they whine at any argument back. That silly thread the other day that came from the Populist Group about the the Hillary supporters are oppressing them! Hilarious. They expect no argument or they are oppressed. Similar to right wingers complaining about persecution of Christians in America today.

[treestar]

296. Let's just say I disagree with that

There are several I can think of who already qualify.

[merrily]

263. Hillary supporters dislike enthusiasm about another candidate.

They can't wait to try to tamp it down when it appears, even when it appears in the Populist Group.

[treestar]

297. What enthusiasm for another candidate?

There is nothing wrong with their trying to tamp it down. Other-than-Hillary supporters try industriously to tamp down support for her and then complain there is any pushback?

[merrily]

302. Its on the board. Sorry if you missed it.

[treestar]

303. No, you made it up

And Hillary supporters should be allowed to debate just like anyone else.

[merrily]

310. Untrue. I made nothing up.

If you see no pro-Bernie, pro-Warren, pro Chafee posts on this board you need to see a doctor.

Or you might just ask brooklynite. He tries to make sure he posts "she's not running" in response to every pro-Warren post. And, "he can't win" in response to every pro-Sanders post. Claims he's not trying to discourage us, only give us the benefit of his vast political wisdom, even though no one asked him for it. (Mr. Party insider picked Hillary last time. I called the general for Obama in November 2007.)

And Hillary supporters should be allowed to debate just like anyone else

Oh please, don't play victim. I never said they couldn't debate us. Just not in PG, same as I can't debate in the Hillary Group. But, you knew that.

Do you never tire of of implying things that are not true?

BTW, I know you'll forgive me if I don't waste any more time on this thread with you. I had enough of your bs over my posting info right out of Hugh Rodham's wiki on that other thread.

[sheshe2]

207. We have had a I don't like Obama group for YEARS!

It is called GD.

But it might be fun to see what 'I don't like' groups arise after the one people here are seeing in their imaginations.

Interesting.

[Autumn]

341. Don't forget the I hate DUers group

that one would be popular Easy to figure out who would be the hosts and which posters would be there

[merrily]

254. I'll pitch in.

[treestar]

135. Yep. nt

[merrily]

258. So easy to avoid it, too, yet Hillary Groupers can't seem to get enough of it, between

reading there, posting about it in various other places on the board, showing up there to argue with or diss group members.

I've been in the Hillary Group all of three times since I signed up and all three times were by accident. I just clicked on a thread in Latest without noticing which group it was. Maybe that's why it doesn't bother me as much as Populist Group seems to bother y'all.

How many time you been reading or posting in Populist Group or posting about it?

So, your complaints about that group get squeaky notes from my tiniest violin.

[SidDithers]

304. I do avoid it. I've never posted in the anti-Hillary Group...

But that doesn't mean I should pretend it doesn't exist.

It's curious that there's an entire group at DU that seems to be exempt from DU's TOS.

Maybe it's a flypaper Group.

Sid

[merrily]

308. If there is a DU group that is immune to tombstones, it ain't liberals.

I thought I had seen your name in PG, but perhaps I am mistaken. But, you apparently do read there.

[SidDithers]

314. Apology accepted...nt

Sid

[merrily]

317. Aw,come 'ere, ya big lug!

[sabrina 1]

330. Surely if such a group exists you would be more than willing to link to it. Second request

could you link to this tos violating group so we can all join and make sure it gets shut down?

As far as I know all groups are approved by the Admins, so where is this anti tos group that managed to fool the admins?

I would think you would WANT to post there as I would, if it existed.

[SidDithers]

331. Check your profile page...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

337. I'm a member of five groups, all approved by the admins. Now where is this one that is NOT approved

by the admins, according to you?

HAVE you reported this 'anti-tos' group that, according to you, managed to start without the approval of the Admins.

[geek tragedy]

2. There is already such a group, though its title doesn't have her name.

You can find it under the topics tab in the "Democrats" category.

[upaloopa]

3. So why do they have to post in GD that they are

not voting for Hillary? Is it an ego trip or something?

[geek tragedy]

7. their goal is "burning Hillary to the ground"--that's an exact quote

And that's the mindset.

But, nooooo, how dare someone accuse them of being haters!?!?!

[Chan790]

350. Awwwwww. I've never been quoted before.

I'm truly touched that my words have resonated with you so much that you remember them.

Attribution would have been nice though.

[Andy823]

14. It's all about keeping the pot stirred up

They are pretty much the same "anti Obama" crowd, except now they have taken on a new target, Hillary. Seems that instead of actually promoting what they call a "real progressive candidate", they simply bash democrats in general. They come here to disrupt and keep thing stirred up, and I must say they are really good at what they do!

[seabeyond]

19. same "anti Obama" crowd. unsurprisingly, they are the ones i have battled in dismissing, derailing

womens issues. bet it is the same with blacks and gays.

[Andy823]

23. Yes

I guess we should just call them the "anti everything" crowd!

[sabrina 1]

16. There is a Hillary group too, so why do they have to post in GD they are voting for Hillary?

See how silly that is? People can post wherever they like as far as I know.

[seabeyond]

21. she is a democrat and party of our democratic party, which is what this democratic board is about.

kinda obvious, you think?

[sabrina 1]

25. Then show us the rule that if you support another Democrat over Hillary you cannot post in GD.

Thanks ....

[seabeyond]

28. encouraging people not to vote for a dem in pres elections, encouraging a split in the party,

encouraging a group to do to the dems what the teabaggers did to repug party absolutely is in the rules.

[backwoodsbob]

44. so it's Hillary or leave?

I thought we had a primary process...guess I missed the memo


Edit.....meant it for a post above you....sorry

[seabeyond]

50. says who?

[Puglover]

313. LOL Sabrina

2008-2016. Same lines. Same posters. Nothing changes.

Honestly I just laugh anymore.

[sabrina 1]

323. True, but here's the way I see it. If you have faith in your candidate, you don't need to adapt

such a defensive stand against people who have legitimate questions. What you do is answer those questions directly so that people understand what a good candidate you are supporting. More Democrats are going to be entering the race. I know what I would do in order to try to get people on board for my choice of candidate. I would answer any questions people have about him/her and if there are issues I disagree with, I will just say so. That seems to me the most honest way to support a candidate in order not to drive people AWAY from the one you want to win the nomination.

[Puglover]

324. Agreed.

I must say I do part company with people on the board who say they will not vote for Hillary PERIOD.

If for no other reason besides the Supreme Court I will. And I think it's wildly irresponsible to do otherwise. Especially if you live in a purple state.

But this swinging around the board authoritarian bullcrap is for the birds.

[Autumn]

343. You nailed it. I will not caucus for Hillary in the primary but should she win the nomination

I'm pretty sure all Democrats will fall in line. I will, but I don't have to like it.

[sabrina 1]

57. So are many other potential candidates. Are you saying there is only one Democrat in the Democratic

Party?

[seabeyond]

63. no where did i say she is the only. check the hyperbole. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

147. This Democratic board is also about liberal discussion

as the administrators themselves note:

"After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

"We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office. So sign up today!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

So we have a conundrum, with people who are more like '60s or '70s liberals and who can remember, say, the Great Society, and people who can't remember any farther back than Reagan and who think that what they see in today's Democratic Party is "liberal". A lot of us older liberals do not like what we see as passing for "liberal" today, because we have seen better. But we are told that if we don't like the Annointed One, we either need to find and fund our own candidate (and some of us have been trying to do that through MoveOn and other organizations), run for President ourselves (that is truly comical, as if the Democratic Party would even let a political neophyte in through the service entrance), or shut up because we have no right to complain if we don't do either a or b above. And frankly, if that kind of attitude is truly indicative of today's Democratic Party, then we are screwed.

[seabeyond]

163. third party, advocating a split in democratic party, advocating not voting in election is also

part of tos

[Art_from_Ark]

175. And that is the conundrum

There is already a split in the Democratic Party, it seems, between FDR/JFK/LBJ/RFK Democrats and Democrats who can't remember anything before Reagan. How do you reconcile '60s and '70s liberalism with what passes for liberalism today?

[merrily]

267. Not necessarily can't remember. Democrats who have contempt for Democrats who are not center right.

I have been attacked for saying something positive about FDR's service as President. Apparently, the only motive I could have had for doing that is "to make Obama look bad." Direct quote.

I don't remember FDR from personal experience, and I do know and often acknowledge that he was far from perfect as a President, but I don't post about how much he was able to do within his first 100 days, from his wheelchair, in order to make Obama look bad, ffs. (My post didn't mention Obama. On the post accusing me did.)

[merrily]

289. Then alert and/or bring it to the attention of the board owner who wrote the rules.

If he is okay what goes on on the board he owns, DUs secret police probably should stand down or create their own board, where they have a right to be as authoritarian and anti-freedom of opposing views as they want.

Barring that, I have as much a right to post here as anyone else.

[KMOD]

188. Art, Bernie Sanders is right there,

asking for support. Your opportunity is there for the taking.

As far as the generation gap. Yes there is some truth to that. However, our young liberals have helped our party make strides with equal marriage rights, equal pay rights, getting the public on board with raising the minimum wage, getting the public to realize the ridiculous costs of a college education today, keeping the public to be against war, getting the public to recognize the problems with the justice system, getting the public on board with marijuana reform laws, health care has been expanded, and although it's not perfect, it's a good start and we can make it better, and we are working hard to give women better access to birth control. Young people will not vote Republican, because they will take all of these accomplishments away.

Edit to add: Plus environmental issues as well.

[Art_from_Ark]

248. I'm not so sure I can agree that "young people will not vote Republican"

because, well let's just say my mom and I are the only avowed Democrats in my American family, and that includes several young people.

And I agree about the gains made for social justice (although with the marijuana laws, we are really at about the same place we were at in the late '70s), but the police seem to be getting out of control in lots of places. At the same time, we have been really spiralling backward on the economic front, and we still don't seem to have learned the lessons of Vietnam.

As for environmental issues, we still aren't even back at the same place we were during the first Earth Day (which the stamps in my sig line commemorate). Admittedly, lead is no longer used in gasoline and paint, and DDT has been banned, but now we have mostly monoculture corporate farms that use massive amounts of farm chemicals and growth hormones. We are steadily destroying our forested areas and paving over land at an astonishing rate, and now we have fracking and massive offshore drilling to contend with.

[KMOD]

250. Progress happens slowly, sadly.

What seems so obvious to us, sadly takes a long while to sink into others.

And yeah, I shouldn't, and can't speak for young people everywhere, but the young people I know here in NYS, including my own children, are not willing to go back on the progress we've made.

[merrily]

269. Especially since the Clintonites/New Democrats took over the Democratic Party, sadly.

[Bonobo]

180. Based on that logic, the same would have been true of Joe Lieberman.

IOW, bullshit.

[Andy823]

22. One thing

I don't see the Hillary supporters "bashing" others who may run. I also don't see Hillary supporters saying "if Hillary does not win, I won't be voting in the general election", or pushing the "both parties are the same" BS.

I am not a Hillary supporter, but when things are all over and if she wins the nomination, I will be, and I will vote for her. No way in hell do I want to see any republican in the WH, and I want to see republicans lose control of the Senate and the House.

[sabrina 1]

27. What do you mean by 'bashing'?? Is it 'bashing' now to say you would prefer another candidate?

I supported Obama in 2008. Was that bashing Hillary also?

This is getting ridiculous and no way to get people on board for your candidate.

But if we're going to fling the word 'bashing' around, then why are Hillary supporters bashing other Democrats by claiming they are not qualified to run for the WH?

Unbelievable.

[seabeyond]

33. how about her supporters dont want to worry their pretty brain over it, .... or any of the other

garbage to suggest her supporters are brain dead zombies. as a democrat, i am pretty disgusted we would talk about fellow democrats in that manner.

[sabrina 1]

65. I don't know what you are talking about. As a Democrat, capital 'D' I am of the opinion that our

party has more than one great Democrat who is more than qualified to run for President and am expecting to see that happen throughout this campaign season.

The nomination is up for grabs right now and we have plenty of great Dems who will most likely enter the race, as they should.

Do you object to other Democrats entering the race? I'm fine with Hillary announcing her entry into the race. She is not the nominee unless I missed the entire campaign season AND the Convention.

[seabeyond]

71. more hyperbole. i look forward to primary race and debates, as i have repeatedly stated. clearly

stated i oppose those that advocate not voting if they do not get the candidate, advocate both parties are the same, advocate social issues simply are not the issues that matter, advocate turning du to pu, advocate being the dems teabagger to the repugs.

getting it yet sabrina? cause i have clearly stated my views enough, i would think you would be done with that stupid ass ploy of

so you say

only hillary

so you say

no other dems can run.

garbage.

[sabrina 1]

77. Great, I read your posts as saying no one who doesn't support Hillary as the only candidate

shouldn't be posting in GD. Thanks for clarifying.

[seabeyond]

80. you did not actually READ my posts, if you came to that conclusion, a NUMBER of times

and still you do not address you and yours advocating not voting, both parties the same, social issue not issues that matter, populists should be to dems what teabaggers are to repugs, splitting the party.

and a fav

du should be pu

[sabrina 1]

84. Now I'm reading YOU accusing ME of telling people not to vote, of telling people that 'both parties

are the same'.

I want to be sure that I am reading you correctly so that later when you fail to back up that false claim you won't tell me I 'did not actually read your posts.

Now, please link to what you claim I have been 'telling people'.

Surely you would not personally attack another DUer with a false claim, so if I'm 'not reading your post' correctly, show me where I am mistaken.

[seabeyond]

94. are you stating you have never encouraged people to not vote, if it is clinton, or that both parties

are the same?

[sabrina 1]

96. Links please, you made a claim, attempting to avoid presenting proof, isn't working. YOU made the

claim, now prove it.

[seabeyond]

100. ha. you cannot answer my question sabrina? it really is pretty damn simple.

[sabrina 1]

105. So you made a false claim. I knew that, just wanted an admission. Thanks.

[Caretha]

168. Prove it...

you made the claim and accused Sabrina of very nasty hateful nefarious things.

If you don't link, then I call your claim bullshit.

As we say in Amarillo....either "walk the talk - or take your lame ass out the back door".

[WillTwain]

247. Sabrina deserves better. Link-it.

[merrily]

280. +1. I've thought about moving to San Antonio, but never Amarillo.

Starting to sound good, though!

(Actually went to San Antonio once. Texas real estate taxes are much higher than Boston's!)

[Andy823]

40. What would you call it

When all someone does is constantly post negative things about democrats, like the president, Hillary, or the party in general? Would that be "supporting" them? I don't know about you, but bashing seems to fit much better.

[sabrina 1]

67. 'Someone' who is this 'someone'? Surely you are not confusing people expressing their opinions of

POLICIES with 'bashing' a politician?

[Andy823]

131. Well there are number of

Someones. They are easy to find, if you really want to look!

[Andy823]

340. Actually

Hilary is NOT my candidate. I am waiting to see who runs, kind of like O'Malley, but one thing is for sure, whoever wins the nomination, I will vote for. Also I am not going to bash anyone who wants to run. I like Bernie, and I like Warren, and I would ove to see them in the debates, but attacking Hillary doesn't help. Who are you promoting to run?

Aslo I have not seen anyone bashing other democrats and saying the are NOT qualified to run. Got some links?

[seabeyond]

32. i am not a clinton supporter either, BUT.... i am a democratic supporter. yes.

and here i have to speak out for what is happening within the democratic party and on du itself.

[sabrina 1]

342. I'm still waiting for that link to the claims you made about me. I will check back again but you

made a claim hoping someone would believe it, well when people tell lies about me, I don't take it too kindly. So either provide those links, or you owe me an apology. That would be the right thing to do after making false claims against someone.

[JoePhilly]

43. Exactly ... and, unsurprisingly, you also hit a nerve.

Those of us who will happily support Hillary would also support any other Dem.

If Warren or Sanders won the nomination, I'd be for them 100%. And if they were to run in the primary, I might support them.

Those who "bash" want to pretend they don't bash.

Even as they threaten to stay home.

if we want a more progressive government, we need to start by kicking the GOP out of every office we can. Even if that means electing a few bluedogs here and there. Build up our control, and then add more and more progressive folks over time.

This does not happen over night.

[seabeyond]

49. yes. exactly. bring bernie in. i would love to see what he has in the debates, and chance.

and anyone else.

it is not those tired of the ridiculous, constant insults of clinton, supporters and dems in general that is the problem. i will go with anyone that looks the strongest and address populist agenda. cause as a dem, they are gonna take care of my issues.

it is the populist party on du itself i am fighting. when they tell me my issues do not matter. when they tell us, change du to pu or both parties the same, or dont vote if not someone they want.

[JoePhilly]

109. Yup ... Love to see Bernie, and anyone else jump in.

The party needs it. But we simply can not let the GOP win.

Every time they win the WH, it sets us back about a decade or more.

So, we must win the WH. And then, kick them out of the Senate. Force them into smaller and smaller red districts. Hell, they want to segregate themselves anyway. We should help them!

[Andy823]

52. You are right

"if we want a more progressive government, we need to start by kicking the GOP out of every office we can. Even if that means electing a few bluedogs here and there. Build up our control, and then add more and more progressive folks over time. "

Some just can see things the way they are, for them it's "my way or the highway, if they don't get "their" choice for the nominee, well they just won't vote, even if it means putting a president "Cruz" in office. I mean how crazy is that>

[treestar]

138. +10000

[merrily]

270. Funny. I see that all the time.

[upaloopa]

24. No it is not silly. Hillary is the only announced

candidate. She is most likely going to get the nomination. Saying you won't vote for her is saying you take yourself out of the game. So then you are of no consequence. You may as well STFU as far as I am concerned.
If she is the nominee and I think she will be, we had better win or it is government by the Kochs. That is the "I won't vote for Hillary" legacy. A pretty near sited view I think.

[merrily]

271. LOL! As if this all started Sunday evening.

She is most likely going to get the nomination.

Exactly what we are trying to cut back against.

You may as well STFU as far as I am concerned.

With comments like yours, right backatcha squared.

BTW, when did you buy this board from Skinner?

[Tarheel_Dem]

91. It's funny how so many of them are anti-Obama, anti-Hillary & simultaneously pro-Putin. Go figure.

[stevenleser]

353. + 1 Billion

[merrily]

264. GD is not the Hillary Group. Hillary supporters fight us in the Populist Group tho.

[sabrina 1]

51. So there's an 'I don't like Hillary group' without her name. Whose name does it have? That's

pretty silly don't you think, to use someone else's name to say you don't like some other than that person??

[seabeyond]

4. we do. i was made aware of it a couple days ago. nt

[upaloopa]

8. Found it

Geez they are even afraid of labeling themselves truthfully.

[seabeyond]

12. be to the dems what teabagger are to repugs. discourage voting. both party the same.

make du, pu. anyone that supports the other dems... are brain dead, dont want to mess up their beautiful mind, are sheep. and on and on they go.

advocating a split of the party, and people not vote, on a democratic board.

i didnt know htat was allowed. as a matter of fact, i thought that was specifically not allowed.

[merrily]

272. No, that would be the center right. Koch brothers fund them both.

Served on the Executive Council of the DLC in the early days too.

[Andy823]

17. Did you see the one post

About changing DU to PU? I think they have something with the PU name, but they should use it themselves for their board.

[greatauntoftriplets]

56. Yes!

I at that one. And I say that as someone who has no idea which Democrat I will vote for in the Illinois primary yet. Since it's March 15, 2016, I have 11 months to decide on that.

[sabrina 1]

18. Could you link to that group? Thanks.

[snooper2]

326. This one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1277

[pinto]

5. What is all the hoopla about? I don't get it. The election is aways down the line.

There's plenty of time for all of us to see what develops. How it goes. What's what. Who's who and all that.

[merrily]

273. Hate can't wait. Neither can authoritan impetus to message control.

I don't know about the centrists, but there are so many liberals who have been alert stalked, banned, or left because it got way too unpleasant for them.

Most of them went to boards that are most left friendly or stopped posting. At least three I know would rather fight Republicans and Libertarians on Discussionist than fight DUs right. What does that say?

[libdem4life]

6. Uh oh, PUMA Alert.

[upaloopa]

10. I found the I don't like Hillary group maybe you can too

You know, when she is the only one announced and you post that you won't vote for her it isn't PUMA it is a waste of time and space.

[blkmusclmachine]

9. The PUMAS are back!

[libdem4life]

13. Two great minds...one thought. I just beat you by 5 minutes...LOL :)

[BainsBane]

34. How do you figure that?

That assumes there is a nominee Clinton supporters refuse to accept. It's pretty clear it's the anti-Clinton crowd that opposes a Democratic candidate, and since there is currently no alternative they do nothing but talk about how they despise the Democratic candidate. It is not the Clinton supporters who refuse to go along with the party.

Now, is there anything you actually care about other than insulting people who support a Democrat?

[Marr]

184. lol, no kidding. It's like a scent that take you right back to where you

first encountered it.

[merrily]

274. Did they leave?

[cali]

15. Maybe people should stop stirring shit against both supporters

and critics of HRC.

I respect your support of her. I go on the assumption that her supporters are sincere. I don't question whether they are liberals. I simply disagree.

Today alone I've been called a hypocrite, told my criticism is "faux outrage", called a basher and a hater and that my wish to see a contested primary is rooted in misogyny.

It's tempting to strike back- and I'm not bad at dishing it back, but it's not how I feel about Clinton supporters. Too many DUers I like and respect support her.

[paulbibeau]

30. Goddamnit Cali

You are unrelentingly level-headed, and it's really starting to piss me off.

[cali]

39. lol. I hold lots of strong opinions.

it

[paulbibeau]

87. You do, but you totally express them calmly and coolly...

... and it's infuriating!

Nothing - I mean NOTHING - is worse when a person politely and reasonably disagrees with you.

Then you have THINK about what they're writing. Ugh. Blech. Yeesh.

[H2O Man]

118. She does that

on purpose, just to piss people off.

[cali]

128. ha! look who's talking, mr. cool, collected kind and reasonable himself

[H2O Man]

154. The few people

who like me on DU say such things. But the others have other descriptive words for me!

[seabeyond]

37. maybe others should be encouraging a group not to advocate not voting in pres election, or

encourage them not to promote both parties are the same, or encourage them not to advocate splitting the democratic party.

[cali]

53. I gather you believe that's something that someone who does not support Hillary should

do.

May I offer a similar suggestion? A supporter should encouraging other HRC supporters to stop calling all critics of HRC haters, bashers, faux outraged, hypocrites, etc. I've done my bit in repeatedly saying I respect her supporters. I've criticized people who are being sexist toward her. I haven't seen any of her supporters doing anything analogous.

[seabeyond]

62. i think that whether a clinton supporter or simply a democratic supporter should call out those that

encourage a party split, discourage voting saying both parties are the same, telling democrats social agendas are not issues that matter, or tell people not to vote if they do not get the candidate that they want. or that du should be pu.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

97. Yeah, what Cali said.

[seabeyond]

102. really? so you are willing to ignore dems trying to split the party, encourage people not to vote,

lose to the repugs if they do not get the candidate they want?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

112. lol, you serious? I was referring to what Cali said in the post I replied to...

For your convenience, I'll reprint it for you:

"May I offer a similar suggestion? A supporter
should encouraging other HRC supporters to
stop calling all critics of HRC haters, bashers,
faux outraged, hypocrites, etc. I've done my bit
in repeatedly saying I respect her supporters.
I've criticized people who are being sexist
toward her. I haven't seen any of her supporters
doing anything analogous."

Why the faux outrage Cali was taking about? I thought Cali's point was a fair one. JMHO.

[seabeyond]

115. wouldnt using "fauxoutrage" be exactly what cali refers too? because there are specifics she ignores

to equate it to ... both sides are doing it.

there is not a hillary supporter that advocates that if hillary does not win the primaries they wont vote dem, and people should sit out the election.

i think... that is more important than an insult like faux outwage, or the dismissive, .... hillary worshippers.

[Change has come]

236. It's way to early to use phrases like "split the party".

Even April 2016 is too early. You've been around long enough to know how these things work. There will be several people who don't become supporters of the nominee once we're close to the convention. That is what, 15 months away? We don't even know who the Democratic candidates are yet!

[BainsBane]

47. What pisses me off

Is the detractors have no point or purpose other than opposing Clinton. Is there anything people stand FOR? That's what I want to know. People refuse to wait until candidates announce. They instead declare war on the only declared candidate and their supporters. That is of course their right, but when they have no goal other than defeating the Democrat, I don't know why I should give a shit what they think any more than I do what the Republicans think. You could all discuss issues, or you could wait until you have a candidate who you could advance over Clinton. Yet people choose not to.

Why you all think elections have to be decided 19 months out, I have no idea. People here wage the presidential campaign 24/7, at least 3 out of every 4 years. Because one candidate people dislike had the nerve to declare her candidacy, you all flip out and tear her and everyone else down, because apparently people care about little else. But you all carry on. Evidently waging war on Clinton and anyone who doesn't despise her is more important than actually trying to do something positive about the state of the country.

[cali]

69. I have already stated that I tentatively support O'Malley

And sorry, but I see bad behavior on both sides. I have repeatedly called out sexist crap used against her in several ops and many posts. I do not diss her supporters, but express my belief in their sincere support. I do not question whether they are liberals.

She's announced, and like it or not, the presidential primary season is upon us. I discuss the issues.

Perhaps it's OK with you that "your side" is using incendiary language like haters and bashers against posts and OPs that are clearly not bashing. It's not OK with me that people who are critics write ops that say shit like "Hillary forgets and uses Goldman Sachs speech in Iowa". And I say so.

[BainsBane]

104. IMO, haters is entirely appropriate

the vitriol against Clinton exceeds any I've seen for any public figure, including Bush. If that's not hating and bashing, I don't know what is. It may not apply to you, but it certainly applies to more than a few here. I have had people come into threads of mine on entirely unrelated topics and insist they were some cryptic message supporting Clinton. That kind of thing is far from rational and shows an unhealthy fixation on the woman.

I'm glad you stand up for some principles in the discussion. I applaud you for that.

I do not suggest anyone should feel compelled to get on the bandwagon. I am not there myself. What I am is fed up with the bashing, bashing you say doesn't exist. The election is still a long way off. People have plenty of time to make their decisions, and we need to see who else enters the race. I'm happy to wait until then to make a decision. I haven't seen enough of O'Malley to form an informed opinion of him. I'm waiting for the debates to see what issues and discussions emerge.

[Cosmic Kitten]

114. Imagine the "vitriol" in the general election!

the vitriol against Clinton exceeds any I've seen for any public figure, including Bush. If that's not hating and bashing, I don't know what is

The stark reality is that
Hillary is a polarizing personality.
You love her or hate her.

That does not bode well for
the Democratic Party and
the possibilities of regaining
the Congress.

Hillary supporters need to be
kinder and gentler and massage
the situation, to ease the tension...
or not, and alienate left or center voters.

Just saying, the vitriol here on DU is NOTHING
compared to what I see in the real world.
At the lumber yard, the outfitters, the job site
no one is feeling love or buying Hillary for Prez.
Not only are they not buying, they seethe with
vitriol about the Clinton's in general.
Don't shoot the messenger, that's just reality
in a red state.

No one is on the fence about Hillary.
Angry, resentful, and defensive push back
from her supporters won't win a single vote.
There are fences that need mending...
it's up to Hillary supporters to do that work.

[seabeyond]

126. mindless cheerleaders, fans, shills, fauxoutrage, puma and what other names for clinton supporters

being called in this thread?

and what was said about thos that do not support clinton? people who do not like clinton.

oh the horrors, the comparisons.

yet... i do not see you making a single statement toward those calling clinton supporters names.

[PowerToThePeople]

127. I was calleda racist and misogynist

Because the right wing spew was spewed from an African American and a female. It was "obvious" that I was only against those traits, not the right wing dino spew.

[Number23]

199. Really??? Who called you a "racist" and a "misogynist?"

[PowerToThePeople]

200. You.

Edit - no, you did not state it outright, just eluded to it in very certain terms. Several times.

[Number23]

202. Why, you're right!! Here's the post in question

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6513957

My calling you personally a "racist" and "misogynist" was so subtle that I must have forgotten about it.

Yes, I can totally see where:

So black posters and women are on your right wing nut job list here?

I implore you to PLEASE put me back on your ignore list, if I was ever on it. Any "Democrat" that considers Negroes and wimmens to be right wingers is not anyone I would ever wish to converse with, even by mistake

is EXACTLY the same as me calling you a racist and misogynist. It has absolutely nothing to do with your coming onto a Democratic board and accusing the members of this board that represent the true Democratic base to be "right wingers."

[PowerToThePeople]

205. I'll let the readers browse that thread and come to their own conclusions. n/t

[Number23]

208. As will I. As well as your knee jerk, hyper defensive responses in this thread by addition.

[magical thyme]

20. maybe General Discussion should be re-named MSMDOE

"Mindlessly Support the Meme of the Day Or Else." At least that way posters wouldn't get confused about where they are and actually try to discuss the pros and cons of various candidates and issues.

[upaloopa]

76. I was talking about people who only discuss cons

of Hillary to the point that they say they won't vote for her if she is the nominee.
I don't see why the rest of us need to honor that in any way.
Tell me once you don't like her and won't vote for her if she is the nominee. Then STFU about it!
Don't highjack a ligit Hillary discussion thread with your ego trip.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

170. Or in addition

Don't try to hijack a thread where the topic has nothing to do with Hillary and turn it into an "I hate Hillary" thread. Saw that done the other day.

[H2O Man]

121. You hate America.

Plus, you want Mint Roomey to be president.

[merrily]

275. Then say hello to President Cruz.

[treestar]

309. Various candidates - when there are some

At this point there are none, so attacking the only one seems silly. Pointless, as it's too early for a primary fight, since there's no one sep (serious).

[Warren DeMontague]

26. I think we should have a "promoting research into the science of human suspended animation" group.

So that those of us who don't want to experience GD being stuck like a skipping LP (for those who remember such things) on an endless loop of "she rules! she sucks. She rules. She sucks!" for the next 18 months, can wrap ourselves in tin foil and go into deep freeze until maybe a couple weeks before the general election.

Also, while we're at it, we should have a "I don't like Reggae" group.

[merrily]

276. Not exactly.

"Those of us who want respite "You suck if you don't think she rules" are the only ones with no refuge on this board.

Hillary supporters think they should have the Hillary Group, LBN, GD and the Populist Group. They police the Hillary Group very tightly. They are, on this very thread complaining that, if they put up a Hillary swoon OP outside the Hillary Group, some of us have the gall to point out the fallacies. They pop into the Populist Group at will to debate us and they even post Hillary swoon OPs there.

They keep track of what we post in a way that seems quite creepy to me so they can post a gotcha even if it's years later. As is obvious from this thread, they check who does and who does not rec which threads. They communicate with each other off board to share links to posts and OPs and recs of which they disapprove. Also, about how evil we are. They devise strategies. They try to discern things that are none of their damned business. They make all kinds of assertions about what we do IRL for which they have zero info--much as they apparently would like to.

Yet, they've been whining and hurling accusations and insults at us as individuals and as members of the alleged "Hillary hater" group for months, if not years. Racist, sexist, Republican, Libertarian, one issue voters, poutraged because we never got a pony, idiotic, no grasp on reality. You name it.

I can't be bothered with the creepy secret police crap on which they seem willing to spend time and energy, but my gloves are now fully off.

[Warren DeMontague]

281. Yeah, I'm used to some people on DU obsessively tracking things, making odd ad hominem attacks, etc

Some people take this place WAY too seriously.

It used to freak me out, now I'm just, like, "meh"

Looking at it objectively. I think what some in the pro-Hillary camp don't realize is that they're not doing Candidate Clinton any favors by prematurely demanding allegiance, pushing "inevitability" or going on excessively about "the lack of any other choice for you".

And I do think for some there is a sense of residual bitterness, still, 6 years after the fact, that she was "robbed" in '08, and they're dad-blam-determined not to let it happen again.

Ignoring the fact that "inevitability" was one of her campaign's flaws, last time around.

however, otoh I am sympathetic to the fact that there is a good chance she will be the nominee, clearly trolls and right wingers would like to stir up dissent in our party and weaken support for who they probably think the nominee likely will be (and despite their posturing in places like DU, in real life i suspect these folks consider her far more liberal than they pretend, when they try to stir up "the left" against her.)

My line, basically, is I think right wing attacks (Benghazi!!!!!), sexist attacks, or plain old cheap shots at hillary, are likely examples of this sort of trolling, and whether or not I end up supporting her in the primaries, I will stand with her supporters in condemning such things.

(I also think attacking everyone who is critical of HRC as the above, Is likewise cheap, and ad hominem, not to mention intellectually lazy and transparent)

I've been pretty clear about what I'd like to see from the Clinton camp- actual (brave, not poll-tested) leadership and clear policy statements, as opposed to just pablum, "my most inspirational bible verse", and music videos.

Lastly, it is understandable why the hillary clinton group doesnt want people critical of hillay clinton posting there. Thats their call and their right. GD, otoh, is full of people critical of Hillary, and I dont see that changing any time soon.

[merrily]

283. I don't care if someone claims inevitability, as long as I am equally free to say

maybe, but maybe not, without being called a right wing troll or a sexist and having 25 people opening an Edgar Hoover file on me, then gossiping to each other about it. Sorry, that is fucking creepy and just another form of the authoritarian message control.

Lastly, it is understandable why the hillary clinton group doesnt want people critical of hillay clinton posting there.

Respectfully, if you saw my post as saying that was not understandable, you need to read it again.

[Warren DeMontague]

285. I get it.

I hear what you're saying.

[merrily]

287. No double standards = fairness.

[orpupilofnature57]

29. It's not Hillary it's you people that morph in to mindless cheerleaders and

the right to call someone to task, especially if your inclined to support them, Hillary supporters shouldn't let this faze them, wait until her enemies get going .

[seabeyond]

41. morph into mindless cheerleaders. ya. that shit. nt

[paulbibeau]

35. This is exactly where we need to argue about Hillary Clinton.

I think there is a real danger she'll continue our policy of mindless military adventurism and not regulate Wall Street enough. I think that would be bad for ordinary people, bad for America, and bad for the party's image. I care about those things in that order, and I'm going to try to convince people we need someone better.

You're going to argue it the other way.

Fine. But this is what political parties should do.

[NYC_SKP]

42. OK, but only if I get to host it.

Deal?



Meanwhile, we have this group:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1277

[geek tragedy]

60. that group has already been mentioned several times above nt

[NYC_SKP]

64. It's an awesome group filled with passionate members who want progress for all of us. nt

[geek tragedy]

72. not the common theme I perceived

But to each their own

[seabeyond]

74. no they do not. i have been told repeatedly, women gays black... back of the bus

along with many other progressive ideas.

if the candidate does not go after wallstreet, and military, dont vote.

that all other issues are not important issues.

and the reinforce the attitude saying dont vote. allowing a repug to win, taking the supreme crt more. fuck those it hurts....

[NYC_SKP]

81. Oh, that's going to require a little proof, my dear. I'm a host, nobody has alerted that to us.

So maybe you're thinking of the baking group.

[seabeyond]

83. in the top threads of that forum.... and i am far from the only one that read it.

i have started an op with it in quotes and really... i was surprised as hell you were running this group.

maybe you out to monitor closer.

[NYC_SKP]

166. Send me or another host a link to the questionable post and we'll look at it.

Hosts do not, as a rule, "monitor" to look for things that need fixing.

We rely largely on alerts from members.

So help us out on that.

[seabeyond]

174. tomorrow i will put in the time... nt

[pintobean]

182. Tomorrow is a promise to no one.

[seabeyond]

185. wtf....

[pintobean]

187. That was your 100,000th post

Congratulations.

[merrily]

290. stop making death threats!

[merrily]

279. Ya think?

We want women to go to the back of the bus, but praise Warren for her attacks on Wall Street that Hillary herself is parroting now?

Ok.

[NYC_SKP]

82. And we all have iPad Airs, part of the hosting contract.

And mine is 4G.

[joshcryer]

176. I see a lot of bitterness there.

You may want to try to change atmosphere a bit, I have no desire to even go there. Get enough of the toxicity here in the main forums. Groups are supposed to be different and "quiter."

[one_voice]

46. There are actually 2 already.

[NuclearDem]

48. I think we should have a mayonnaise group.

Because fuck mustard.

[one_voice]

55. Well then I think we should have...

a mayo AND mustard group cuz I like them both.

[pintobean]

58. Fuck that

I want Miracle Whip.

[greatauntoftriplets]

59. Ketchup group!

Or should it be a catsup group?

[NuclearDem]

70. Only PUMAs call it catsup.

Get in line with ketchup.

[NYC_SKP]

79. Now you've done it. CATSUP!

On the subject of condiments and dressings:

Actually, since childhood I dream of someday going to the land of Hellman's Mayonnaise, east of the Rockies, whatever THEY were.

Here we have Best Foods, of course.

[merrily]

291. Kerry shill!

[LadyHawkAZ]

158. Draft Fry Sauce! nt

[Cha]

186. Sorry, fuck mayonaise.. and leave my mustard alone!

[merrily]

288. Way to freeze out the vegans, you right wing so and so.

[BainsBane]

54. There are countless websites devoted to the cause of defeating Clinton

Whereas people who insist anyone who doesn't despise Clinton is aligned with the 1 percent, Goldman Sachs, and in favor of the "forever war," continue to post on a site whose owner has come out in support of Clinton. According to the anti-Clinton insulters, that would make him aligned with the same forces they consider the embodiment of evil. Yet here they are, contributing to the profits of the forces aligned with the 1 percent, Goldman Sachs, and the "forever war." If they actually believe those insults they have been hurling for months now, that means they don't seem to feel any obligation to live up to the standards they impose on others. Because here they are, contributing to the 1 percent, Goldman Sachs, and the forever war by posting on a for-profit site aligned with the forces of evil, according to them.

Obviously I believe that entire argument is idiotic in the extreme, and the fact they don't act on their so-called values tells me they don't take it nearly as seriously as they pretend.

[boston bean]

61. mmmmm.. mmmmm...

[seabeyond]

66. or that it is barbara bush mentality.... not mess up her beautiful mind syndome, garbage. nt

[freshwest]

294. And there it is! n/t

[Logical]

68. We need a "Hillary Worship Group" or "Hilary is Perfect" group you mean.

[orpupilofnature57]

110. + 1000 !!! Then the rest of us can ask freely, without being dubbed SP . n/t

[Cleita]

75. I would join a group that, well, not a hate group but one that has some

reservations about Hillary. I don't discuss Mrs. Clinton on DU right now because it would bring out the alert crews and cause flame wars. I have some issues with her and would like to have a sane conversation of the pros and cons of her as a candidate without all the hero worship and/or vitriol. That's all.

[geek tragedy]

85. There is a DU group whose main purpose

is to complain about Hillary Clinton.

Others have linked to it.

[AtomicKitten]

90. Some HRC fans are suggesting it is sexist to subject Hillary to a primary.

What forum do you recommend for that crazy shit?

[hrmjustin]

140. Really?

[AtomicKitten]

145. You'll find varying degrees of that sentiment within these:

1) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026513702

2) http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6517005

[hrmjustin]

146. Well obviously I don't think it is sexist to have a primary.

[AtomicKitten]

148. I would not have expected you to.

cheers

[hrmjustin]

149. i believe there will be a primary and it is healthy to have one.

[AtomicKitten]

151. there you go

being all reasonable 'n shit

[hrmjustin]

152. lol.

[AtomicKitten]

233. pfft

[freshwest]

305. Have gone to both. I want a primary to clear up the distortions fed the left by the right. n/t

[treestar]

144. I think they were saying the suggestion a primary was needed

so strongly was not said when there were only men running. That's open to debate, but not quite what you said there.

[AtomicKitten]

157. links at post #145

If I am interpreting you correctly, I disagree. The allegation was that it was sexist to subject Hillary to a primary, that a man would not have to deal with that. This has NOTHING to do with gender. What this has to do with is following the traditional election process by which a nominee is chosen from a field of candidates after debates and voting.

The exception was 2012 when a sitting president ran unchallenged, and fortunately he won. That was a privilege of a sitting president, not that I necessarily agree with it. It is also traditional for the field to defer to the sitting VP and await his decision on running before jumping in. Neither scenario is applicable to Hillary, but some of her, um, more ardent supporters insist that it should be and we should skip a primary election. Mindblowingly both Chuck Schumer and Howard Dean concur.

Yet again a Clinton is playing fast and loose with the rules and tradition. It appears the campaign has learned NOTHING. Some conveniently forget what transpired in 2008, but she is headed down the same path.

[treestar]

295. No, that a man would not have it so loudly demanded

or be said to "need" one necessarily.

I looked into the last time there was no woman running, and Al Gore did have very little challenge when in a similar position.

[Agschmid]

224. No one is saying that.

[AtomicKitten]

232. Right, except for those that are.

Already posted above http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6519968 threads which you obviously didn't bother to read:

1) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026513702

2) http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6517005

[Agschmid]

237. Neither one of those OP's states that there should NOT be a primary.

[AtomicKitten]

238. the threads, read the threads

Or don't. It's pretty clear you are impervious to the truth.

[Agschmid]

239. That's an unecessary insult towards me, I'll do some reading and get back to you.

[AtomicKitten]

240. could not possibly care less what you do

[Agschmid]

243. Seriously?

This is how you think you impact change, and win people over... I was insulted but I let it slide, I have said that I will review both of the OP's you linked too and This is the reaction I get?

Well just so you know I'm a Mass voter. I helped get Elizabeth Warren elected to the senate, it wasn't an easy race we had to work hard to make it happen. Everyone I had the chance to work with had an open mind, and fought for democratic issues we didn't just insult our way to a win. I hope that this is what happens in 2016... and I am all for a primary, whomever the candidate is a primary only makes them stronger.

Good luck, enjoy DU but try not to use personal insults as your first response.

[AtomicKitten]

245. You summarily dismissed what I posted without bothering to read the links.

You have no interest in discussion; you've already made up your mind.

You are more than welcome to take my post as an insult if you like. "Impervious" was the absolute appropriate word meaning "unable to be affected by" which you clearly demonstrated with your rude, kneejerk dismissal of my original post with zero effort to read the links.

Have a great night.

[spanone]

92. too late!

[Pathwalker]

98. Looks like the circular firing squads have begun, so

maybe it's best for some us to just step back, or run for cover. It's April, 2015, the election is in November 2016. I'm not into teeth gnashing, clothing rendering, jumping up and down, or name-calling. Since 1'm a dead-dog Democrat, I will vote for whomever is on the Democratic ticket - ASS-U-ME-ing I'm still alive then. Until then, I will be more worried about the condition of our planet than all this infighting.
Just my humble opinion.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

108. Patience. We probably won't be here much longer.

I expect most of us will simply stop posting here, (I'm done to once a month at most already), and the remainder can be forcefully removed after the "primary". It's become clear that the Democratic Party is the Party of Clinton, now and forever, and the Left is not welcome here anymore.

The problem is the site was created under Bush, back when it was plausible that the Democratic Party could be reformed. The doors were thrown open to everyone who wanted to get politically involved to push the country to the Left. Unfortunately, the party this website was created to serve is not interested in pushing any further left than the state that the world existed in the mid to late 90s. DU needs a new mission statement reflecting the fact that it is not intended to be used by communists, socialists, labor organizers, social democrats, sympathizers, and anyone under 45 who is not employed by the DNC.

[RiverLover]

172. ...You speak truth, sadly.

Well said.

[LittleBlue]

111. The majority of the forum doesn't like Hillary

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251353870

I've noticed that every Hillary poll I've ever seen on DU is a landslide. And the big anti-Hillary threads get many more recs than the pro-Hillary threads.

Have you ever seen a pro-Hillary 2016 thread get 200 recs?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026305005

Same guy posts a Hillary defense thread and it getd 69 recs, which is pretty rare for WilliamPitt.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6344793

[orpupilofnature57]

113. It's the things she's done, and for who, that is a clue as to what she'll do.

[KMOD]

130. Bernie Sanders is looking for you

Don't like Hillary? Do something about it. Bernie is waiting. Surely there is enough of you that will support him, and encourage him to run.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

155. Thank you for pointing out there is a concerted effort to make Clinton supporters uncomfortable here

Thank you for pointing out there is a concerted effort to make Clinton supporters uncomfortable here and bully them into submission...
It has much more credibility coming from a detractor like you than a supporter like me.

[seabeyond]

164. i am not a clinton supporter and i have not been made uncomfortable. nt

[LittleBlue]

241. Definitely wasn't my intent

If I've ever made you feel that way, then I'm sorry. I was wrong to do so.

My point was that groups are typically for small topics or small numbers of members. The number of members who oppose Hillary seem to outnumber the supporters. So my argument is that GD already exists for those people, a group is redundant.

IMHO you are one of the nicest people on DU and my opposition to Hillary doesn't blind me to the fact that most of her supporters are good people, especially you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

318. There are times that I have been anything but nice but I appreciate your remarks...

Because of you I will try to be nice all the time. i don't know if i will be successful.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

318. There are times that I have been anything but nice but I appreciate your remarks...

Because of you I will try to be nice all the time. i don't know if i will be successful.

[hrmjustin]

133. Didn't know we were bothering you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

156. We literally bother him by breathing./NT

[hrmjustin]

162. I don't know the poster well but I wonder if it was meant in jest and the poster didn't write it

well. Maybe, maybe not.

[treestar]

139. Shills is a term that should not be used

on DU for anyone supporting a Democratic candidate.

[hrmjustin]

143. Not my alert and I am surprised it was hidden.

[VanillaRhapsody]

120. There already IS that group...they just don't have the guts to call themselves that!

[Tommy2Tone]

123. They do at Red State

Lots and lots of them. Along with a front page post titled, ¨Ted Cruz Rock Star.¨

Be my guest and join in.

[winter is coming]

125. I recommend liberal use of the trash thread and ignore functions. n/t

[treestar]

134. LOL

The hosts there can exclude anyone who says anything positive about Hillary.

[MerryBlooms]

150. Not needed.

Right now, folks are within the TOS to campaign against her and every other Democratic candidate. Once the nomination has been made though, that is different. TOS is pretty specific about supporting D candidates and Groups are required to follow the TOS... so if HRC ends up the D nominee, an anti HRC or anti ANY OTHER D in the general would be subject to TOS violation and banning.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

153. There is a concerted effort to cow Clinton supporters and make them uncomfortable here.

Thank you for pointing it out.

[H2O Man]

161. Interesting.

I always respect your opinion. And even while I see things differently in this situation, I value your perspective .....enough so, that I will keep that in mind while reading, and participating, in discussions on DU:GD about Hillary Clinton.

Both the pro- and anti-Clinton groups of people have a few very obnoxious folks. These people add little to nothing of real value in the discussions of the 2016 presidential election.

Likewise, both groups have more intelligent, open-minded members, who provide insightful comments that are a pleasure to read.

However, in my opinion, the pro-Clinton people have a somewhat organized sub-group that engages in coordinated attacks on those who are either opposed to Hillary Clinton, or who raise some concerns about her candidacy. They remind me of cluster flies. They have rehearsed attacks, often rather personal, that they unleash upon those who do not agree with them. And they avoid responding directly to people's sincere concerns.

Again, I recognize you as being an intelligent, valuable advocate for Ms. Clinton. Your posts do not come across as bitter or mean-spirited. But, as an "undecided," I find the pro-Clinton folks more likely to try to create discomfort for others, and indeed, to try to silence dissent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

169. I appreciate your response...

And there are times when my "joy bell doesn't ring true" and I can be mean spirited... There are times when the counterattacks by Clinton supporters can seem coordinated but that's because of the very real and understandable phenomenon that people who feel put upon join together in groups. When one is looking for solace he's going to look to someone in need of solace too.

I rarely, rarely, rarely start threads critical of mainstream Democrats...Most of my posts are touting Hillary, righteously lambasting conservatives and reactionaries, and supporting Democrats, along with a sprinkling of issues interesting to me.

Maybe it's the nature of things but I can't open up DU and not seeing something that I take as an affront to me.

[H2O Man]

173. Thank you for

this response. I definitely appreciate it. And as I've noted, you are right up with the top group of people that I respect on this forum.

Keep up your good work. It's important.

[PowerToThePeople]

210. This

However, in my opinion, the pro-Clinton people have a somewhat organized sub-group that engages in coordinated attacks on those who are either opposed to Hillary Clinton, or who raise some concerns about her candidacy. They remind me of cluster flies. They have rehearsed attacks, often rather personal, that they unleash upon those who do not agree with them. And they avoid responding directly to people's sincere concerns.

Appears true to me.

[liberal_at_heart]

167. I have never once told someone not to vote for Hillary. All I have ever done is say that I will not

vote for her and I get blamed for Republicans winning elections. So, for all the people claiming that Hillary critics are trying to make Hillary supporters cow down, maybe they should take a look in the mirror.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

171. I never tell folks how to vote because I am not presumptuous enough to think they will listen....

I never tell folks how to vote because I am not presumptuous enough to think they will listen to me, especially from the anonymity and soullessness of a internet connection.

I get it... I'm not a dumb dumb...Folks here have legitimate grievances with Ms. Clinton but the way they go about it, with the constant repetition makes me weary...

[yuiyoshida]

159. Ya know it might be that some of us

would like to see who ELSE is on the menu before we order, meaning what other candidates are running. I am not saying, I don't like Hillary, I want to SEE who else is running and make a decision by myself. I am the only one who will pull the voting lever, for me.. show me some solid candidates and I will research them and make my own damn decision. K?

[Major Hogwash]

266. K.

I don't know why it is you are so smart, but well, you are!!

[darkangel218]

165. I think we should.

Since so many of us don't approve of Mrs Clinton.

[Spider Jerusalem]

177. I have a better idea

maybe people who are too thin-skinned to deal with criticisms of their favoured candidate should avoid discussion forums until after the primaries.

[Bonobo]

198. Yes, that is right.

It boils down to each and every person coming to grips with their own sense of how to deal with their political conscience.

If one feels that Hillary is not a reflection of their values or political ideals, there is no reason, at this point, why even constant criticism of her should be disallowed. She is not yet the Democratic candidate. Period. Full stop.

I am surprised to see that this whining about DU thread has been allowed to continue.

[upaloopa]

212. I said nothing about not criticizing

Hillary. I am talking about people who highjack a discussion of her to tell us for the enth time that they won't vote for her if she is the candidate. That means they are not going to vote in the election if she is the candidate.
They may as well join the repubs because that is what their posts suggests.
You highjacked my thread with your agenda.

[Spider Jerusalem]

215. Like I said about people who are too thin-skinned (which you clearly are!)

I'm not going to be voting for Hillary in the primary. I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. She hasn't done that yet.

And I haven't hijacked jack shit. If you don't want people commenting, don't post.

[liberal_at_heart]

221. oh, I must be one of the people you are talking about. No, I won't vote for her whether she

wins the nomination or not. So, if you want to go ahead and blame me now for a Republican winning the election, go ahead. I don't give a shit.

[KMOD]

222. It depends on what the criticisms are

Many here are able to make valid and fair criticisms, and then there are those who incessantly whine. It has nothing to do with being thin-skinned. Nobody likes whiners.

[cascadiance]

178. Maybe we could also have an "Elizabeth Warren is not running group"

So we can get those people that keep wanting to spread that mantra (but who insist it's not anything to worry about even if they have time to make those posts thousands of times), and they can talk with other people that have that opinion as well.

[upaloopa]

211. I'm thinking if we had an Elizabeth

Warren is not running group she would join it if she posts on DU.

[merrily]

278. That's all the groups, including rude comments in the "safe haven" Warren Group.

They respect no boundaries whatever, but uber police the Hillary Group.

[polichick]

179. It's possible to like and admire Hillary Clinton and still...

not trust that, if elected, she will turn her back on the power brokers (her donors and advisors) in order to actually stand with the people.

I love Hillary's intelligence and feistiness, and think it would be fun to hang with her. But for prez I'll take somebody who really will take on the power brokers - the way the first Clinton didn't, the way Obama hasn't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

194. That's legitimate concern or criticism and I don't think that's what the OP is getting at...

I believe he or she is pointing to criticism solely intended to bait her supporters.

[mmonk]

206. I'm in.

[freshwest]

216. That's what the Ignore function is for, even Skinner admits to using it. It's patriotic!

Besides, you'll live longer!

[TheKentuckian]

220. I don't like any Turd Way Pol because they are disastrously wrong on a lot of important issues.

I'm glad they aren't the scum at the bottom of the sewer and aren't hateful bigots of all stripes but don't doesn't keep them from being dumpster fires in many other crucial areas.

It isn't about Hillary Clinton as an individual, she just happens to be the latest face of a toxic movement in the party hell bent on advancing the secular portion of the right wing, corporate, warmongering, civil liberties destroying agenda and no I'm not going to support it knowingly ever again and will actively oppose it.

I want the Turd Way burned to the ground, eradicated like the cancer not coddled and nourished, fostering our own doom in the process trying to avoid it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

227. We do ... and it's not hard to find ...

go to the "Democrats" Forum & Groups ... scroll down, and BINGO!

[JEB]

228. How about a I don't like TPP group?

Or an I don't like non-prosecution of Wall Street hucksters group? O I don't like droning wedding parties group? Those issues should include all Americans and certainly all Democrats.

[MFM008]

246. just pick anywhere

Ive never seen a democratic group that disliked our potential nominee so much.

[merrily]

292. Then you must have forgotten the primary of 2008 very quickly.

I posted on board then where Clinton supporters got so ugly about Obama, it was not even funny.

One board owner had been a Republican until Reagan ran. He turned her off, so she turned rabidly Dem (smart move). Loved Bubba and John Edwards. (She was from one of the Carolinas, don't recall which. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Mentioning only because her two favorite Dems were also Southerners.)

During the 2008 primary, she kept posting links to No Quarter, a website by someone claiming to be a Hillary supporter. Once racist and pro PUMA post after another. (Someone pm'd me the No Quarter guy was really a Republican. I personally have no clue.)

When Hillary conceded, that board own went back to Republican, even changing her stance on Dimson 180. She got incredibly ugly about Democratic politicians and Democratic posters on her board. Eventually, she locked her board so that you could not post there without prior clearance from her.

From what I've read on DU, DU was no picnic then, either.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

249. Maybe we should have a primary candidate who has a chance in the General Election.

Vote Webb 2016.

[sadoldgirl]

251. This is rather silly,imho

This is a discussion board and not a "do not dare to attack
my favorite one".

Unlike the Repugs the Democrats are supposed to not just
think, but also to criticize certain policies, discuss them, and
if DUers think to discard them.

The GD is just important for that. No,we are not supposed
to flatter certain politicians,nor should we attack them
personally. However, policies are supposed to be screened,
checked, and yes, criticized.

At this point HRC is a candidate; fine. That opens the door
for just those discussions. Once other Dems are running
as well, their policies should get the same kind of
scrutiny. After all, in this tech age the former or
"secret" statements by any of the candidates are known.

HRC has a lot of political history, which the present POTUS did
not.That comes into play right now.

As far as dividing the Democratic Party is concerned, I think
this happened a long time ago. I am not sure that it is only
generationally determined or just historical. Democrats
don't like to be told what and how to think and resent
the typical herding efforts.

[merrily]

252. LMAO. Then, why do Hillary's supporters keep showing up in the Populist Group?

And, why, whenever someone criticizes Hillary in GD, do they show up with personal insults?

And why are they always posting ad homs about the group of people who do not support Hillary?

And why, whenever someone says something positive about Bernie or Warren, they show up with the wettest of wet blankets?

Not care? LMAO. I only wish they didn't care about what we post.

[Andy823]

339. Funny thing is

The so called populist group is pretty obvious about their, what should we call it, intense dislike for Hillary and how many of them will NOT vote of her if she is the nominee, yet I have not seen one Hillary supporter say they won't vote for "WHOEVER" wins the nomination, say Bernie, Warren, O'Malley, etc. Why is that?

I am not a Hillary supporter, kind looking at O'Malley right now, but one thing I can promise is that if Hillary wins the primary I WILL be voting for her. Same as I will vote for Warren, Bernie, or any other democrat that wins the nomination. Attacking each other the way some do here is not helping things at all. Honest discussion is what is needed, not attacking "anyone" those who do run in the primary.

[merrily]

344. Well,

I never posted that and cannot tell you why someone else did. If you really do want to know why a poster says something, you need to ask the poster who said it.

If and when you do see me post that, ask me and I will gladly explain.

[Andy823]

345. You did say this

"And why, whenever someone says something positive about Bernie or Warren, they show up with the wettest of wet blankets? "

That is why I say I have never seen anyone who supports Hillary say they won't vote for Bernie, Warren, O'Malley or anyone else who might win the nomination. I have however seen some of the anti Hillary group say that. Didn't say you were one of them.

Will you vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination? Just curious.

[merrily]

346. ? The language you quoted says less than nothing about voting.

Last edited Sun Apr 19, 2015, 12:15 AM - Edit history (1)

I have posted my position on loyalty oaths many times. My position is:

At this point, it's counter-productive for a person who does not support Hillary as nominee to be taking a loyalty oath to vote for her in the general. No one in power cares how much a voter has to hold his or her nose in the voting booth, as long as they vote as desired. If loyalty oaths are appropriate at all, the time for them is when the primary ends.

Moreover, loyalty oaths remind me of Hoover and McCarthy. I find them odious, as did the Supreme Court, when the Supreme Court actually did good things for the country, like ordering de-segregation of public schools. If you think the way you and others are trying to use one has nothing to do with Hoover and McCarthy, think again. You are not government, at least not on this board. Other than that, same deal.

If you think I post lies, they should be easy to refute. If you think I am not posting lies, why shrink from facts at the pre-primary and primary stages? We are sure likely to hear what I post and more during the general. Isn't it better to think about them now? If you think I or anyone has violated the TOS, alert or bring it to Skinner's attention.

Other than that, quo warranto, you and the others who have been asking this question for months now? At least McCarthy was on a Senate Committee, vile though he made it.

Now, if you are the typical message board self appointed private eye, your knee jerk reply will be "I thought so. Thanks for confirming." If not, maybe you'll think about what I've said in this post.

[AgingAmerican]

277. Either that or

...grow a thicker skin. Welcome to politics.

[muriel_volestrangler]

293. That would be the group whose hosts have pinned the "ReadyForSomeoneElse.org" thread

so that obviously they want to send the prime message of "I don't like Hillary":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1277

[freshwest]

311. Well, the cat's out of the bag now. n/t

[Andy823]

348. Yes but the question is

Who? I see a lot of Warren for president sig lines, but since she has said she is NOT running, I don't know who they are going to "support". As a couple of threads have pointed out, if you don't want Hillary, find someone and support them, then post their qualities. I have seen a few posters posting things about O'Malley, and the more I hear about him the more I like what I hear. The problem is the "ready for someone else" crowd have to start promoting someone, if they can find someone that meets all their "requirements"!

[Warren DeMontague]

349. Hillary has been an announced candidate for about, what, a week?

I realize some are in a hurry to close the barn doors, but there is still time for others to get in the race.

This new rule that no one can criticize a particular candidate UNLESS they have a different one lined up and ready was just made up out of thin fucking air.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

306. yeah... it'll be like a 'free speech zone' set up for protestors...

you got an opinion we don't like, we'll set up a little area, away from curious eyes and ears, where you can make your point to your heart's content and we won't have to worry about it spoiling our fun cheering for her.

sP

[woo me with science]

312. Textbook propaganda for corporate America, in which elections have been deliberately perverted

from civic exercises designed to find the candidate with the policies that will best represent Americans, into vapid pageants driven by emotional bids, manipulation, and personality.

This is what passes for "political discussion" in our new corporate idiocracy. How utterly embarrassing that someone would post this OP, which reduces our vetting of the candidate who will enact policy affecting the lives of millions, into a seventh grade taunt about not liking someone and being mean to them.

Maybe we should have a "I don't like Hillary" group where nobody can say anything nice about her.
Then all the "I am not voting for Hillary" folks can go to talk to people who care.

This is the level of contempt that corporate America has for Americans and our awareness of our own democratic system of elections. This is how far we have been deliberately propagandized into Idiocracy and away from substantive discussion of issues and agenda. Watch the messaging of corporate candidates and their mouthpieces. Watch how they shamelessly steer discussions about politics into the realm of vapid personality contest, as though it is the most natural thing in the world for Americans to forget completely why we have elections and what their purpose really is. Notice that none of the messaging is about policy.

We are being retaught democracy. Rather, we are being taught to forget about real democracy and to embrace the perverted shell of democracy that our new oligarchy provides. A weird, sick pageant in which we line up by team and vote based on team color and "loyalty" and the personal or emotional bid of the day, rather than policies and agenda. Note the vast wasteland in corporate messaging when it comes to any mention of policy or agenda at all.

This OP is NORMAL for corporate candidates' messaging.

Think about that.

[Ichingcarpenter]

315. as always you nail the hypocrisy

and point out the closet fascism.

[rhett o rick]

358. I think you got it. nm

[kentauros]

316. ^*^

[center]^I [font color="white"]__[/font] ^D^O [font color="white"]__[/font] ^N^O^T [font color="white"]__[/font] ^L^I^K^E [font color="white"]__[/font]
^H^I^L^A^R^I^T^Y[/center]

Hilarity, I don't like either.

[NM_Birder]

335. what I REALLY hate

^I^S ^C^L^E^V^E^R
^G^R^A^P^H^I^C^S
^T^H^A^T ^A^R^E
^F^U^N
^T^O ^U^S^E

[kentauros]

338. Blame Skinner!

[NCTraveler]

320. It's called free republic.

They will find their way back after acting like children here for a while.

[NM_Birder]

334. There is one,

But the "Lewinsky is for lovers" association is very particular whom they let in.



Buh Dum Bump ! Phisssssh.........

[SidDithers]

347. Kicking...nt

Sid

[rhett o rick]

352. Interesting that this thread was allowed to continue. It is clearly flamebait or "destructive meta".

I wonder if it even got alerted on. Funny that those on "the list" discussed here (can we call it the Blue List) aren't prone to alerting/locking/hiding/banning.

If we have a thread about the dangers of fracking or the TPP, it wouldn't get this kind of attention.

How sad that destructive meta is more popular than certain issues.