Seems like we have reached a tipping point

[MaggieD]

Not that smearing Hillary here 24/7 was ever going to impact the election, but with all the super delegate endorsements, huge union endorsements, and polls of IA, NH, and most especially the super Tuesday states pointing to Hillary as our nominee, it seems clear there is no purpose to the smearing.

You're not changing anyone's mind. You're not helping your candidate. You're not hurting the person you are smearing with voters. It's just arguing.

Maybe I am missing something. Let me know if I am. But there seems to be nothing to gain by continuing to smear her 24/7. Especially since now that we are apparently recycling the same old smears for the 5th, 6th, even 10th time at this point.

In the immortal words of Rodney King, can't we all just get along. LOL! But seriously, how about we knock off the smears? Just thought I would ask.

[MaggieD]

3. Of course, but why the need to smear her constantly?

[MaggieD]

7. I'm sure you believe it's the truth

But "the people" do not seem to agree with you. Again, it serves no purpose. None.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

134. "the people" are generally ignorant. YES, they are.

[okasha]

142. Let 'em eat cake.

Seriously, your post is a fine example of how utterly undemocratic many of Sanders' fans actually are.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

151. So you don't agree that the "masses" in this country are ignorant

of what's really going on in this country and the world? If you don't, then you just prove my point.

[okasha]

174. Sure, Toni. Sure.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

190. Ha!

[lovemydog]

236. I love Robert Crumb.

I wouldn't want to hide the post but I wonder if Crumb wrote that next to this image. I doubt it.

And as far as 'smears' go. If someone walked up to you on the street, or during a conversation at a dinner party or whatever and said to you 'Voting for your chosen candidate is like punching yourself in the face' how would you react. Would you see it as an insult?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

262. I would ask them why? I would be very interested.

[lovemydog]

265. What if they've been yelling the same things at you every day for six months?

Would you ask them why again? Or would you say 'Uh, sure, thanks, have a good day' and try and slip away without getting further confronted by Repetitive Yelling Dude?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

281. No, because I would have asked them 6 months ago.

What's your point? Good morning, btw.

[lovemydog]

287. Hi.

My point is that many of those things, people have already heard them. They aren't necessarily convinced by repeating them again. Hope you're enjoying a good day.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

293. Have a nice evening!

[lovemydog]

297. Thanks Elmer.

You too!

[CentralMass]

152. Point out some of these "smears", actual posts.

[MaggieD]

154. Read the front page

Any day, all day.

[CentralMass]

158. If you could, please site specific post that you feel are smearing Hillary.

[merrily]

178. Anything critical is a "smear."

[MaggieD]

244. Claiming someone is a liar without a SHRED of proof is a smear

You did it. Why not own it?

[CentralMass]

253. Did i miss a reference to someone claiming someone was lying ?

[MaggieD]

256. Yes, you did

I'm not sure how, but apparently you managed to do it.

[merrily]

255. Kindly provide a link to the post in which I used the word "liar" today in connection with Hillary.

[MaggieD]

257. Why?

You already know you did it several times today.

[merrily]

259. I don't think I used the word "liar" bout her, yet you keep saying I did. So, I'd like a link.

If you can't provide one, that speaks for itself.

[MaggieD]

260. So you want credit for only implying it x10?

I decline. But thanks anyway. Her story is "implausible" ??? I think your story is "implausible."

[merrily]

270. IOW, I never called her a liar and you knew that and kept claiming otherwise, anyway.

Credit? Poster, please.

[MaggieD]

272. Search on yourself and "marine"

I'm sure you'll figure it out.

[lovemydog]

232. Paraphrasing here:

Hillary is a republican.
Hillary only cares about her Wall Street friends.
Hillary is a warmonger.
Hillary doesn't care about (black people, gay people, poor people).
Hillary is obese or fat or pleasantly plump or whatever the heck someone said yesterday.
Hillary is in ill health.
Hillary obviously 'lost' the debate.
Hillary is right wing.
Hillary is equating 9/11 with (something or other having to do with Wall Street).
Hillary said she represents Wall Street (as though she came out and said 'I only represent the rich investment bankers on Wall Street')

I suppose you may not see them all as 'smears.' But they are certainly misrepresentations or mischaracterizations, in my opinion. And I'm not even supporting her for the primaries.

[upaloopa]

11. When lies are told over and over they look like

the truth because so many repeat them.
"The lie becomes the truth"
That happens a lot on DU.

[riversedge]

54. Reminds me of

an old saying:

If I am constantly wrong -I end up thinking I am right.

[MaggieD]

63. It really does

And sadly the jury system let's the mob rule. And they know it. Yesterday alone I was called a liar twice, a conspiracy theorist three times, a right winger and a GOPer. This to a person who has voted straight Dem ticket in every single election for nearly 38 years. It's pathetic.

[CentralMass]

187. Please , point out these lies and smears that are being spread.

[840high]

221. Show us the lies.

[merrily]

227. Excellent request.

[lovemydog]

240. She just did.

Post 63.

If you don't believe her, say it.

[lovemydog]

233. Agree.

From all angles.

Some Hillary supporters aren't immune from it either.

[CentralMass]

147. There is a consnt barrage of anti-Sanders posts by the same people everyday.

[MaggieD]

149. Like I said to you below

Count them and get back to us.

[840high]

224. You count the smears and lies

and get back to us.

[merrily]

229. Who on earth can predict what you consider a lie or a smear?

Y'all seem to have a definition of that that would not hold up anywhere except when you post to each other.

[moobu2]

2. I know the desperate attacks and outright smears would get

bad but this is ridiculous.

[Ed Suspicious]

62. They give me the vapors.

[CentralMass]

196. Can you site even a single lie or smear ?

[moobu2]

202. yes.

[CentralMass]

207. Your case would be much easer to make with some examples.

[lovemydog]

238. 'Hillary is a republican.'

[upaloopa]

4. This should be interesting.

[NurseJackie]

6. I think that which you desire isn't likely to happen any time soon.

In spite of the dismal poll numbers, nothing is "official" yet. And they're likely to keep it up (and it will become even more intense, and more shrill) until even the most wishful thinking becomes true fantasy. I just wonder what will happen after Hillary has (mathematically) secured the nomination. Will this be allowed to continue until the actual convention?

[MaggieD]

14. But one can hope

It's all so pointless. And yes, once the nominee is decided they WILL be banned if they continue. But why continue? 7 months of it has proved to be completely ineffective. And at this point it's just the same crap over and over and over again. Makes me shake my head.

[NurseJackie]

16. I'm convinced that they know they've lost.

At this point, it's probably just a big game. It's the only thing they have left. They are trying to provoke and antagonize as some sort of consolation prize for having already lost.

[MaggieD]

18. Could be - I know a lot of folks predicted that

... it would get more shrill and nasty as it became clear he would not win. I hope that is not the motivation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

160. I resemble that remark.

Could be - I know a lot of folks predicted that ... it would get more shrill and nasty as it became clear he would not win. I hope that is not the motivation

I resemble that remark.

[bigwillq]

8. It's a discussion board. It wouldn't be any fun if we all agreed.

The smearing and bashing doesn't bother me at all. It's kind of fun. Try not to take a discussion board so seriously.

I hope the smears and bashing continue towards all candidates.

[lovemydog]

245. LOL. I can say that being a Jets fan

IS like punching myself in the face.

[Juicy_Bellows]

9. Some of us are concerned that many of our fellow Democrats have lost their way.

If you think the 'smears' are bad here wait until she gets to the general - you ain't seen nothin' yet. You won't need to login, just turn on your TV and watch the Koch fueled shit show 24/7 until the election.

I'm all in for Bernie, as you probably have surmised and if he doesn't make it there will be a Republican winning the big show - I won't vote for 'em but I sure as shit won't vote for her.

I am in Oregon, so she'll probably get the vote here but even if I were in a state as purple as Grimace I'd vote for Jill Stein or write in Bernie.

[upaloopa]

15. Well if Hillary is the nominee we won't know what you do

or think because not supporting the nominee is agsinst the TOS.

[Juicy_Bellows]

17. True that.

I don't mind leaving DU and the Democratic party forever to be honest - they sure as shit left me a long time ago.

[Krytan11c]

111. And some are so happy to see you go

You would think Hillary supporters would care about losing voters.

[Agschmid]

130. It's not loosing a voter...

If Clinton is the nominee this person won't vote for her, you can't loose a vote you never had.

Sure it stinks the nominee may not be someone you are willing to vote for... I don't have that problem I'd gladly vote for any of the three.

[Juicy_Bellows]

167. Yep. I don't think her supporters give a damn

About progressive ideals. It's all team blue and rah rah.

[truedelphi]

10. A person can be quite sanguine about the issues involving not liking Hillary

Clinton if their lives are still working.

If for instance, they found that the ACA helped them.

If for instance, their livelihood isn't feeling the pinch of the many DLC inspired corporate giveaways.

(I have detailed many times how the very first vote taken after the majority rule of the Dems back in Spring of 2007 gave the publishing world away to Amazon. This means that small publishers cannot at all have any profits because they cannot compete with Congressional actions that let Amazon have free US Postal Service Deliveries. In any other era, this would have been considered an Anti-trust activity, but not any more. Anti-Trust activities are now just par for the course.)

Yes a person can like and even be enthused about Hillary Clinton, if they are not older and now facing a lifetime of needing to work, while the ACA rules mean employers will probably choose a younger (ie. premium cheaper) new hire over them.

If they remain unaware of the fact that the entire concept of contract law has been stood on its head, during the time that Obama held office. His gazillions of dollars of secret deals with bankers and big industries means that these days you could find yourself under arrest for bogus trumped up charges while opening a checking account!

And just try and find out what contract terms you are entering into when you call AT & T to get their phone or internet deals. You will be told contract terms are only available to an individual after they have entered into the contract.

[MaggieD]

23. I think you're blaming the wrong people

But that's just me.

[truedelphi]

29. Oh I know, after all I too have heard the refrain -

"This all (meaning bad stuff) started under Reagan."

As if Bill Clinton did not have the Presidency for two terms. As if Obama did not have it for two terms.

As if the Democrats did not have a majority in Congress from Jan 2007 to Jan 2011.

As if Greenspan was not someone appointed by Bill Clinton. (Or re-appointed, he might have come about under Bush the Elder.)

As if Geithner was not appointed by Obama, with Bernnake being re-appointed.

As if Monsanto puppet Mike Taylor was not given significant authority by Bill Clinton, with Obama making sure that he headed a very important division inside the FDA.

Et cetera!

[Juicy_Bellows]

34. Indeed - well said.

Heads you lose, tails I win - it's the same fucking coin.

I didn't think we'd see someone like Sanders, he has a shot at it - a real shot, but apparently we've had conservadems among us forever.

What a fucking shame. They should have and probably would have joined up with the 'cons if the 'cons weren't so fucking racist and ignorant. Instead we get their useless weight. The two party system has got to go.

[truedelphi]

295. The forces behind Mainstream Media are very upset. And not just with the Sanders branch of the

Democratic Party. So far, they have solved the "sanders problem" by basically ignoring him. No other candidate in history has had such a tremendous effect on the electorate and been so highly ignored by the Media..

But listening to Fox News the other night, the Talking Heads were saying how amazing the event of Trump taking so many voters by storm has been. And how unexpected. Although they conceded he is now losing a lot to Carson.

Then the Two talking Heads began consoling each other over the fact that the Republican Party is determined to get the real candidate back on track and his numbers back on track. (I tuned in late, but I think they meant Jeb Bush.)

And they said this: "Well a year from now the candidate that has the experience will be the one with the nomination - and voters know very well they can only vote for a Democrat or a Republican, so that will be that."

All the other nations of the world have more than two political parties with significant numbers. And in recent history a third party secured the prime minister's office over in the UK. But here in the USA, the Powers that Be have to keep a lid on it. They can't let us have what people in the other nations have: real true health care, paid for college that doesn't put students into lifetime debt, etc.

[Juicy_Bellows]

296. I'd love to see Jill Stein at some debate somewhere on the TV.

I hate that Lessig was shut out even though he met the requirements. It's like walking into Baskin Robbins and told you get chocolate or vanilla. But, but what about the 29 other flavors? THEY AIN'T FOR YOU KID.

Tired of that shit.


Thanks for the reply.

[Armstead]

97. Stop the Smears. No smearing, no bashing, no attacking....No truth

[Broward]

12. Do you think your pleas will change any minds?

[Bread and Circus]

13. Then you are hurting yourself..If Clinton is a lock then you need

...to be nice to those people you would like to have vote for her.

So far from what I read you are not very gracious at all. Sneering at those defeated on the left will not encourage them to vote come next fall.

[Juicy_Bellows]

19. I haven't seen many that are polite.

Bernie supporters have our fair share of jerks but the HRC crowd on DU is a special breed.

[Bread and Circus]

24. True it is about 50-50 actually. But if Hillary is a lock then she and her supporters should

Be showing class.

Framing Sanders and his supporters as racists and sexists is not class.

[MaggieD]

20. I won't beg her haters to vote for her

They are screwing themselves if they sit home.

[Bread and Circus]

27. It is Clinton's job to show them she represents them. If she fails that....

then why should they vote for her?

[DFW]

289. This is also very true. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

35. Yes indeed

[Juicy_Bellows]

37. YEP!

You say you and I know it - but they won't admit it. She is as progressive as Flo in the commercials. It's all a game to them, they don't really give a toss. The sad truth is if she gets the nomination she won't win.

I am pretty fuggin' certain of this - I also thought Bush would never be re-elected so I ain't batting a thousand.

[SidDithers]

66. ...

Sid

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

108. Conduct your own unscientific pole, here's how.

On a large 2 foot by 3 foot foam board write

HONK
FOR
BERNIE

Go to a busy intersection and hold the sign up high so the drivers can read it.

A couple of things will happen, it might get loud with horns honking and others will realize how many supporters he has.

Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

[MaggieD]

94. She has a more liberal voting record than Bernie

Thanks to his pro gun votes. So I think perhaps you might not be paying close enough attention.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

139. You are so wrong. Sanders was #1 most liberal

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate

[840high]

225. sHE'S NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO ME TO HATE.

[DFW]

288. This is very true, although....

see post 289

[randys1]

32. THey have to be nice to you so you will vote against the rightwing assholes who want

to destroy soc sec, kill Women in back alleys, take away rights from Gay people?

How nice do they have to be to get you to do that?

[Bread and Circus]

47. You can't own people by scaring them, sorry. If Hillary can't show...

that she truly represents their interests they won't vote.

Notice it is not just about not voting for her. Down ticket candidates will suffer if people stay home.

If you base a campaign on framing Sanders and his supporters as racists and sexists some will stay home.

The worse she and her surrogates the more likely people will sit at home.

Thus since Clinton is the presumed lock then she and her surrogates should start bringing in people from the wings.

No one owes her a vote.

[randys1]

50. So sad, I guess Women and Gays can just fend for themselves.

[Bread and Circus]

53. Again, Clinton is the candidate. If she fails to get elected it is her fault.

I know Clinton doesn't like to take responsibility but the truth is she is the candidate and no one owes her a vote.

If you alienate a fourth of the Democratic base by being an asshole then that's on you not those that suffer your tactics.

We keep hearing over and again Clinton is a lock but none of you ACT like it.

Try having some class.

Earn the votes.

[Betty Karlson]

275. I couldn't agree more. n/t

[randys1]

283. Yeah, you wont be able to find a single post of mine where I have been an asshole to anyone

I have asked people if their selfishness will decide their vote, but that is not being an asshole.

I have however had posts of mine hidden when I discuss outright racism ...


(as to being an asshole to anyone, i limit my statement to voting or the primaries, I can be an asshole when dealing with racists, misogynists and homophobes)

[MaggieD]

52. Ain't that something?

[reformist2]

21. Another Hillary supporter counting her chickens before they've even voted, lol.

[MaggieD]

39. But even if you believe he's going to win....

You have plenty of evidence that smearing her is not helping him. Right?

[Dem2]

25. Gloating isn't helpful either

I'd not suggest that people not post what they want though. It's a discussion board, which in translation accounting for this is the internet means "a place to fight".

[angrychair]

26. Elections are won and lost when they are won and lost.

During the first week of November in 2007, HRC was up an average of 22 points on then SBO (USA Today/Gallup had her up 28)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

HRC was crushing SBO in October of 2007:
"...and in October the same poll showed her commanding majority Democratic support, with 51% compared to Obama's 21% and Edwards' 15%."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_primary_campaign,_2008

Then SBO didn't start polling north of 30 points, as a constant average, until January of 2008.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

All major labor unions had endorsed HRC before December of 2007
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/labor/laborendorse08.html

She had hundreds of endorsements from Congress and other Democratic Party elite and SuperDelegates
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2008

And there was this observation from Gallup (bolded emphasis mine):

"The Democratic Race: Conditions Auspicious for Sen. Clinton to Win
Gallup’s 2007 national presidential polling strongly points to Clinton winning the 2008 Democratic nomination. Barring something unusual or otherwise unexpected, she is well positioned for the 2008 Democratic primaries. Obama has not been an insignificant rival: he came within single digits of tying Clinton for the lead at two points this spring. But he has recently lost ground and is now in the weakest position relative to Clinton that he has been in all year.

No other announced or potential Democratic candidate has come close to threatening Clinton’s front-runner status since the campaign began, including former Vice President Al Gore and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102277/gallup-election-review-october-2007.aspx

Elections are won and lost when they are won and lost.

[MaggieD]

48. Whose mind are you changing?

I've seen at least 3 people here go from Bernie to Hillary based on the smears. I've seen people call it out as harming Bernie in article after article. I think the rude reaction to BLM by Bernie supporters sunk him with AA voters.

What are you achieving?

[angrychair]

59. Real world solutions

I tried of the art of the "compromise". You hear that said a lot, "real world solutions". You hear "compromise" a lot too. Yes, as a nation, we are doing better than we were 8 years ago. Our president did an amazing job. There is still a lot of potholes in this 'road to recovery'.

A few, less than 1%, are doing a great deal better. 53% of all wages earned in America are owned by.08% (yes, point zero eight percent). That is wages alone. Not counting those that don't live on a paycheck. A disappearing middle class is a systemic issue that dramatically impacts all other issues, from student loan debt to crime.

No snark or disrespect to you or your preferred candidate, just my opinion. I have read other canidiates' policy positions from their campaign websites plus politics is kind of my thing so I am very aware of what is happening around me in the real world.
Far to many other candidates "real world solutions" don't actually fix the problems or address the actual systemic causes for those problems. They "compromise". So tired of me, people like me, getting told that the "real world solutions" or "compromise" means I get shit on (just work a little harder) while the rich get richer. I am being "compromised" into the God damn poor house.

To be fair, I am not saying that Bernie Sanders has all the policies or systemic fixes laid out to cure all the problems in our country (he is a man, not a mythical being sent to heal the sick or make it rain money) either but his starting point, on almost every issue, is far closer to "righting what is wrong" that other candidate's positions do.
Bernie Sanders and a lot of hard work and protesting from ALL OF US (no one, alone, can fix our issues) is how we start making the system work for us and not against us.

[MaggieD]

60. Well thank you for being civil

I respectfully disagree. But you're certainly entitled to your opinion. If all posts were like yours this would be the haven for Dems it was meant to be and used to be.

[Doctor_J]

162. who's mind are you changing?

[stevenleser]

145. By this time 8 years ago, Obama had pulled even with Hillary in Iowa. Bernie is cratering in Iowa.

So any hope you had of a repeat performance of 8 years ago is gone.

[angrychair]

206. Missing the point Steve

While that may be true, national polls had him sucking your candidate's fumes, with few large endorsements and written off by most major polling services. Guess what? We call him the president and her secretary of state.

Not really my point either (except that I supported and campaigned for the president from the very beginning).

My real point is that the president could have given up and everyone would have understood, conceded the race to her huge poll numbers, hundreds of endorsements (hell, even civil rights icon John Lewis endorsed HRC over him) and huge sums of money, no one would have blamed him. He kept on. That is all I'm saying Steve. Not saying he is going to win. Not saying he is going to lose.

I am saying that elections are won and lost when elections are won and lost.

[enid602]

28. naive

Dear sweet naive Maggie: do you really believe the majority of smearers are Dems?

[MaggieD]

40. I don't really know

There are times when it appears to me that this forum has absolutely been invaded with people who are not Democrats. But I can't prove that.

[Vattel]

31. I call out smears of Clinton when I see them. But I hope that

people continue to point out her dishonesty and her record of bad judgment on military issues, immigration, the war on drugs, etc. Ironically, those criticisms will probably make her more palatable to right wingers.

[MaggieD]

42. Why?

Whose mind do you think you're changing?

[Vattel]

44. I have changed minds, and I will continue to try to get the truth out.

It's too early to give up.

[MaggieD]

49. No one said you should give up anything.....

... Except smearing the hell out of HRC. I haven't seen one new smear here in weeks. It's all been recycled over and over and over. Pointless.

[Vattel]

55. I think you are confusing criticisms and smears.

[MaggieD]

57. I don't think I am

What prompted my post is two fold:

- for the 100th time I've seen posts after post about her being in the tank for Wall Street but not a single one of you or even Bernie can say what she did for them in return. She was the senator from NY. Now that she is not they are not donating to her, as Paul Krugman and others have pointed out. Yet the baseless smears continue. Even though it's pointless.

- sick to death of the right wing accusations about her lying about the marines turning her down. Bernie supporters have picked up that right wing talking point and just keep hammering it with absolutely zero proof she is lying about anything.

Enough already. It's pointless. Dem voters have stopped listening. Your elected representatives think his supporters are deranged. Unions don't listen to you. Enough already.

[Vattel]

159. I haven't posted smears.

I have pointed out how bad her record is on military issues, on immigration, on the war on drugs, on supporting capital punishment, NSA spying, and so on. I have also criticized her for being dishonest, but that is not a smear because many instances of dishonesty can be cited to support my accusation.

The marine story is hard to believe--why would she go to Arkansas and plan to marry Bill and then give up law and enter the Marines?--but I have no proof it is false.

[Duckhunter935]

33. I will vote for the other person, thanks

I really fear that if indeed she is the nominee, we will lose. She is a bad candidate with many issues. She will also fire up the republicans to vote against her. The constant insults to Bernie supporters will make them very reluctant to support her and may just very well stay home just like they did in Kentucky.

[MaggieD]

43. Good for you - sincerely

You should vote for the person you think would make the best president. I'm talking about the constant attacks that are clearly not effective.

[Duckhunter935]

171. Same to you and I hope

You mean attacks from both sides and not just one.

[MaggieD]

176. I do

I'm motivated to let loose my critique of Bernie solely based on the smears on Hillary. I have 2 friends that support Bernie and I never smear him because they don't smear her. We have RESPECTFUL discussions based on mutual respect. That is wholly absent here. Sadly.

[Juicy_Bellows]

46. You got that right.

Then, if you haven't been purged, you'll get to read how it was all the lefts fault for wanting some honesty in the white house.

[Kalidurga]

36. No thanks,

But thanks for asking.

[Autumn]

38. Define smears.

[MaggieD]

41. Here you go

2.
damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
"someone was trying to smear her by faking letters"
synonyms: sully, tarnish, blacken, drag through the mud, taint, damage, defame, discredit, malign, slander, libel, slur; More

[reformist2]

45. She voted for the War in Iraq and for Wall Street bailouts. Is that a smear?

[MaggieD]

51. Yes it is the way his supporters frame it

It's ridiculous to say that she loves war. I mean utterly ridiculous. It's ridiculous to pretend any of would have a cent left in our retirement accounts if we had not bailed out the banks.

You can disagree with her policies or her votes, but to act like someone who has spent her life working to advance the Dem agenda is evil incarnate is just ridiculous in my view.

[Vattel]

56. Is it a smear to say that she is a hawk?

Or that she has consistently demonstrated poor judgment on military issues? I believe that is truthful and accurate.

[MaggieD]

58. A hawk is someone who prefers war over diplomacy

So yes. It's a smear.

[Vattel]

88. That definition is too simplistic. Everyone prefers diplomacy to war

if both will solve a problem.

[MaggieD]

96. Not true

If Bush and Cheney didn't prove that then you weren't paying attention to politics back then.

[Vattel]

102. If Bush thought diplomacy would have achieved regime change in Iraq,

I suspect that he would have used diplomacy instead of the invasion. If not, then he is even crazier than I thought. But I don't think you have to be stark raving mad to qualify as a hawk.

[MaggieD]

107. Nope

You should introduce yourself to the PNAC.

[Vattel]

109. I think you are smarter than that remark. You are losing the argument and so you lash out. I get it

[MaggieD]

112. I don't think I'm losing the argument

I think the argument is self evident to the well informed voter.

[okasha]

141. He is even crazier than you thought.

Also stupid and a non-recovering alcoholic. If Kissinger somehow manages to stumble assume-first into the back door of heaven, it'll be because he stopped Richard Nixon from starting a nuclear war while drunk. There was no MAD deterrent for Iraq.

[MADem]

75. Sanders is a hawk, too. He supports a shitty fighter aircraft--the worst in history--

and he's never met a drone he didn't like, so long as it was made by Lockheed Martin. He's done deals with Sandia Labs, the guys who make the nation's nuclear weapons. He also voted, over and over again, to fund a war he initially opposed--and anyone who knows anything about a continuing resolution knows that the "He only voted so they'd get paid and resupplied" argument is horse patooty.

So let's not talk about how Sanders is the Peacenik Opposite to Clinton's Hawkishness. Let's not pretend he's free from charges of demonstrating really poor judgment on military issues.

That's just nonsense. What is he? He's a POLITICIAN who likes power and wants to keep it:


https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19900822&id=YC4yAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s-UFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3262,2613816&hl=en


His own supporters turned on him for his pro-war stance when it came to Iraq and Yugoslavia:

http://www.libertyunionparty.org/?page_id=363

In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman
Bernie Sanders’ Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO
bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves
the “Instant Antiwar Action Group,” we decided to bring our outrage at
Bernie’s escalating hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted
in 15 of us being arrested for trespass.

Many of us worked on Bernie’s campaigns through
1980’s, the years he was–as the local press repeatedly put it–
the “avowed socialist” Mayor of Burlington, Vermont. His descent
into de facto membership the Democratic party has been a major setback
for the task of building a real electoral alternative to the
two factions of the corporate property that monopolize what passes
for political choice in the United States. Bernie’s selling out
says clearly to working people and those unable to find work
that even leftists become mainstream politicians, when and if
they win office.

Sanders presented himself to the left outside of Vermont
as the leader of the third party movement.....When he first got elected Mayor of Burlington he was
the only elected U.S. official to attend the anniversary of the Sandinista
Revolution in Managua. The Gannett owned Burlington Free Press
said he had to be removed from office “by any means necessary.”
Now that same Burlington Free Press endorses his Congressional
candidacy.

Bernie became an imperialist to get elected in 1990.
In August, 1990–after the Bush administration enticed Iraq into
invading Kuwait–Sanders said he wasn’t “going to let some damn
war cost him the election,” according to a staff member who was
present at the time. So Sanders backed the buildup in the Persian Gulf
and dumped on the left anti-imperialist peace movement, singling
out his former allies like Dave Dellinger for public criticism.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/252270-sanders-i-wouldnt-end-drone-program

Sanders: I wouldn’t end drone program

The U.S. lethal drone campaign would not come to an end if Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) entered the White House, the presidential contender said on Sunday,

In an interview on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Sanders indicated that he would limit the use of drones so that they do not end up killing innocent people abroad, but declined to say that he would end the targeted killing campaign completely.

“I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case,” Sanders said.

“What you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective,” he added.

[MaggieD]

80. Yes that's true

But at lease no one calls him a warmonger or a whore as a result. And if they did they'd get a hide thanks to mob rule.

I got a hide for saying I did not want to elect another old, arrogant white guy. But calling her a whore is allowed to stand. Mob rule.

[MADem]

121. I agree with what you are saying. And the people who use these awful slurs will be remembered

when the dust settles.

I know that I have a shitty impression of people who have to use those kinds of characterizations (particularly the sexist invective--and when they try to pretend that they "didn't mean it THAT way" while repeatedly using the term, then I really smell a rodent). It says more about them than they realize.

[Vattel]

125. No one should be sexist and call Clinton a whore,

and no one should be ageist and call Sanders on old, arrogant white guy.

[Vattel]

101. I assure you that I am far from being a hawk,

but I wouldn't cancel the F-35 or eliminate drones. Properly used, drones kill far fewer innocent bystanders than manned aircraft trying to hit the same targets. And the F-35, although Sanders thinks it was a wasteful project, is so far along that it would be crazy to cancel it now. Neither Sanders nor Clinton is so naïve as to think that the F35 program should be cancelled.

Not wanting to get rid of the F35 or drones is perfectly compatible with having very high standards for the use of military force. It does not require being a hawk.

[MADem]

106. A plane that blows up on the runway and does not perform as well as the Russian's last generation

MIG...but we're too far along that it would be "crazy" to cancel it now?

What's crazy is spending more and more money on a failed weapons system, just so it can be based in Burlington and protect us from the Canadians....

That's the definition of stupid hawkishness, right there. It's compatible with MICC (Military Industrial Congressional Complex) thinking.

[Vattel]

119. Wasting money on a military system doesn't mean that you are a hawk.

You can still think that military force should almost never be used. Setting that aside, I think it would be a terrible waste of money to stop the F35 program at this stage of the game. That opportunity is past. And there is no reason to think the F35 won't be battle ready in a few years. It will have capabilities that no fighter has ever had, although experts disagree on whether its virtues will be worth the money that has been spent developing and producing it.

[MADem]

131. It certainly means one is not too bright, OR in bed with the maker of the

product. Or very possibly, both.

BS does not "think that military force should almost never be used." He's said as much. Check his record. http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad

ELECTION 2016
Bernie Sanders' Troubling History of Supporting US Military Violence Abroad
Why aren't we talking about Sanders' foreign policy more?
By Michael Arria / AlterNet May 13, 2015


The presidential candidacy of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has excited many liberals throughout the country, but there's been very little analysis of his foreign policy positions. This past Sunday Sanders criticized Hillary Clinton for her support of the Iraq war, declaring, “On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq…Not only I voted against, I helped lead the effort against what I knew would be a disaster." Sanders assertion about Clinton is obviously true, but the difference between the two candidates on war is hardly substantial and his political closet is filled with as many skeletons. Notably he supported NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, a stance which caused one of his staffers to resign in protest.

In his resignation letter to Sanders, former staffer Jeremy Brecher explained the Clinton administartion's position at the time. "While it has refused to send ground forces into Kosovo, the U.S. has also opposed and continues to oppose all alternatives that would provide immediate protection for the people of Kosovo by putting non-or partially-NATO forces into Kosovo," wrote Brecher, "...The refusal of the U.S. to endorse such proposals strongly supports the hypothesis that the goal of U.S. policy is not to save the Kosovars from ongoing destruction."

Brecher's note to Sanders closes with a set of rhetorical questions, "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support? Where does that limit lie? And when that limit has been reached, what action will you take? My answers led to my resignation."

The attack on Kosovo is hardly the extent of Sanders' hawkishness. While it's true he voted against the Iraq War, he also voted in favor of authorizing funds for that war and the one in Afghanistan. More recently, he voted in favor of a $1 billion aid package for the coup government Ukraine and supported Israel's assault on Gaza. At a town hall meeting he admitted that Israel may have "overreacted", but blamed Hamas for the entire conflict. After a woman asked why he refused to condemn Israel's actions, he told critics: "Excuse me! Shut up! You don’t have the microphone.”.....

You can't turn a Chevrolet into a Maserati, no matter how much you tinker with it. This boondoggle F35 a/c rides like a lumbering truck. The helmets are absurdly expensive and suck--they aren't any more "battle ready" than the fighter is. This was a massive sucking waste of money, and the only 'virtue' it will have is when it's consigned to the scrap bin of history and replaced by something that actually works and can overpower an opponent in air-to-air combat.

But hey, it's Lockheed Martin. They've got friends in Congress. One of their friends is named Sanders.

[MaggieD]

136. He's a politician like any other

His supporters just have blinders on. It's pork for Vt. So it's okay with him.

I actually learned this about him a decade ago. He spoke up for LGBT people on cspan, but never in his own back yard. And he ignored us when we reached out to him. Hillary didn't ignore us by the way - she helped us.

[MADem]

161. I agree with that. He's not "evil" or "bad" -- he is just. a. politician.

Not special. Not better. With the same ideas as most politicians.

He is what he is, and he will accommodate as he needs to, in order to insure he stays in political life.

[MaggieD]

170. The thing that stands out to me...

Is that his supporters seem to idolize him. That tells me they've never met any politicians. Including Bernie. If they'd get active enough to meet a few they might get over that.

And that's not a smear on pols. They can't do jack for you if they can't get elected. The pork he brings through that f-35 boondoggle helps him get campaign cash, and votes. That's just politics.

[MADem]

188. It is a little bit fawning, I must agree. And unquestioning.

And sure, if politicians didn't make deals, they wouldn't get elected.

If you described a politician who was a strong supporter of Raytheon, and who pushed to prevent the Army from shutting down production of surplus, UN-NEEDED battlefield comm equipment because it would cost constituent jobs, many people here would say "Scummy warmonger politician! BAD! BAD!"

Then, when you tell them that politician is Elizabeth Warren, it all "Ooops, well, she must have had her reasons...."

See, I've always understood that Warren straddled that line--because if there are no jobs here in MA, we end up being on the receiving end of government charity, with little prospects, no business growth, instead of having a healthy economy and contributing more to the Federal government than we take in.

Cult of personality is no way to run a railroad. Ya end up getting railroaded!

[MaggieD]

191. I agree completely

Well said.

[Vattel]

137. You missed my point.

I didn't say that Bernie believes that military force should almost never be used. I believe that military force almost never should be used and so I am clearly a dove. But I am pro-drones and I don't think the F35 program should be cancelled. My point was that there is no inconsistency there.

You are buying into the media hype about the F-35 being a disaster. I am more sanguine about the prospects for the F35 turning out to be superior to anything for the sort of uses it is intended to have. Maybe I will proven wrong about that, but I don't think that at this point we should just give up on the program. That would guarantee that we wasted billions of dollars.

[MADem]

155. Media hype?

There have been VERY FEW articles on what a clusterfuck that thing is--in fact, it's been the other way around. The MICC is suppressing any criticism of the doggone plane.



It's not a "waste" of money to realize you have gone down the wrong path. It's an expensive lesson, but not a waste.

What's a waste is if you go down the wrong path, realize it, and KEEP ON GOING....which is what we are doing with Lockheed Martin's piece-of-crap aircraft. And Sanders is complicit in all that.

[Vattel]

163. Well, I disagree and so does Clinton.

[MADem]

164. Disagree with what? We covered a lot of territory, there. nt

[Vattel]

169. I don't think the program should be cancelled.

[MADem]

254. There will be three thousand of these albatrosses in the air before you know it,

so you're going to get your wish.

I think it's stupid to throw good money after bad.

This entire, ghastly misadventure reminds me of The Pentagon Wars.

It's shameful, and it's detrimental to our national security. Those bums at Lockheed had better do a better job of making drones than they do fighter a/c or we're in deep doodoo.

[Vattel]

280. I bet that in a few years you will have a better opinion of them,

but I could be wrong. We will see. Be that as it may, I think Clinton and Sanders are doing the right thing by not calling for the program to be cancelled. It is too far along not to give it a chance. Many of our allies have already agreed to purchase them, and there hasn't been a cost overrun since 2011. Stop the program now and you lose all of those sales to the UK, Australia, etc. So even economically it makes sense to move forward.

[MaggieD]

156. It's the largest boon doggie in the history of the MIC

He supports it for the pork it brings to VT. And he has clearly said as much.

[Vattel]

168. Speaking of smearing, nice example of it.

He thinks it was wasteful, but he and Clinton both know that there is no turning back now. To suggest that he wants to keep the program alive only because he wants pork for Vermont is a vile smear.

[Autumn]

71. Using her words and her actions does that count as a smear?

I have a feeling that as far as her supporters are concerned that would be a smear.

[MaggieD]

74. Try it and see

You certainly have not as far as I can see.

[MADem]

78. Don't use Sanders' words though--especially some of his written essays.

You'll be called all sorts of names if you quote his own published comments about things like women, sex, and cancer cures, never mind his views about Republicans, white working men, etc.

[MaggieD]

82. True

I've seen hides on posts that included no comment - just a quote from Bernie with nothing added.

[Autumn]

120. I'm going to take that as a yes. The answer to your other question is

no, we can't all get along.

[DCBob]

61. Yes, it does appear to be futile at this point and only causes further division in our party.

It would be better if we could start to focus on how we are going to beat the GOP.

[MaggieD]

67. Yes, exactly

The real enemy is right there yet we ignore them. At our peril I might add.

[phylny]

64. Honestly, I don't disagree.

I'm a Bernie contributor and supporter, but I'm choosing to save my criticism for the Republican "candidates."

I will also vote for the nominee of the Democratic party, whoever it is.

[MaggieD]

65. Thank you

I can respect that. And I could respect all Bernie supporters if they could just stop this pointless smearing.

[Maedhros]

68. When I see smears, I call them as such.

Mostly I just see inconvenient truth, though.

[MaggieD]

73. I don't see you or any other Bernie supporter doing that

If you are it's too buried in the manure to be noticed.

[hay rick]

69. Taking a victory lap before a single vote is cast.

In my area, there are 2-3 Bernie events every week. There are 0 Hillary events, week after week. I keep READING about the Hillary tsunami but I'm not SEEING it. Is it real or imaginary?

[MaggieD]

70. Again, no

My point is the smearing that has been going on for over 7 months is clearly not helping Bernie. Can you not see that with the polls, the endorsements, etc?

So what is the point of it?

[BootinUp]

72. I say let them speak their minds (within the rules and community standards)

which is the same thing you would expect if the shoe was on the other foot.

[MaggieD]

76. There aren't any community standards any longer

The juries consistently leave posts calling her a whore and every other name. And her supporters every name in the book. It's mob rule and it's just sad.

[BootinUp]

81. My advice

is to use the ignore function if certain posters are really getting to you, also add them to your jury blacklist. Stop thinking you have to defend Hillary against every nasty remark.

[MaggieD]

83. That would require 75% of DU on ignore

At this point. Maybe people behaving is a better solution.

[pinstikfartherin]

77. Talk to me when you're willing to discuss the issues in detail.

I posted questions about Hillary's college plan. I didn't get but ONE reply until I posted a separate inflammatory post that got attention.

When Hillary supporters walk the walk themselves, maybe something will change. So far? Serious discussions about your OWN CANDIDATE don't get attention...only the smears do. This is part of the problem.

[MADem]

84. You couldn't find what you needed to know about HRC's college plan on the internet?

You needed to come here and post a thread about it, and hope someone (knowing your animus towards Clinton) would bother to engage you?

Here, let me help, you should find what you need here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hillary+clinton%27s+college+plan&l=1

[pinstikfartherin]

247. Uh, no...I had questions not answered there.

I know it may not seem like it from the mouths of many, but there are plenty of things not covered by her written plan, and I was looking to see if any of her supporters knew the answers, perhaps from watching her speak or something. Once I posted the inflammatory version, I got responses, explained myself, and then we actually had good discussion that wasn't based on hostility.

I do actually read other candidates plans and try to understand them. If I'm to vote for her in the GE, I need to know her stances just like any other candidate.

[MaggieD]

87. I have a solution for that

1. Try emulating post #59

2. Apply some peer pressure to stop your compatriots from purging Hillary supporters so you can have a civil discussion with them

[passiveporcupine]

79. You're not changing anyone's mind. You're not helping your candidate.

Then what are you worried about?

If it's just helping your candidate, why aren't you encouraging this "smearing" you are objecting to? And I always see you jumping in to be one of the first to defend her, as if she needed it.

While I don't see the point in smear campaigns from either side, posting factual information about the candidates is not "smearing" them, yet you jump in even when it's not a smear post, and act like it is. Jumping in to defend her when she doesn't need it is just going to contribute to the game.

Continually posting polls about how Hillary is winning, and who is backing her, is just going to provoke more counter offensive responses as well. But you (Hillary supporters) keep on going at it. And there are plenty of posts attempting to "smear" Sanders too. I'm sure you've noticed those as well?

Seems like you might want to take your own advice.

I'm not suggesting you stop defending Hillary, or even stop posting about her...but to think you aren't driving a lot of what is being posted here, is kind of naive. I agree that some of this has gotten a bit out of hand, but no one is innocent here.

[MaggieD]

89. My candidate doesn't need help

But DU sure seems to.

[passiveporcupine]

95. You're doing a great job. Keep going!

[EEO]

85. It's November. Let's not be presumptuous.

[MaggieD]

90. Again, not the point

The point is the smears are clearly not helping Bernie. So what's the point of them - especially what is the point of repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating them?

What are you trying to achieve, and how much evidence do you need that they have no impact?

[EEO]

175. Don't go fishing today. You won't catch anything.

[MaggieD]

179. I seem to be catching plenty

But thanks anyway.

[notadmblnd]

218. Again if it's not helping Sanders, why are you worried about it?

One would think that you would encourage it so as to turn even more people away from Sanders. But that's not your goal here is it? You goal here is to attempt to shut down all criticism of HRC and when your whining and playing victim don't work you turn to smears yourself.

You come here and complain about how much DU sucks however, you fail to recognize your own contribution to that suckiness. I imagine that you are intelligent enough to know that there are other sites that will accommodate your demand that no one criticize HRC and that you realize no one here has you chained by the leg to this site.

If you want the problem to go away, quit contributing to it because bellowing at everyone from atop your high horse isn't helping your cause either.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

86. I have full confidence that she has plenty of time to self-destruct.

[MaggieD]

92. Do you think smearing her here will achieve that?

If so, why hasn't it happened after 7 months of 24/7 smears? Hasn't done jack so far. Right?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

123. You are confusing "smears" with Bernmarks.

[MaggieD]

124. But she doesn't have any Bern marks

Unions, super delegates (elected officials) and polls keep proving it. That's the point - all the smears haven't helped him a bit. You have to admit that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

127. Your right, he and his supporters didn't cause her problems. She did.

[MaggieD]

132. What problems?

She's popular with Dems. She's winning unions. She's winning our elected Democrats. All his supporters are doing is lashing out at their own. If you're actually Dems.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

146. I'd provide a list but you would call it "smearing".

[MaggieD]

148. She's creaming the guy in every metric

So what problems?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

150. She sure beats Bernie on big money donors.

[MaggieD]

153. Yes - newsflash

It takes money to win. The theory that we should lay down and die because the USSC court doesn't agree with campaign finance reform is naive and frankly, dumb. We're not getting a constitutional amendment anytime soon with the gerrymandering. The only solution is to win the presidency until we can get a liberal USSC.

It's just that simple. Period.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

177. Oh yeah,...that's right. You HAVE to sell out. It's the LAW.

[MaggieD]

181. I call it facing reality.

You can join Bernie and lay down and die. I and millions of others decline to see another republican clown elected so we can have the warm fuzzies. No thank you.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

201. False choices are a favorite of Republicans too.....

BTW: Did it ever occur to you that it's only Democrats that trash their own base while mobilizing their opposition?

[MaggieD]

285. She's beating him by 25-30% or more in every poll

She has gotten ALL the major union endorsements, and she is beating him 400+ to like 3 in super delegate endorsements.

Where are these "bernmarks" she supposedly has? Do tell.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

290. The issues....

I guess those don't matter if you have the establishment's blessing.

[MaggieD]

291. She's beating him by 25-30% or more in every poll

We the people, not the establishment. Enjoy your day in denial.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

292. I suppose you think that means she's fine on the issues.

[840high]

230. She is good at it herself.

[stevenleser]

284. Hillary has never self destructed in her life. Obama barely beat her 7 1/2 years ago but there was

no self destruct there and the contest with Obama put more pressure on her than Sanders ever will. For that matter the Republicans constant smears on her and her family are more pressure than anything.

[Armstead]

91. If you put it that way, I really don't care

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. What smears?

What I see is a lot of questions about her fitness to be president based on her past performance and words.

[Armstead]

98. That is not allowed according to the corporate overlords

[MaggieD]

100. The ones calling her a whore...

And a warmonger, and claiming she's a liar, and that she's corrupt. Same shit posted day after day after day for the last 7 months.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

105. I don't recall seein her called a whore.

As for warmonger, liar, and corrupt...again, where's the smear?

[MaggieD]

110. Well you're excused then

You obviously have convinced yourself, with zero evidence, that you're achieving something. Let me know when you decide what that is. My assessment from talking to actual Dems is that you've persuaded people to loathe Bernie.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

113. What's an "actual" Democrat?

What do you think I'm trying to "achieve"? I'm not trying to "achieve" anything but voice my opinions on the primary candidates.

What are you trying to "achieve"?

[MaggieD]

115. Someone who doesn't spend their time smearing Democrats

Not complicated.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

122. How about scrutinizing candidates? Do "actual" Democrats do that?

Or, just watch the commercials and applaud?

[MaggieD]

126. The voters are stupid?

The unions are stupid? Our elected Dems are stupid? Is that what you're trying to say? Why do you think that works?

I'm not stupid. I'm not a victim of "Stockholm syndrome" and neither are the clear majority that support her. Somehow you think insinuating that we're all just stupid is a winning message. It's not. And we're not stupid.

[840high]

231. That's what you call a democrat? I feel sorry for you.

[MaggieD]

251. And I feel sorry for you

Maybe you can hope really hard and get Nader to run again. Then we can get another republican in as president.

Also, don't forget to send Ralph a thank you note for CU.

Lastly, don't forget that the voters are not going to elect a socialist extremist! So in that case a republican would be better!

[840high]

258. With that nonse - you convinced me. Go Hillary!

Far away.

[Rilgin]

277. A question.

Is calling someone a "socialist extremist" a smear under your definition of smear?

[Doctor_J]

166. And you've persuaded people to loathe Hillary

Good on you

[DJ13]

116. +1

[stupidicus]

99. when telling the truth becomes smearing, you don the rightwing thinking cap

in which case it's pointless to tell you what you're missing

[MaggieD]

103. There is no "truth" involved in these smears

If there were she wouldn't be beating him in the polls by 30% and our largest unions and most liberal members of congress would not be endorsing her.

You might want to, but you can't literally throw ALL OF US under the bus and still be taken seriously.

[stupidicus]

278. more rightwinger-like illogic

that's like saying that just because most americans believe in god that he must be real

facts/the truth stand on their own merits, and your equating either to smears is just plain...

buy a dictionary

[leveymg]

104. If we aren't all cheering Hillary, we're smearing. That's your point?

Last edited Wed Nov 18, 2015, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Love her or leave DU. That's also your point.

Nuts.

[MaggieD]

114. Nope - that's not what I'm saying

See post #59 for a respectful post from someone who supports Bernie.

[leveymg]

118. What's your point?

I don't see post numbers on this phone.

[colsohlibgal]

117. We Will See

The big lie usually does not work, as in Hillary having a more liberal voting record than Bernie. No way no how like with her big OK for The Bush PNAC crowd's Iraq attack.

Then there are the millions she is getting from Wall Street. They expect no quid pro quo?

In the end I don't trust her. I trusted Obama to follow through with his campaign pledges but that trust started melting away quickly as I saw his chief of staff and his fiscal team.

We must attack income inequality, we must attack our immoral for profit healthcare system, our ridiculous defense budget....for starters. She is not going to give more than lip service to any of this just like Obama didn't.

[MaggieD]

129. We've seen for 7 months

The smears and baseless innuendo are not working. It's all to no purpose and always has been. I know you're desperate for Bernie, but he's just not a good alternative to most of us.

[villager]

128. "You're not changing anyone's mind. You're not helping your candidate... It's just arguing."

Yup.

[Purveyor]

133. I'll wait for the final FBI reports but thanks for your efforts just the same... eom

[MaggieD]

140. I don't give a rats ass if you don't support her

I really truly don't. I've been active in politics for 37 years. I've heard every excuse in the book from so called liberals on why they sit out or join the circular firing squad that compels them to focus their attacks on fellow liberals.

My attitude at this point is "whatever." I made it threw the Reagan years. I busted my ass through the Bush years. I worked my ass off for marriage rights. I don't need to fight for me anymore. And if you want to sit home in a pout you won't be hurting me. You'll be hurting you.

And that's exactly what I told the Nader people. And I was right. Enjoy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

172. If you think

ll wait for the final FBI reports but thanks for your efforts just the same... eom

If you believe the Republican wet dream of Hillary Clinton being indicted by this Department Of Justice will come true there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. I would literally bet my life it won't happen.


lol@Republican wet dream.

[MaggieD]

241. They're hoping for it

Which is sickening to me. They will be as disappointed as the republicans.

[Martin Eden]

135. Most of the threads criticizing Hillary are not smears.

If you define "smear" as false accusation.

You're not changing anyone's mind or helping your candidate by falsely accusing others of smears.

[MaggieD]

143. I disagree

Let's stop them and see.

[Martin Eden]

279. Stop what?

I'm all for stopping anything that could be characterized as a false accusation, but that would not stop all the legitimate criticism. It seems you just want to censure expression about the serious concerns so many of us have about Hillary Clinton, her ties to Wall Street, her vote for the Iraq war, and her continued hawkishness.

You have to ask yourself whether you want real progress for the American people or you're simply "ready" for continuation of the status quo.

[CentralMass]

138. My sense is that there are far more Hillary supporters posting anti-Sander posts then the opposite.

The only count that matters is the vote tally after the votes are cast.

[MaggieD]

144. LOL!

Count them and get back to us. Can't wait.

[Doctor_J]

157. right back atcha

Hillary was a neocon before she got the superdelegates and money from the banksters, and she's a neocon now. I've never voted for one, and I'm too old to start

[MaggieD]

183. Great - don't vote for her

And if you're brave enough to post the same after she gets the nomination, see you later. Has nothing to do with joining a Dem site with the purpose of lying about and smearing her.

[Mickey de Mouse]

165. I'll just tip you over.

[immoderate]

173. So glad you're channeling Rodney King. LOL! A good example of "kvetching."

--imm

[daleanime]

180. How often to you lecture....

a mirror?

Although I do apologize about the smears, if you could pass me the list of approved questions for Hillary I'll do what I can to stick to it.

Have a lovely evening.

[aikoaiko]

182. Your plea for getting along rings hollow while you still post in the hate site.

[MaggieD]

184. What hate site? This one?

We can agree on that. This has sadly turned into "I hate democrats underground."

[aikoaiko]

197. You know the one. The non-DU site where supporting Hillary means attacking DU members.

[MaggieD]

215. That site exists purely because of the abuse....

.... and stalking of HRC supporters here. And you know that. That site would not even exist if not for the the mob rule that has been allowed here.

[Scootaloo]

249. Funny that it existed well before that "abuse."

I.e., getting over-the-top, abusive, threatening, and bigoted posts hidden because Clinton supporters think they are above any rules.

[Scootaloo]

185. Calling Sanders a rapist didn't change my mind.

Calling me a gingham-clad fedora-wearing white supremacist didn't change my mind. Accusing sanders of protecting pedophiles didn't change my mind. Posting links to Stormfront to smear him didn't change my mind. Nor did links to the Washington Examiner. All the waffle-headed yelpings of Froma Harrop didn't change my mind. Insisting Sanders' campaign is a plot by Israel to take down the democratic Party didn't change my mind. Posting a libertarian economist or five telling ht poor to "suck it up" didn't change my mind. Insisting that FDR was the ultimate fountain of all evil in American history didn't change my mind.

If you want the smears to stop, feel free to stop any time.

[MaggieD]

186. That's rich coming from you

It really is. Good luck once the nomination is over. Where will you post about Hillary lying while offering nothing to back it up like you did many times today once she is nominated? What's your plan?

[Scootaloo]

193. "Like you did many times today" you say?

Hi MaggieD. I went to work at 5:00 AM today. Thanks to a power outage that pretty much crippled the entire Puget sound area until about oh, twenty? minutes ago, I haven't been online at all. Until literally just now. Feel free to check the news if you don't believe me, it's been fun.

I haven't called Clinton a liar today. But now I'm calling you one, you lair.

[MaggieD]

195. Yeah, I'm without power too

Want to come to my next debate party and see if you can hold your own with a bunch of HRC supporters? I bet you wouldn't have the nerve to say your BS in person.

And sorry, I confused you with Merrily, so my apologies. But you both call her a liar day in and day out so the confusion is understandable.

[Scootaloo]

198. Point is. If you guys dislike smears, you can stop any time.

I'm sure there's a 12-step program.

[MaggieD]

205. Yes you can

Are you willing to pledge to join me? Let me know.

[Scootaloo]

211. I don't smear, MaggieD.

See, where you get confused is that I hold that your candidate is really wrong, on a lot of things. and I will say I think she is wrong, and I will say why. To you that is "smearing."

But as I pointed out... I've never called her a rapist. Clinton's supporters have lobbed this at Sanders.
I've never accused her of "protecting pedophiles." Clinton's supporters have lobbed this at Sanders.
I've not ever called her "a republican with her head between women's legs." Clinton's supporters have lobbed this at Sanders.
I've never once referred to her as a "gun nut." Clinton's supporters have lobbed this at Sanders.
Never have I called her a segregationist. Clinton's supporters have lobbed this at Sanders.
I've never used Stormfront as a source of criticism against Clinton. Clinton's supporters have lobbed this at Sanders.
I've not asserted her campaign is an effort by a foreign nation to destroy our party. Clinton's supporters have lobbed this at Sanders.
I've never accused Clinton supporters of being white supremacists. Clinton's supporters have lobbed this at Sanders supoporters constantly.

[MaggieD]

212. Yes you do

All day every chance you get. I know more than you think I do.

[Scootaloo]

214. And you've already shown you're willing to lie about me in this subthread, MaggieD.

Maybe you ought to stick with facts rather than these poor attempts at an attack on my person? it didn't work last night, and it's not going to work tonight.

[MaggieD]

216. I'm not lying about you in the least

And you know it.

[Scootaloo]

217. I'm afraid you are. Or, perhaps, you're "confusing me with someone else." Again.

[MaggieD]

220. I'm clear on it - no doubt about it.

[Scootaloo]

242. Have a good night, MaggieD.

[merrily]

192. Please.

Gingham and a fedora are not a good look together--but I have a feeling you can carry it off anyway.

[merrily]

189. Seems quite a few DUers like to tell other DUers how to post.

Here is my view: if you think you've seen a real violation of the TOS, alert. (Something is not a violation of the TOS because it disagrees your view.)

Otherwise, if you don't like the board, find one you do like and post on that.

[MaggieD]

194. Seems lots of Bernie supporters....

Don't share the values he espouses. If you love the guy act like his values matter to you. What a concept, huh?

[Scootaloo]

200. Do DU's clinton supporters accurately express their candidate's values?

Think very carefully before answering.

[merrily]

203. I doubt his values include attempting to silence political speech of others or pretending

criticizing Hillary's record and recent comments = smears. Smears are what I've seen Hillary supporters post about Bernie. Truly vicious, disgusting stuff.

As far as arguing, you're very argumentative yourself. So am I, but I am not pretending otherwise or trying to silence others.

[MaggieD]

204. You're confusing silence

With baselessly smearing Dems. See post #59. You can disagree without calling people liars without any actual proof or even a shred of evidence they are lying. You actually inspired this OP, so congrats on that. It's a good discussion to have. IMO.

[merrily]

208. Criticizing Hillary on her record or what she says is not smearing and I did not call her a liar.

I said her story was implausible on its face. Short of coming up with the recruiter and his remembering her, or a video, there is no way to "prove" the story is untrue. However, the story is internally inconsistent, including as to her age, a key factor in the story. That's a problem. Moreover, we know she has made up a story about getting shot at because there was video that time. Everyone on earth fibs, including you and me. It means they are human, not that their essence is "liar" and I would not say that.

What I actually posted--as opposed to your convenient rewording of my posts--was not a smear.

[MaggieD]

213. What part of her record compelled you....

... To claim multiple times today that she is lying about trying to join the armed services?

[merrily]

219. Again, the story was implausible on its face, with internal inconsistencies, including as to her own

age, which was a key factor in the story. What about that sentence is not possible for you to grasp?

I do not believe I even used the word lying, and certainly not liar. I said the story was internally inconsistent and implausible on its face. I would have claimed that once, if no one had not kept arguing with me about it and implying I was somehow a bad person for posting. As far as her record, nothing "compelled" me and I have a low tolerance for that kind of posting. It's a message board. I stated my view about the OP topic. Get over it. As for her record, it does include campaigning on a made story

I am not the only DUer who posted that her story was implausible, either on the Webb thread or on the threads when her story first came out and some used far less temperate language than I did. I would think you would have focused on them, rather than me, but whatever. It's your choice to make.

This is my last reply to you about this as I have now said almost the exact same things to you multiple times on the Webb thread and this thread and all you want to do is distort what I said. Also, AFAIK, neither DU nor Hillary appointed you prosecuting attorney, so consider abandoning acting like one.

[MaggieD]

223. Thanks for making my point that facts don't matter

And thanks for kicking my thread. If I said more than that I'm sure I would get a hide under mob rule.

[MrMickeysMom]

209. His values DO matter to us...

... Or, why then would we not support him?

If I found something that he said that was dishonest, I'd not feel that way and I'd call him on it. Haven't see it yet. If I find something HRC was dishonest about (and I have), I'd call her out on it.

It's that simple. I've been around longer than you have.

[passiveporcupine]

222. If you love the guy act like his values matter to you.

Is that why the cave exists? Because Hillary supporters all act like her values matter to them?

Seriously, Scootaloo said it best...only I'll use the phrase that is a well known meme.

Be the change you want to see

.

Until you can do that (and convince all your Hillary supporter associates to join you), you are just sitting there waving a false flag. If you aren't willing to start it and get your 'side' to wave a truce flag, how can you possibly think this thread has any meaning at all?

[MaggieD]

228. His supporters IN NO WAY demonstrate

.... The values you love to claim he has. Period. End of story. This site is 24/7 smear mongering on the Dem front runner. If HRC supporters did the same this site would be full of made up bullshit about Bernie. But it's not.

[passiveporcupine]

235. It's not?

We are not all clones. Yet you seem to want to put all Bernie supporters in one box.

Again, I have to say, if this isn't just a poor poor pitiful me post, and you are really hoping to change some hearts and minds here

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE

Start treating Bernie supporters with the respect you want to be treated with.

[MaggieD]

239. Again, you're wrong

It's not a poor pitiful me post. It's a poor pitiful Bernie supporters post. I am the change I want to see. I LIVE my liberal values. And I'm encouraging his supporters to try doing the same.

[passiveporcupine]

248. So you are asking Bernie supporters to do the same

insinuating that none of us are living our values...only you are. But you are not asking Hillary supporters to do the same?

[passiveporcupine]

263. This isn't a poor Hillary post?

What prompted my post is two fold:

- for the 100th time I've seen posts after post about her being in the tank for Wall Street but not a single one of you or even Bernie can say what she did for them in return. She was the senator from NY. Now that she is not they are not donating to her, as Paul Krugman and others have pointed out. Yet the baseless smears continue. Even though it's pointless.

- sick to death of the right wing accusations about her lying about the marines turning her down. Bernie supporters have picked up that right wing talking point and just keep hammering it with absolutely zero proof she is lying about anything.

Starting with the top complaint...here are the links from opensecrets for the top doners for Hillary and Bernie for the 2016 campaign.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=All&id=N00000019&type=f
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=All&id=N00000528&type

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2016 cycle. The money came from the organizations' PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals' immediate families. At the federal level, the organizations themselves did not donate, as they are prohibited by law from doing so. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

I think it's pretty clear the banks are still Hillary's top contributors. that is not a smear, it's a fact.

About the second one. I've not heard or read anything about her lying about the marines turning her down (for what?), so this forum must not be flooded with this, and I am a Bernie supporter, so according to you, I've been posting this smear against her too. Again, not true.

Are there people here who post repetitive crap about Hillary? Of course there are, but there are Hill supporters who do the same about Bernie.

Like I said, instead of coming here and spreading smears about Bernie supporters, why not

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE!

If you have a problem with something you believe to be nonfactual posted about Hillary, step up and confront the distortion or the lie with factual evidence to disprove it, instead of just whining about how mean Bernie supporters are, and how we are hurting our candidate.

I have seen at least three people step up and say they are switching from Hillary to Bernie because of how her supporters act here. So it goes both ways.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE

I personally despise unjust smears, and I too have called out some threads or OP's or posts for being nasty and unfair against Hillary. Not that you would notice. But that's OK, I don't often notice things that don't upset me, especially in the flood of dialogue during a primary. You and everyone will focus on the stuff that hits you...the rest you will just let slide by. You will remember the stuff you consider nasty about Hillary, but not so much the nasty stuff about Bernie.

[MaggieD]

266. If you're the change you want to see...

We're in really bad shape.

Also, did you know you can edit your post instead of responding to the same post twice? Pro tip.

[passiveporcupine]

267. Why would I edit a post you may have already read?

Does it show up as a new post for you? So, it shows me responding twice to your post?

And if I'm the change I want to see, I think we are doing OK, since I don't have a habit of smearing people with false claims, and I do the research to provide the most accurate information I can find, to contest a comment, or to clear things up. Something we should all be doing.

In other words, I don't always just post my opinion. I usually try to back it up with facts.

So, how about it? Instead of snarking at me, rather than even addressing what I just posted to you, how about BEING THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE!

[MaggieD]

268. Ok

But the edit function is there for a reason. Just sayin. LOL!

Now about that be the change thing...,

- I've never voted for a con in my life even though voting straight dem had increased my taxes over and over

- I worked very hard to win non-discrimination and marriage rights for LGBT (and won)

- I own a business that pays non college grads double the minimum wage, AND 100% Of their health, dental, and vision insurance, AND 21 days of PTO, and bonuses, AND a 4% 401k match with no vesting required, AND life insurance.

I AM the change I want to see. What are YOU doing besides smearing a good Dem?

[passiveporcupine]

269. Please show me where I am smearing anyone.

Congratulations on your life, but I thought the point was how you treat others on this forum...and how you post about the candidates. Sorry if I don't believe in hiding the truth (or avoiding it) if we are in a primary contest between two or more potential candidates for the dem ticket. Not talking about them is like not telling the truth if you know some reason why they should or should not win the primary.

Once the general is in gear, whomever wins the primary will get my vote. Maybe not my praise...depending on who it turns out to be. But they will get my vote.

Oh...and I edit my posts allllll the time. I know all about the edit function.

[MaggieD]

271. It's not about MY life

That's what you're missing. If it was about MY life I'd be a republican.

The TRUTH is your guy is a one note Charlie. He's oblivious to the issues AA and Latinos face, he's clueless on women's issues. He claims to be a champion of LGBT people when he was no where to be found. I was there. I would have noticed him.

It's fine to have a senator that is all about middle class white people and income inequality. Good for him. It's NOT fine to have a president who really doesn't have a history of giving a shit about anything else.

In my view his supporters are middle class white people, who obnoxiously seem to think the rest of us have "Stockholm syndrome." I'm white, and lesbian. And I do NOT have Stockholm syndrome. And I can gaurantee you we and other minorities know bullshit when it's stuck in our face.

Here is my considered and well thought out opinion. The majority of his supporters don't give a rats ass about anyone but themselves. And that is NOT the Democratic Party way. That's why he's losing. IMO.

[passiveporcupine]

273. So now the truth comes out that this was never a post to help Bernie

by getting his supporters to shut up about Hillary. It was really about Bernie sucks and so do his supporters.

If it was about MY life I'd be a republican.

You said it, not me!

You've just lost any credibility you might have ever had with me. Not that it matters to you, because you don't even care about the truth. The things you say about Bernie here aren't the truth, yet to you, that's the way you see it, so that's the way it is. And if anyone speaks the truth and it contradicts you, they are smearing Hillary.

Got it!

There is no rational conversation with you, much less a respectful one. Bye! Not playin.

Just wanted to edit (see...I do know how to do it) this to make sure I have a permanent record of your post I am replying to...in case you decide to clean it up or delete it. I want people to see what you just said.

It's not about MY life

That's what you're missing. If it was about MY life I'd be a republican.

The TRUTH is your guy is a one note Charlie. He's oblivious to the issues AA and Latinos face, he's clueless on women's issues. He claims to be a champion of LGBT people when he was no where to be found. I was there. I would have noticed him.

It's fine to have a senator that is all about middle class white people and income inequality. Good for him. It's NOT fine to have a president who really doesn't have a history of giving a shit about anything else.

In my view his supporters are middle class white people, who obnoxiously seem to think the rest of us have "Stockholm syndrome." I'm white, and lesbian. And I do NOT have Stockholm syndrome. And I can gaurantee you we and other minorities know bullshit when it's stuck in our face.

Here is my considered and well thought out opinion. The majority of his supporters don't give a rats ass about anyone but themselves. And that is NOT the Democratic Party way. That's why he's losing. IMO.

[DonCoquixote]

199. there is a problem with this idea

Let me be frank: the chance to support another candidate was the ONLY SOURCE of pressure those those to the left of Hillary had. We know damned well the the Third Way is putting pressure on her to lean right, at an age when even Democrats are in territory that would have been GOP territory years ago.

If there were no Bernie Sanders, do you think Hillary would have DARED to criticize the TPP or Keystone? We know the answer, because she could have easily done that from the first hour of her campaign and, even though she would lose some supporters, she would have gained some. She offered this as a means to get over the hump.

Now, many of us, even those who criticize Hillary, will be in there voting for her. There may be some who talk in Nader style tones, but most of us will, come 2016, working along side you to keep the GOP OUT. In theory at least, this egg is not hatched, because even if a lot of the primary season is a formality, it needs to avoid being rushed, no matter how many people want to speed it. The reason for this is simple: in an age where Citizens United can inject economic steroids into a campaign, we need to keep whatever safeguards are in place, dot the I, cross the T, because that is the only dam keeping the tsunami of corruption from flooding us.

However, I can tell you this. Just as some people tones do NOT help Bernie, the hostile, patronizing tone some Hillary supporters take does not help her. Hillarysupporters.com is laden with patronizing, nasty talk that does little to veil the contempt many have for us. To these folk (especially the ones that BRAG about attacking people on DU) I say this: do not treat us like the help that needs to stay downstairs, because if you allow that division to happen, the GOP will exploit that, even if all they get to exploit is the inefficiency caused when one group attacks another.

[MaggieD]

210. I disagree completely and totally

Thanks to Bernie's pro gun votes she had a higher liberal rating than he did when comparing his time in the senate with hers.

Secondly I have really had it with the low info criticism of her on trade. Read her book, written 2 years ago. Look at her voting record on trade. Watch her interview on trade back in the spring. She means what she says. She votes against bad trade agreements. And she is crystal frigging clear on what makes a bad trade agreement. And she is right.

In comparison we have Bernie at the extreme where he always sits. He doesn't even read the damn bill before saying he's against it. And he sure as hell doesn't respect voters enough to tell you why he's against it like she does, or tell you how he is going to deal with this global economy that is just reality right now. He expects you to genuflect because he said so and his supporters do.
Pardon me for not adoring that.

I honestly did not read past your trade agreement nonsense. I see no need to.

[DonCoquixote]

226. "nonsense"?

To many of the people that will vote for her, it is not nonsense. However, using abusive tones will not help anyone agree with you.

[MaggieD]

237. Absolutely nonsense

I've never met a Bernie supporter who has read her book, which talks about trade. Or acknowledges her interviews talking about what constitutes a good trade agreement versus a bad one. Or recognizes her vote AGAINST CAFTA while in the senate.

Not a single one. Have you read her book? I already know you haven't based on your comments.

Am I supposed to admire Bernie or his supporters who fail to articulate what is bad or good about potential trade agreements even when it's obvious they haven't even looked at the dang thing?

Sorry, I just don't. I want an adult president. Not a president who already knows what he thinks and doesn't bother to even read the material. Or who cannot articulate an alternate plan to deal with a global economy that is here, and not going away.

Did you know that he clearly did not even read the DOJ Ferguson report? If he had he would not have needed SC voters to tell him that police give petty tickets to AA and then arrest them when they can't pay the fines. That's on tape, and his campaign is so clueless they actually posted the video on his Facebook page. I suppose because they were anxious to show AA in the same room with him, which is a sad rarity.

[DonCoquixote]

243. then why did she not say so.

She had a nice period after she left office where she felt very free to criticize Obama for not sending troops to Syria, so she had no fear to criticize while in office.

And note the way you avoid talking about Keystone. Her husband spoke for it, was she unable to speak on it?

[MaggieD]

246. She did say so

About a million frigging times. She has ALWAYS been clear on what constitutes a good agreement from a bad one. Over and over again.

Should she have personally come to your house, forced her way in, and demanded you listen?

[DonCoquixote]

250. I was talking about KEYSTONE

but somehow, you did not get that part.
Thank you for reminding me why du has the ignore function.

[MaggieD]

252. Keystone???

So her being against it but waiting for Obama to say he is against it first (which she clearly knew he would) is a problem for you??? Please explain. Why?

[840high]

234. You have too much time on your hands. 'nite

[MaggieD]

261. Nope - just enough

[Cha]

264. Yeah, it's obvious to everyone who isn't in denial. So it will continue to go on until they

can't anymore.

[Betty Karlson]

274. More dispair from Camp Clinton:

Stop saying she has ties to Wall Street,
Never mention again that she helped usher in the war that laid the breeding grounds for ISIS,
Stop repeating that she invoked - Bush-style - 9/11 to justify casino banking!
We want her to be inevitable, dammit, and all this criticism will make her vulnerable in the primaries!
Which is why we call the ligitimate criticism SMEARS! Puh!

[RandySF]

276. K&r

[mcar]

282. Great OP

Thanks Maggie!

[William769]

286. Kick & highly recommended!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

294. As a humorous aside...

I looked at the "REC list" and it matches almost EXACTLY my ignore list!