Stand and Fight
Stand and Fight's Journal
Member since: Sat Nov 20, 2004, 04:23 AM
Number of posts: 6,795
Number of posts: 6,795
You find them here, on Facebook, Twitter, the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post... Really anywhere that people would gather to discuss things. A trend I noticed taking hold last year is that the Berners would defend the Senator. It happened in case after case. I think in the beginning it was well meaning. After all, Sanders was seen as a underdog and — at first — he was largely ignored by the media. And you know, Americans love an underdog!
Then gradually, ever so slowly, the premise of their support was no longer valid as the media reported consistently on Sanders. The problem was that the Berners didn't give up the belief that they were ignored, underestimated, and didn't stand a chance. They got caught up in the same mentality that so occupies the Christian Right's true believers. They were convinced they were being persecuted and then in a zealous over reaction their defense of Sanders became bullying in his name. This was evidenced by their penchant to immediately storm in and squash all civil discussion with purity diatribes decrying the lack of intelligence of the opposition, impugning their integrity as being bought and paid for, and dehumanizing rants centered on sex, race, and political leaning.
Eventually no one felt it was safe to speak out in contrary to the Bernie memes and his supporters. So, as described to me by many of Hillary's supporters and other observers across the Web, they grew quiet and less likely to speak up. DU's own Hillary Clinton Group is a fine example of this.
No one wanted to venture out. We hid behind hashtags on Twitter, protected Facebook groups, and private discussion boards if fortunate enough. Occasionally, on Facebook and Twitter especially, the Berners would show up and immediately start back in with the insults, insinuations, and accusations.
Let's be clear, Hillary supporters weren't angels across the board. Some of them could be downright belittling in their reverse ageism and trumpeting mockery of "Bernie babies want free stuff!" That wasn't productive and did nothing to quell the growing divisions. However, the Hillary zealots paled in comparison to the Sanders True Believers. You can still see that in action today by going outside of this group or onto any of the aforementioned social media sites. It's known that approximately 80% of DU was at one time solidly in the Sanders camp.
Posted by Stand and Fight | Wed Apr 27, 2016, 11:16 AM (1 replies)
Apparently, some people are doing that, and I have to say that I really don't get it. I love my wife a great deal, and I've had lovers that I have loved deeply as well. However, never once have I ever wanted to tattoo their name -- much less their visage -- anywhere on my body. So, please can someone explain to me why someone would get a tattoo of a politician?
Twitter post for reference:
PS: I love Hillary, but I'm not doing this either:
Posted by Stand and Fight | Mon Apr 4, 2016, 06:30 PM (48 replies)
Why Donald Trump Might Be the Most Dangerous Presidential Candidate in History
Assistant Professor, Harvard Business School, Author, Indispensable: When Leaders Really Matter
Unless Donald Trump announces in the next few weeks that he is secretly a Muslim, gay, undocumented Mexican immigrant (and let's be honest, less likely things have happened in this election cycle), he's almost certainly going to be the Republican nominee for the presidency.
If he won, how much impact would President Trump likely have? Pretty much everyone watching this election is probably asking themselves that question right now, and it's exactly the sort of question my research answers. I studied every Presidential election in American history to better understand which leaders have outsized impact -- for good or ill.
In the course of my research, I concluded that presidents ultimately fall into one of two categories: "Filtered" -- the ones who gain power normally, by rising through the ranks of the political system, and "Unfiltered" -- those who gain power with little national political experience or over the opposition of political elites. "Unfiltered" presidents tend to have huge effects and end up remembered as either the best (e.g., Lincoln, FDR) or worse (e.g., Harding, Pierce). Trump, without a single day of experience as an elected official and actively opposed by the Republican establishment, would be the most unfiltered president in American history.
More at the link:
Posted by Stand and Fight | Thu Mar 3, 2016, 03:04 PM (1 replies)
Hi, fellow supporters of Hillary! One of my favorite sites for tracking elections since 2004 has been http://electoral-vote.com. I just stumbled on this interesting story over there and wanted to share it with everyone:
I would post this in General Discussion: Primaries, but I don't see the point in doing that, as the Sanders supporters aren't very fond of engaging in actually discussion and I'm not fond of wasting my time. So, I figured I would share it with you guys. It's amazing how much the Sanders supporters and others across the country have lapped up this nonsense that Secretary Clinton is untrustworthy or a corporate shill. I'm very proud to be supporting her and I look forward to her winning tomorrow and then winning the primary. I also visited http://fivethrityeight.com and found that currently Hillary is expected to win in most of the up coming primaries:
Posted by Stand and Fight | Fri Feb 26, 2016, 10:56 PM (3 replies)
I really didn't want to believe it. I've made it a point to stay out of most of the sniping between the two Democratic camps, but now I see that the other side -- Senator Sanders supporters here -- are extraordinarily rude. I posted this thread and well... You can see the replies here:
Posted by Stand and Fight | Fri Feb 26, 2016, 09:04 PM (21 replies)
One disturbing thing I've seen on here and other places online is people refusing to support the eventual Democratic nominee if their candidate doesn't win the nomination. To be honest, the majority of people I've seen saying this have been Sanders' supporters and some Clinton supporters occasionally. What worries me about this is that I don't think that they've considered the ramifications of what they're saying. I don't think they've thought about things in relation to historical precedence. Perhaps, most importantly it seems they've not considered recent history as well.
Think of what things were like under George W. Bush. Bit by bit more and more regulation was done away with. Wall Street speculation became more rampant and reckless. Little consideration was given to what it meant to make home loans that were more creative, more crafty, variable rates... The banks essentially gambled in the speculations department knowing all the while that the party couldn't last forever. Then the bottom fell out in 2008. BAM! CRASH! The party was over! Chaos ruled the day and historic havoc affected the financial markets.
Things haven't been perfect under Obama. I haven't always agreed with his policies and don't feel he was progressive enough on things like health care or holding the banks accountable. Nonetheless, under the presidency of Barack Obama, things have started to turn around with the unemployment rate now sinking to the lowest it's been in a while. There was a thread posted a short time ago that posed the question of whether one is better off than they were on January 20, 2009. I'm from, and live in, Vegas. My hometown was hit hard by the Great Recession and I watched from afar in Washington D.C. as Vegas suffered a great deal. While things are still not back to where they were, I think the president's policy -- even if I didn't and don't agree with them all -- have been beneficial to the nation's economic well-being.
That said, I think things will only continue to get better under the presidency of Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders. If one of the Republicans gets in office, I fear for the economic well-being of the country. After all, every time we've had a major economic collapse -- the Great Depression or Recession -- it's been under the administration of a former Republican business man like George W. Bush or Herbert Hoover. Now just imagine a businessman that's declared bankruptcy as much as Trump being president! Nightmarish, isn't it? For that reason I will enthusiastically support either Democratic candidate.
To clarify, I'm asking if people would rather not vote for one candidate or another and potentially hand the country over to Trump, Cruz, or Rubio? You really think any one of those three is going to do anything progressive?
I don't post on here as much as I used to anymore. The vitriol displayed by many posters is disgusting to me. Having attended the Nevada Democratic caucus last week, I found both Bernie and Hillary supporters to be civil and reasonable. Even if they didn't always agree. I joined DU in 2004 in the wake of the election. I was living in Oklahoma in the time and DU was a bastion against the right wing insanity that one would expect to find in such a place. However, over the years, the immaturity, rudeness, lack of civility, unhinged attacks on fellow Democrats, and the adoption of Republican talking points against Sanders and Clinton make me ill. Chances are I won't respond to rude replies on this post either, but I hope that one day DU gets back on its footing of civility. I cannot recall a time where it's ever been quite as bad as it is now -- not 2004 when I was still lurking or even 2008. It got ugly then -- especially in regards to Secretary Clinton -- and things have turned more acerbic as of late. I look forward to the day when I can sign into DU again and enjoy being around fellow liberals, have discussions even if disagree, and once more rely on this place as a solid place to get up-to-the-minute news and discussion on current events.
Posted by Stand and Fight | Fri Feb 26, 2016, 08:44 PM (204 replies)
There ended up being a total of 10 delegates from my precinct. The split was 6-4 for Senator Sanders. My wife and I will be attending the County Convention and will likely attend state. If we're lucky we can make it all the way to the National Convention in Philadelphia. The lines were very long and people seemed very motivated. I'm happy to say that all present agreed they will support either Democratic candidate regardless of who wins. None of the immature nonsense I've seen from people on this board saying they will not vote if their candidate doesn't win. If my caucus was any reflection -- not just my precinct -- then this is going to be a close one, folks. Hold onto your seats!
Posted by Stand and Fight | Sat Feb 20, 2016, 05:33 PM (23 replies)
Go to Page: 1