2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum
The Democratic Primary Ruined My Friendship!
Perhaps if we contemplate how pointless and unnecessary it is for other people to lose friends over their preferred primary candidate, then we get a little perspective on our own situation here on DU...
Why Bernie-Hillary has gotten so personal.
By Michelle Goldberg
A couple months ago, one of my husband’s former colleagues from a progressive digital strategy firm popped up on his Facebook page to castigate him for supporting Hillary Clinton. “Matt, do you remember the exact date when you gave up?” the man wrote. “Was it when Obama turned out to be a damn conservative? Or were you never 100% behind this progressive thing to begin with? Tired of losing, so pick a candidate who, if she loses, it won’t really matter that much? I think it’s the last one. Sellout.”
That was the moment I realized that the Democratic primary, while incredibly high-minded compared with the Republican one, is creating lasting interpersonal enmity. On Saturday, Peter Wehner wrote in the New York Times about conservative friendships fraying in the age of Trump, describing people for whom “differences over the Trump candidacy have caused such a loss of respect that they feared their friendships would not survive, and that even if they did, they would never be the same.” I wish I could feel schadenfreude, but the same thing is happening among some committed progressives. Even now, with the primary season limping toward its foregone conclusion, collegial disagreement has given way to hostile incredulity, as people wonder how those who they thought saw the world in the same way could be so utterly, bafflingly wrong.
A necessary disclaimer—evidence for this is entirely anecdotal. The people who came to hate each other over the Democratic primary are a small, unrepresentative group of political obsessives. Most people never talk about politics online; in a 2012 Pew Research Center study, 84 percent of social media users said they’d “posted little or nothing related to politics in their recent status updates, comments, and links.” Like those Wehner writes about, people who’ve spoken to me about damaged relationships either work in liberal politics or are serious activists. They are part of a fairly minuscule subculture.
Among this little group, however, it’s easy to find people whose ties are being tested. “It has been an eye-opening and heartbreaking election cycle that has revealed some ugly truths about ‘progressive bros’ in my circle that will take some time for me to digest,” says Maryna Hrushetska, a 47-year-old curator and art adviser in Los Angeles who supports Clinton.* In the past, Hrushetska tells me, she’s worked on behalf of Palestinian rights and the environment, and she’s been shocked to see men she knows through those movements repeating sexist anti-Clinton slurs.
Read more at Slate...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Uben
(7,719 posts)Not worth wasting your time trying to convince a person to change their beliefs when they don't want to. If your not doing that, then you are just posting to argue about things. Sorry, not fun. Best to wait till after the primaries to engage in this place. I don't care which one wins, just get it done!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
DURHAM D
(32,889 posts)during the last decade she argued that the U.S. was already a post-feminist culture.
Hekate
(97,014 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)But I do see how people can get emotional in a heated campaign.
MineralMan
(148,792 posts)Will make smart decisions, in the end. Some people will not, but I believe that they are a tiny minority. It has been an ugly primary race. That's regrettable. I think it will settle out, though.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)"tiny minority" narrative, my friend.
If they were such a tiny minority, let's say like here on DU, then why did skinner feel the need to free all those who were on time out?
One might imagine that it was to even the playing field since Team H was losing badly.
Just my two cents on that tiny majority.
But on a more serious note...The Democratic (?) party is smaller than the independents that have been disenfranchised time and time again during this election season.
I would be careful that the "tiny minority" that you rush to reoeat may not be so tiny or the minority thst you claim they are.
MineralMan
(148,792 posts)Watch.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)the ability to communicate.
MineralMan
(148,792 posts)There's no point in communicating beyond simple statements at times. This is one of those times.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Perhaps you believe that I am onto something to you just don't want to duscuss.
MineralMan
(148,792 posts)Amazing...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Was it worth it? 
nolabels
(13,133 posts)If you are a politician in need of friend, get a dog
My personal antecedent would be ' With friends like mine, i would be better off with enemies' 
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)he's just a little sick of the constant bleating and whining around here.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It'll take a pressure washer to get this off the wellies.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Hekate
(97,014 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)Maybe it's her, not us . Just maybe.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
EVERY day.
Hekate
(97,014 posts)
Thaaaank you!
sheshe2
(91,012 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)disagreements, this kind of "You--who have been here for a decade or more--have NO RIGHT to be here" attitude was not on display.
I've only seen this in the Post-DU3 era.
It sucks.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)IT is beyond cute!
We just have a few more months and then it will cool down.....
MADem
(135,425 posts)That cat went from west to east coast to southern Europe and northward, then back to America with me!
I had another cat that lived just as long that I picked up in Asia as a stray kitten.
For the longest time cats were plenty, then I got a bird and a few dogs.
My "pet transport" bills were getting outta hand!
Now I'm down to one dog and she's a handful!
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I feel as though Bernie is once in a lifetime. And you all let him slip away for the status quo candidate. So many people will be left without hope. But so be it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)But there was still that old school veneer that kept it from getting Limbaugh-style nasty.
That veneer has been stripped off, and some people are being total assholes. They engage in personal insult, invective, and all kinds of brutal nastiness. They will call you, to your face, directly AT you, ugly names--and their buddies will not hide the posts, so why bother to alert on them? They won't discuss the issues, they'd rather tell you about yourself--it's not all of 'em by a long shot, but the ones that do that kind of thing make it stink for the ones who don't do it like that.
Maybe the only way to play this is Pay To Play. I don't know what else the answer might be. The ability of people to sign up and have multiple accounts (and they get tombstoned often enough for that stuff so we know it happens) needs to cease.
Maybe, if people can't abide by the TOS, they need to take a one way trip to Discussionist.
As for Bernie, I don't see him as a leader at all-sorry. I see him as a guy who recognizes problems, but his "solutions" don't pass the smell test. He has to work WITH Congress--and he's so "popular" with them that his ONE (ONE--after a quarter century on the damn HILL) endorser in the Senate said today "If you're losing in June, you need to QUIT and not pull this 'take it to the Convention' crap" (that IS a paraphrase but the sense is accurate).
Those guys Do Not LIKE Him. You'd think he'd have a few friends after a quarter century between both Houses, but he hasn't gotten any love of note. Obama was The New Kid, but he had no trouble making friends who ENDORSED HIM. Almost NO ONE wants to endorse Sanders.
There's a reason his own damn PEERS aren't rallying around him and lifting him up. It's because he doesn't get along with THEM either. I think he means well, but if he can't bring Congress along as a CANDIDATE, he's not going to bring them along as a POTUS.
And it's all moot anyway, because he has no path to the nomination. None. He can flail and wail and point and yell, but he will not win this contest. It's all over but the rest of the firings...and speaking of those, what an UGLY thing to do!
Maybe if he hadn't run off to Rome he could have afforded to pay them through June instead of giving them ten days notice through Jeff Weaver by phone. Damn, that's how a CAPITALIST, not a socialist, fires people--get the lackey to do it, don't talk to the workers, sure as hell don't look 'em in the eye. That's some cold shit, if you ask me.
See, he talks the talk--but when it came to walking the walk, he turned his back and didn't do right by those people.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I wonder if it isn't the same. It's been a while and you say it was really bad in 08. Yet Obama always had a kinder rhetoric and gave people hope that Hillary just can't seem to muster. Very possibly then and now aren't that different. He turned out to be very Hillary-like and they are both centrist-right candidates now. I don't think anybody believes Bernie would move to center. I'm laughing. That could not happen. He only wanted to move Hillary left when he started but the campaign turned into a flood of desire for him. Too bad they either didn't vote or couldn't vote.
You know, his leadership skills have been tested more than Hillary's. Mayor, House Rep who was acknowleged to be king of amendments and then senator. He knows the ropes. In fact, that was one of Obama's problems. I determined never again to vote for a one term anything. He didn't have the experience. I'm hoping Hillary does. She hasn't done much politically either. Nothing like Bernie. He's fostered relationships, he's administered a town from the top, he knows how to hire, enforce regulations, get things done. I know your side poo-poos it at every opportunity, but truth is he's way more qualified to be in charge. He's had the ultimate responsibility.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I was not happy that she didn't take it all the way, and I thought Obama had less experience than she did. But he was a very smart guy--he picked "avuncular Joe" who everyone purports to love but couldn't get out of single digits when he ran--TWICE--for the Presidency--as his VP. Joe isn't taken all that seriously by the public, because he runs his mouth some times, but that guy is wired in DEEP to the legislature. He knows how to vote count, he knows how to whip-em-good, and he knows where the bodies are buried. So that was a fine pick. And first chair in the Cabinet, the most senior cabinet position ahead of Defense and everyone elsle? SECSTATE wasn't a bad consolation prize for HRC. It all worked out. And Barack and Michelle? They grow on ya--and those two cute kids, and the dogs--hey, what's not to love?
But then, HRC did not waste any time. Once she shut it down, she IMMEDIATELY pivoted and frigging harangued her supporters to support Obama. So we went, sullenly some of us, to the polls, and pulled the lever. Because Obama was better than Romney, and Obama worked his ass off, too. He was gonna make us love him--and he did.
Then came 2012 and Obama's in hot water--he looks like his mojo is lost. Who steps in to bail his ass out and lift him up? Why, The Secretary of Explaining Stuff--Bill Clinton, say what you want about him, saved Obama's ass, re-energized a moribund campaign, and dragged his ass over the finish line. I know Obama knows this and won't forget, because that's how it goes. HRC has been EXCEEDINGLY loyal to Obama, too--everytime she goes Off The Ranch she warns him well ahead of time, so he can be smooth when he's asked. She's not going to blindside him. He's going to HELP her, because he sees her as his logical successor.
I don't mean to be rude, but Mayor of Burlington VT is like being Mayor of Mayberry. It's a "city" because there are no people in VT, but anywhere else it would be called a medium sized TOWN. ANYONE could "lead" there--obviously--that was Bernie's first steady paycheck in a long, long time.
TODAY, there are 40K people there. In the ENTIRE town of Burlington. More than that WORKED at the Dept of State (Close to twice as many, and DS also has responsibility for their FAMILIES as well). DS has over a hundred facilities IN THE US and embassies and consulates and "interest sections" in nearly every single country save North Korea (we have an interest section in Iran, in the Swiss Embassy, I think - and we just re-opened our joint in Cuba) all over the world. It's a joke that you would even compare the level of responsibility of a SECSTATE and a frigging Mayor of a sleepy little city-town--there is NO comparison. Ultimate responsibility? The damn entire budget of that town was probably less than the "Janitorial Services" line item in the State budget. Come on--that turd don't float.
And that Amendment King nonsense? That's spin. He sat on his ass and did very little save collect a paycheck and make the occasional hot-breathed floor speech to an empty room as it got close to election day. He was an INEFFECTUAL legislator. He is an INEFFECTUAL Senator and his (cough) leadership of the VA Committee he chaired was nothing short of disgraceful--I hate to agree with the Republicans about anything, but the House Committee had dozens of hearings about the shit going down in VA hospitals, and Bernie could barely bring himself to show up for seven on the Senate side. The mess over there is partly his fault because he failed in his DUTY of oversight. And when he finally started overseeing, he was so "concerned" about the rights of the senior executives over there that he inserted language in the legislation (that, to our embarrassment, the GOP is having to correct) that made it difficult to impossible to fire even the most fucked up screw ups in the senior civilian ranks over there--and he did this at the expense of the rank and file, who often took the hits unfairly for the big wigs.
If he made it to the general election (and he won't) that would have been a full frontal assault by the other side--and they would have had a point.
As for "fostering relationships?" Why can't he get any of his his PEERS TO ENDORSE HIM? They KNOW him, you see--they have had long "relationships" with him -- and that's why they've said "Hell NO."
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I'm old, I'll be dead soon enough...but I really don't want the next generations to have to refight The Civil Rights Act or Roe v. Wade. I know HRC will preserve those rights for future generations. It matters!
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Just claim that Bill Clinton "saved" Obama in 2012?
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Here--let me google that for you:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/09/12/160995401/bill-clinton-obamas-new-secretary-of-explaining-stuff-takes-show-on-road
Bill Clinton, Obama's New 'Secretary Of Explaining Stuff,' Takes Show On Road
President Obama has joked that he should appoint former President Bill Clinton to a new post: "Secretary of Explaining Stuff." That's basically the role Clinton played at the Democratic National Convention in telling Americans why — in his view — they should give Obama another four years in office.
Now Clinton is on the campaign trail in the key battleground state of Florida. He's in Orlando today after stumping for Obama in Miami on Tuesday. NPR's Greg Allen reports that in the speech Tuesday, Clinton told the Miami crowd that the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks should remind Americans that part of being a good citizen means exercising the right to vote.
It's a big issue for Democrats this year, who are facing diminished enthusiasm around Obama compared with four years ago. There also are new voter ID laws and other laws affecting voters in several states, Florida among them, which Democrats have largely opposed. Some of the new laws are embroiled in court battles.
"When people try to discourage you from voting, which is happening in a lot of these voter changes all over America, it should redouble your determination to vote," Clinton told the crowd.
During the rally at Florida International University, Obama workers combed through the crowd, working to register voters and sign up volunteers to help with canvassing and phone banks.
Saturday in St. Petersburg, Fla., Obama explained the new Clinton nickname: "After he spoke, somebody sent out a tweet that said, 'You should appoint him Secretary of Explaining Stuff,' " said Obama. "I like that!'"
Obama LOVED BC's primetime speech at the convention--BC took it "on the road" on behalf of the Obama campaign after that.
Further, BHO mentioned it repeatedly when he was out on the hustings.
In fact, invoking Clinton’s primetime address has given him one of the best lines of his stump speech.
Yesterday in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Obama said that he received a suggestion that Bill Clinton should be named “secretary of explaining stuff.” He said the same thing in Iowa City later in the day, getting laughs every time.
This morning in St. Petersburg, however, Obama jokingly admitted that he’d censored the recommendation. The original suggestion included much more colorful language, likely of the four letter variety.
“Although, I have to admit, it didn’t really say ‘stuff’,” Obama told a crowd of 11,000 in Florida. “I cleaned that up a little bit.”
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)the story, what I don't remember is anyone taking a cute Obama quip and turning it into the Clintons "rescuing" a man who was twice their equal and then some.
MADem
(135,425 posts)His campaign was moribund and lacking enthusiasm. Clinton re-energized it.
Don't hate Obama for being politically astute enough to recognize what Clinton did for him.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Obama supporters by claiming that Bill's good ol' Arkansas back-slappin is what gave Obama the victory.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Clinton's convention speech goosed the campaign back into life, and Clinton's work on the campaign trail following the convention re-energized Obama's campaign. That's just fact. Sorry it troubles you so.
OBAMA acknowledges this, so I think it's awfully amusing that you call it "patronizing" when the guy who benefited from Clinton's help was so open in admitting it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/us/politics/bill-clinton-presses-on-in-campaign-for-barack-obama.html
Whoever wins Tuesday, the 2012 campaign has solidified (or restored) Mr. Clinton’s status as the hardest-working man in a game he loves and plays like no one else. “The master, Bill Clinton,” Mr. Obama called him on Saturday, hailing his predecessor as “a great president and a great friend.”
Unsaid, at least here, is that Mr. Clinton has also been a salvation to Mr. Obama. He gave what was widely considered the best speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., rocking a strong endorsement of the president while arguably conveying the re-election rationale better than Mr. Obama or his campaign has.
“He has been our economic validator,” Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, said of Mr. Clinton.
Likewise, Mr. Clinton’s presidency exemplifies what Mr. Obama is trying to make a case for. In the early 1990s, President Clinton also inherited a lagging economy, and then he led economic prosperity in his second term. Mr. Obama, who wrapped his former rival in a full-on hug onstage in Charlotte (their recent joint appearances have featured more cursory bro-hugs), said he should name Mr. Clinton to a new position known as Secretary for Explaining Stuff.
Out of public view, the former president has been equally tireless. In a 20-minute car ride Saturday after a rally in Chesapeake, Va., to the Norfolk airport, Mr. Clinton recorded 40 “robo-calls” for Democratic Congressional candidates across the country. In addition to headlining 37 rallies for Mr. Obama over the last seven weeks of the campaign (including events scheduled through Monday), Mr. Clinton is serving as a back-channel strategist for the re-election enterprise.
On the morning after the third debate between Mr. Obama and Mitt Romney on Oct. 22 in Boca Raton, Fla., Mr. Clinton met Mr. Messina for an impromptu breakfast meeting in a suite at a Hyatt Regency hotel in Chicago. Red-eyed after arriving from Boca Raton at 3:30 a.m. and subsisting on Coke Zero, Mr. Messina received, he said, a simple directive from former president, who was in Chicago to give a speech: I am yours in the final weeks. Mr. Clinton said he would undertake a heavy regimen in battleground states.
Previously, Mr. Clinton had served as an active behind-the-scenes strategist, speaking regularly to the president, Mr. Messina and David Axelrod, the senior strategist. He made suggestions on what themes the campaign should emphasize and where. He advocated, according to top officials, for Mr. Obama to run advertisements in Florida that portrayed Mr. Romney as a threat to Medicare and Medicaid — something the campaign ultimately did. As he stumped across the state Friday, Mr. Clinton also drove home that portrayal.....
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)You only became an Obama supporter when your queen (and king) were beat down on the 2008 primary streets.
Second, YOUR idea that Obama needed the help of a white neoliberal like Clinton to win in 2012 is disturbing.
The Clinton arrogance is astounding.
brer cat
(26,883 posts)Wish that I could rec this post.
MADem
(135,425 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)were abusing the alert system to turn DU into a Sanders echo chamber.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)until it became apparent that team H was in the minority and populated by a number of vocal individuals that didn't know when to stop.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)the sooner it's back the better.
moriah
(8,312 posts)I admit not participating much in this primary on DU once it got heated. It, and DK, seemed to be very pro-Sanders, I was happy with either choice (even though I did make my decision in January). I voted, went to the local Hillary Super Tuesday watch party, was happy, then figured most of my part was over. I did some phonebanking in February and March, but didn't say much on DU.
Then, I had ankle surgery on March 15th, and have been recovering these last six weeks. So haven't been active until I actually felt better.
I admire the people who fight fiercely for the candidates they believe in. I feel badly for people who had disappointments -- truthfully, reading DU and DK in January, I thought it was going to be Hillary supporters in this position, again, like in 2008, and just hoped we would behave better this time and there not be significant PUMAs.
Seeing it the other way isn't creating shadenfreude ... no, quite the opposite. I really feel badly for people who wanted Sanders and believed in his vision. I just can't see the math for him now.
That doesn't mean he should shut up and go away, nor should his supporters... he, and they, can still work to influence the ticket and platform. But the people calling and harassing Superdelegates, for example, is not the way.
vintx
(1,748 posts)You remind me of what DU used to be like. 
moriah
(8,312 posts)... I exercise my option not to see posts from users that would drive me to incivility. (I have always been one to purge my Ignore list regularly, because people deserve second chances, but I would rather just let people who post things that push my buttons too hard have their DU and their free speech rather than argue with them or suppress it.)
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)At least you can try to understand where we're coming from.
I must be honest and this is not in regards to you but if I hear from someone who voted for Hillary in the primary this time then complain down the road about not having a more ideologically pure candidate in the next primary for the general...well, I will scream at them, literally scream at them and be tempted to throw something at said person.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)They in the minority of Democratic Party voters.
Passion can only carry you so far and the whole hate of the Establishment thing is just funny. The Bernie supporters, of which I kind of count myself, want to become the new Establishment. Establishment is just another word for winner.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)that the GOP is beholden to.
That needs to change or we are all screwed.
Prism
(5,815 posts)The reason I say is, there's a prominent, highly disruptive Hillary supporter who has been "flagged for review" for going on a month.
Flagged for review seems to be the equivalent of "At their majesties pleasure". I was flagged (two hides in a day) and nipped for a week. But keeping someone sidelined for a month?
They're basically just overriding the jury system and overtly modding.
Which is fine. Skinner seems pretty even-handed about it so far.
But, yeah, letting the asylum loose was a fairly bad idea. GDP plunged immediately and hasn't recovered. But, they are watching at least.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Doesn't matter, but I just pointed out to someone in my last thread where I was one of the jurors who voted to hide something that I could have easily rigged. I'm not inclined to rig ANY jury... Yet, here's one of those threads that are SO focused on Sanders supporters ruining it, when the reality of the Democratic party RIGHT along with all of those who turned away from it to become Independents have carried Bernie in every state.
When they don't like who the majority becomes, they change the playbook. Skinner really has not proven he is running a democratically driven discussion board, and we're supposed to stand up and take this?
The Hell I am...
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Frankly I am tired of this shit.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Seems fair. Then we can all support the nominee, and the people who have run up a whole huge list of hides can have some time to do other stuff, like phonebank, or ponder how they can be more unifying.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)Fair for both sides.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)seaglass
(8,182 posts)said will not be until either someone drops out or the last vote is cast. Since end of the primary is connected to the new jury process I bet that all hides will be wiped out so people can start fresh.
Just like people who were banned from jury duty were allowed to start fresh when Skinner gave amnesty to all those on timeout.
I think the Admins usually lean towards being less rather than more punitive.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But it'd be funny to see the people who took the removal of the time out function as a green light to spread some of the most toxic garbage I've EVER seen on this board, all over it like creamed carrots on a baby's high chair, to have to face some unexpected consequences for the crap they threw down.
Yeah, that would be worth it.
seaglass
(8,182 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Except it seems they are incapable of doing that.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think if you're objective you'll come to the conclusion that some of the hides were bogus, but a metric fuckton of them were not.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)They, after all, are the ones who posted about having "our juries" on DU. They were the ones who posted about alert stalking cali and boasting about prodding her into a hide. Funnily enough, they are the ones with the most vile OPs and the rudest posts, and therefore the most hides.
If only they would grow up and reflect. But as you stated, it seems they are incapable of doing that.
.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)just since the start of the amnesty are just swell, even handed posters???
Raster
(21,001 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)And they just can't admit either, but we know the score.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Unicorn
(424 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And the guy I responded to ... perfect example.
Pick a month ... unhinged.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I was wrong, it was February.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110759836
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... since people get hidden for the most trivial things around here, usually if it's something supporting Hillary.
You're just upset because, while you can still game the system, it's never permanent ... unless it's WillyH of course.
The independents weren't disenfranchised. They are the same independents that should have been supporting an independent candidate. If Bernie hadn't tried to pretend he was a Democrat to ride on the coattails of the party, he wouldn't be in this mess.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)after team Hillary, with their noxious posts, wind up on the diwn and out.
When that happened the scales fell from his eyes...
Cur heavenly music.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Bernie people love to drag out religious symbolism. I think that's the part I'll miss the least when he scuttles back into obscurity.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)Who was banned from here around the same day you joined. Strange.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)So, I've been a loser, slow, sock puppet, paid Brock troll, and, what, now I'm WillyH?
I'm not obsessed with him. I simply find him a rather relevant example of how far Trump has moved the meter of the kind of racism acceptable in today's political discourse.
But thank you for the laughs. This place never ceases to be amusing. I do sometimes wish it would become more entertaining though. There is a difference, you see. Entertainment is a trip to Disneyland. Amusement is the carnival that comes to the local downtown parking lot.
PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)Almost like personal animosity. One would think you had had personal interactions with him, but that wouldn't be possible as you only joined arond the time he left. Strange.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)I am the love child of WillyH and Cher.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Sorry, I don't understand why people even argue that point. Bernie said today in Oregon that 80% young didn't vote. I think if I heard right that 80% minorities didn't vote. Our campaigns are too long, too opaque, too much money, and too little substance. It is all about David Brock and his tactics regardless of which side he's on. Why should anybody fall for the notion it is better not to talk about politics? Politics decide our democracy. We need to talk more politics and get engaged. But it will not happen as long as we have two exclusive clubs limiting who can vote in this country.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)on DU.
In a somewhat similar way that obnoxious bro behavior is prevalent among online gaming communities.
The internet is a powerful lure to bullies who can use anonymity to get away with bullying.
And it's interesting that you tacitly admit to the extent Sanders supporters abused the jury system to censor other DU'ers.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
n he has us "freed from time outs" is because that tiny minority is over represented hereOkay, that must be it.
And once released from their well-deserved time outs...IMHO...the camp weathervane disruptirs went to work to get even more hides.
I never said any such thing. I mentioned that team Hillary was losing...as in they were acting like aholes and meriting
hides for it.
But please, so your best to get any exercise you can by jumping to conclusions.
pandr32
(12,796 posts)It is hard to see that on the horizon just yet.
MineralMan
(148,792 posts)places than here for a while.
pandr32
(12,796 posts)...but hopefully not for much longer!
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)But I guess that it begs the question that I have been meaning to ask.
Is what you have posted a preamble or rationalization to a forthcoming purge?
I noticed some tasty plumbs in the above...
Progressive>>>Castigate>>>Hillary>>>Obama>>>damn conservative
Conservatives>>>Committed Progressives>>> Hostile incredulity
Ugly truths about progressive "bros">>>sexist>>>anti-Clinton
Yes, I guess that there is two sides to every story, but this article just magnifies the salivating by certain types in certain groups of an impending purge.
If that were to come to pass I might imagine DU becoming a much smaller, much harder, more insular and conservative shade of its former self.
Of course I could be very wrong, but we all have seen progressive voices silenced: falling into a chasm between what is said and what is done.
But I digress. Interesting article.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)I don't know why people talk about a "purge."
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Perhaps you should bring it up with them.
But since there have bern purges in the past...whose to say?
I'd imagine that the same charitable freedom of revoked posting privileges may not be bestowed on certain individuals...or whole groups once a descsion is made to look firward and not back.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Disingenuousness is rather unpalatable...
Fairgo
(1,571 posts) 
musicblind
(4,563 posts)It is enforcing the rules that request posters not to disparage the democratic nominee once we have a presumptive nominee. This won't happen until after the final states vote on June 7th.
At that point, the rules simply as that all posters refrain from disparaging the democrat who came out ahead until the general election is over.
There are many forums on DU. There are many reasons to post on DU other than the democratic nominee. If you cannot exercise an adult level of control and not bash whoever the nominee is, and that goes for either side, then you will likely have posts deleted and if that doesn't work, you will eventually be told to leave. It won't be a purge. It will be a request for common decency and to get along as we work to put a democrat in the White House.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Call it a ham sandwhich if you want if it gives you comfort, but it will still amount to the same thing.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Seemingly camp weathervane (sic) loves to talk about it. Perhaps you should bring it up with them..."
You will of course, point us towards the relevant posts illustrative of a collective sentiment in regards to this so-called purge you allege, yes?
Or (and I find this more likely), your response will be anything other than relevant.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)People will simply have to dial back the right-wing bullshit they're promoting.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)be considered right-wing bullshit?
pkdu
(3,977 posts)TOS they signed on joining.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If you can't follow the TOS, why do you think you should be here?
You don't have to support Clinton. You just have to follow the rules.
IMO, Skinner has been damned generous so far.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)when it pleases them to; as one might imagine without too much difficulty.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)oh wait...he wasn't a Democrat, was he?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)If you are going to make a historical reference ... at least TRY to make it relevant.
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)But the Bernie Brigade has to duel with the likes of the Trumpeters and the Cruz Missiles over that way--those guys aren't polite like Team Hillary--they'll tell those who are full of their own smarmy sanctimony right where to stuff it.
They like to bully--but they don't like being bullied so much. They could really have a good old Hammer and Tongs time over at Discussionist--but they might be bested by some of those wingnuts...or they might find they have more in common with them (see the bit about misogyny, above, in the OP) than they are willing to admit over on this side of the Internet fence.
Thing is, though, those wingnuts will never love Bernie...so that's where the fights would break out. If they had the guts to migrate over there (and, like I said, it would take guts because those guys aren't polite at all), it would probably be a good spectacle to read every so often! Kind of like a Gallagher Show--fun every once in a while. But messy...very messy! Sloppy! Wear old clothes if you're gonna sit in the front row!
polly7
(20,582 posts)
I enjoy reading there ........ often there is more real news and many times even better discussions. Most of the conservatives there don't seem to have that much of a problem with Sanders, from what I've read.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Once his backstory went on blast to the nation, he's easy to beat.
Middle America doesn't know a lot about him, because the Democrats supporting Clinton have been too polite to say much about it.
The right wing wouldn't hold back. But only if he won. Not before.
Now, why bother?
Use him as a wedge.
polly7
(20,582 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)All those pervy writings, all those photos of him with "commies," all that crazy "medical advice" -- he's like manna from heaven.
But now, that he's not going to win, they'll just have to use him as a wedge. Tell angry supporters that Trump understands them and they should vote for him.
LOL! Plenty believe they're sincere.
DUHHHHH--Make America Great AGAIN!! Mexicans Build That Wall!
What a guy--right up the angry and vengeful Sanders supporter's alley...?
polly7
(20,582 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 01:18 AM - Edit history (2)
And no, you didn't say anything but "Not surprising that the right wing wouldn't mind Sanders. nt."
You edited to add the rest after I replied.
MADem
(135,425 posts)original post and the edit--go back and check.
polly7
(20,582 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Clintonites are hardly polite. Middle America is learning about him fast. And it isn't middle america but minorities and poor people. You are someone that keeps the anger going. It's a form of passive-aggressive behavior.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It's clear that I got "bro'd" on more than one occasion, and an honest perusal of those threads proves it.
You seriously think pointing out your team's bullying makes it all look better?
LOL!
dsc
(52,849 posts)I admit I earned some of mine, I think some of mine were bullshit. You had one, maybe two, that were earned in that bunch.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)That's why they get hides.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They don't get them, they give them.
That will end soon. Can't wait until Bernie finishes shutting his campaign down and we can pivot to the general.
Then maybe you'll stop following me around, talking about me.
Some music for you:
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)
is following you around. Why don't you just claim stalking instead?
On edit: I will be happy as well once you come back from your copious amount of hits and redume the more centrist incremental you...or do you still want ti be called "meeeeee?"
MADem
(135,425 posts)He is a PUBLIC FIGURE. He is not a saint, and he is not immune to well-deserved criticism.
I don't find him as impressive as you do-- but that doesn't give you--or anyone here--license to attack me personally.
Yet you do--you just can't help making this shit about ME.
I'm not talkng about YOU "keeping the anger going." (PRO TIP--this is a political DISCUSSION board, not a CHEERLEADING SQUAD--it is a place where DIFFERENCES are discussed--you want RAH RAH? Head to the protected groups). I am not calling YOU "passive aggressive" -- yet you, and your peers, just can't RESIST telling me what you believe I think and feel, and giving me a little psychoanalysis, all because I have committed the crime of the century of not engaging in an overt display of lips-to-gluteus maximus re: Senator Sanders.
You routinely engage in insult--you just did it in your post above.
237. Your silence and now your comments are all about denigration of Bernie. Why?
View profile
Clintonites are hardly polite. Middle America is learning about him fast. And it isn't middle america but minorities and poor people. You are someone that keeps the anger going. It's a form of passive-aggressive behavior.
The proof is in the damn pudding. Anyone can read these posts and see what's what. I talk issues--you and your buddies talk about ME.
Over, and over, and over again.
It's all you got.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I'm not going to bring it up, but you can find it if you look. 7DAYS have covered a lot of it, so has VT DIGGER, if you're interested.
It doesn't cover him with glory, but it just doesn't matter, because he is not going to be the nominee.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts) MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't live in cow country but there are plenty up that way.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 07:49 AM - Edit history (1)
You definitely seem to be a purveyor of bovine back end produce.
But I already knew that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)429. Nope, what you dropped stinks to high heaven
View profile
You definately seem to be a purveyor of bovine back end produce.
But I already knew that.
I'm not sure what you "knew," but I'm not the one with the shovel, here.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Your art generally requires a dump truck.
TY for being the spelling police. At least you had some usefulness today.
MADem
(135,425 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)But, you know, I'm too polite.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I'm proud of that page--it shows quite clearly how unfair the HIDE system is when the swarms are out!
Those swarms are the reason the admins changed the HIDE rules--you've only yourselves to blame!
Keep talking about meeeeee, if you must! It's not a party platform, but if it's all you've got....?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Disruptors always tend to gravitate to their own BS, and then play the victim with words like "swarm" to fool themselves into believing that what they do is justifiable.
They tend to use words like meeeee a lot.
MADem
(135,425 posts)But you keep talking about MEEEE, with a curious fixation.
Not sure why, but I imagine it's telling.
And as for disruptors, you need to look in your own mirror, there, sport! It looks like I'm not the only one you goad and bully in this fashion!
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)what do you see?
You will not see meeeeeeeeee
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)OK, now you owe me a keyboard.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You forgot the sarcasm tag. 
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)It's been Hillary supporters who have been silenced far more than anyone on the other side and it's literally via the jury system.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Observed by Rider, 11 year member with 1 hide ever...
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)People are getting hidden on this site left and right if they support Hillary.
I also thought the jury system wasn't 11 years old. Maybe I misunderstood that point but I thought they used to have admins.
If you were running around calling every Bernie supporter an "enemy," I'm sure you'd have been hidden by now, but you've got the power of the majority on your side.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
(Psst, there are many thousands of Hillary supporters here who don't have a single hide but please do keep playing the martyr role here. We can even see your hides...lol)
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)And they're bogus.
One of them, the person I was responding to actually said she didn't think it was hide-worthy either.
Another one was VERY clearly playing along with the premise set by the person I was responding to.
The only hide I can sorta see being valid, even though it, too, was said in jest, I wish I could still say because now what I said in humor I actually believe.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)The main reason any one of us is on here rather than a knitting social is because we want our ideas and candidates to win. Well, mine's winning. How's yours? Nuff said really, don't you think?
Number23
(24,544 posts)But I have three hides, including one for gently (or so I thought) telling WillyT exactly what he was and another for responding in kind to a loud mouthed, know nothing with serious race and rage issues whose entire contribution to this site is starting shit with everyone on it to basically fuck off.
Those are two I don't mind having at all. I'd do it all again, actually.
But I can see why your post about Sanders and rape was hidden. That was kind of careless and needlessly provocative.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)that the jury system worked, and that those who found themselves on the outside should change their tone...or something like that.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... seemed to be pretty clear that the system needs an overhaul.
Either way, I think a creative use of the jury pool block is probably helping me a little.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)We have a serious election in November.
This place should be about that!
With two horrific candidates. That will be fun...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)you don't want to be my friend.
That's a shame.
It didn't have to be like this.
Hekate
(97,014 posts)You just seem so unhappy at how this one is run.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Then he'd have not much of a website left.
Johnyawl
(3,209 posts)Good insights in that article.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)This one was told from the Republican side.
It was about friendships being tested (and lost) during this particular primary. I can't remember who wrote it, but I know he was a part of the Bush administration.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)None of them have a problem voting for Hillary,they just preferred Bernie. This internet outrage is done by the very few and will be gone and forgotten in a couple of weeks.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)I've only seen this animosity here and read about various internet pockets of poutrage.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)I just don't put all my self-worth into my candidate winning or losing. Neither do my friends.
I was very disappointed as a Hillary supporter in 2008, but I sure didn't get all wild-eyed and angry about it. I even have FB friends who are probably tea-partiers from what I see them post, but I know them in real life as good friends. We simply don't discuss politics.
Life is too short.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)What the Bernie folks here (and on other political websites) never take into consideration is that not every BS supporter is a rabid, BoB, I'll NEVER vote for Hillary!, fanatic.
Most BS supporters in real life looked at the two candidates, preferred Bernie to HRC, and voted accordingly. They do not see themselves as part a "Revolution", nor do they see HRC and BS being that far apart on important issues. They will vote for HRC in November - just as the vast majority of HRCers would have voted for Bernie had he won the nomination.
The Bernie = Everything Good, HRC = Everything Bad bullshit is just that - bullshit. And it is, for the most part, confined to political discussion boards.
I have many FB friends who are staunch BS supporters - and I've never seen a single one of them post anything anti-HRC. They post nothing but pro-Bernie articles, statements, etc. But then, most of them don't post on DU or other political sites, which leads me to believe they've never been caught-up in the vitriol that is common among BS supporters on sites like DU.
SalviaBlue
(3,065 posts)I wonder why Skinner is pushing the meme
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... with few exceptions and those are the typical online crazies you find here.
musicblind
(4,563 posts)Heck, I voted for Bernie and I have no problem voting for Hillary. Outside of DU, I would struggle to name Bernie supporters who legitimately hate Clinton.
Dem2
(8,178 posts)Most were like "I never thought he would win anyway". However, one posts some pretty hot stuff on FB, but is quiet as a mouse or backs down when confronted in real life.
I think that one person is the somewhat typical of the internet warrior who can't find a better way to express their frustration IRL.
seaglass
(8,182 posts)who may even vote Trump (they are Republicans so I am assuming this - I hope they will sit out). If only everyone I cared about thought just like me the world would be perfect. 
Relationships are way more important to me than politics.
uponit7771
(92,647 posts)blm
(114,030 posts)The alternative is too horrific for words.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)A little more tightening of the rules here could have prevented the blood war at DU.
I have never had a cross word with any of the many Bernie supporter I know in real life here in Philadelphia.
Maru Kitteh
(29,894 posts)
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)and most obnoxiously lose friends. Maybe they don't like themselves enough. Or maybe they have trouble seeing the value of both incrementalism and bold moves toward positive change. The more you extend kindness to yourself, the more it becomes your automatic response to others.
Thanks for the article.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The Conservatives are selling the party to the Big Banks and Wall Street. People are literally dying from poverty and lack of adequate health care while some Democrats are dancing with Goldman-Sachs.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 01:57 AM - Edit history (1)
It only matters if the few and their chosen, children...friends...wives, get a seat at the table.
The can talk about great things and try to fool the majority that they do good things, but only in baby step incrementalism, while they spare no expense to go to war, give money to rouge states: killing the innocent in the process.
Hekate
(97,014 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I'm sure that you're werken it overtime.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'd rationalize accuracy as something else too were my candidate of choice dependent on it.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)All so sweet and nice. Politics don't matter. Our democracy matters to us, doesn't it. The poor and the immigrant. Children in poverty. A trillion dollars taken back from the rich could pay for a lot of education, mental health, infrastructure and support a lot of jobs. I guess in the end there are two different kinds of voters: those who really do like the status quo and are probably living quite comfortably in nice neighborhoods or even working from home. They don't have to see the squalor in which so many are now living. Then there's the rest of us. Who see it and feel it and care. We are the Bernie people and we are important and smart and compassionate. And when TPP has finally emptied the US of jobs, fracking has caused more earthquakes, climate change has caused more flooding, and the uber rich finally own it all, maybe our comfortable little friends will get engaged and wonder how it all came to be.
It takes passion to make change. I'm sure Bernie is feeling the same frustration and let down that we are. When Amy Goodman gets a show on MSM, it might change. But I'm not holding my breath for that. And our Hillary friends probably wouldn't watch anyway.
BTW, this is not an HRC bashing. I'm sort of bashing apathetic voters who still don't get it. We no longer have the highest standard of living, you all know. And it can get a lot worse. Thank you.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)The ACA is useless? People dying from poverty and lack of adequate health care?
Is that what I'm reading?
Well, just wait if a Republican gets in then, because that ACA will be gone in a skinny minute.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Millions still don't have coverage. And yes people are dying of poverty and lack of health care. Those living in their denial bubbles don't care, but we have 16,000,000 children living in poverty, more American infants die in the USofA before reaching age 1 than any other modern nation. 50,000,000 Americans living in poverty and 2,500,000 children are homeless.
And your rationalization is, "it could be worse with a Republicon." And it could be better if we elected progressives.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Dem2
(8,178 posts)
Across income groups, the greatest decline in the uninsured rate has been among lower-income Americans. Among those with an annual household income of $36,000 or less, the uninsured rate declined 8.8 points since the fourth quarter of 2013.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188045/uninsured-rate-fourth-quarter-2015.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_HEALTHCARE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles
Yep, that's a horrible failure.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And you should really worry about the slight upturn at the end of your graph. It might not look like much but I think it means the insurance companies are bailing from the exchanges.
Dem2
(8,178 posts)and a "guess" based on looking for something negative in something positive, it's all too predictable. Be a little less glum once is a while!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I said the ACA was failing and you show a graph that shows that it's starting to fail. The insurance companies are bailing. Millions are still not covered.
Pragmatism, the excuse to ignore those struggling around us.
Dem2
(8,178 posts)You should try it sometime.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)If Clinton wins it will be a huge setback. 50 million living in poverty and climbing.
Dem2
(8,178 posts)You're trying to trick me! I get it!
but seriously...
Must you play the 'woe is me/us!' card?
We all struggle every day. We do the best we can to keep a positive outlook.
Things will never be perfect, but we struggle to do the best we can to help those around us.
Politically we vote for the best person for the job who we hope can get something accomplished. We know that no president will eliminate poverty so long as one party is perfectly happy holding people down for political gain - and that party is NOT the Democratic party. I am cynical, but I am also an optimist and the latter is a better overall way to view the world than the former. YMMV, but I have hope.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I have asked why a number of times and the answer always comes back some version of "we want a strong, tough authoritarian leader that will kick ass and take names." They don't care if she kicks asses and fills our prisons or kicks the asses of the 99% by siding with deregulating Wall Street or sends our family members to die in wars. As long as she tells them what to do and how to think.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)There's no there there. No understanding. No substance. He got the person he likes but he doesn't know why. Insurance is going up. It's been documented. And the poor middle class cannot afford it. Rates are very good for the very, very poor. But a guy earning $15 an hour, not so good. He's in a $30K a year range and he is bearing the brunt of obamacare. But "I'm an optimist" should make that lower middle class guy feel really, really good.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Dem2
(8,178 posts)I'm an empty vessel with no compassion for anybody but myself.
I vote based on some shallow lack of understanding of the world, my brain is just a place to put a hat on.
I apologize for caring and for wanting better for everybody.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)And the "presumptive nominmee" isn't really interested in fixing the problem with single payer. She just wants to tinker with ACA.
Amid rising drug and health care costs and roiling market dynamics, the spokesperson for the nation’s health insurers is predicting substantial increases next year in Obamacare premiums and related costs.
“I’ve been asked, what are the premiums going to look like?” she said. “I don’t know because it also varies by state, market, even within markets. But I think the overall trend is going to be higher than we saw previous years. That’s my big prediction.”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/21/Get-Ready-Huge-Obamacare-Premium-Hikes-2017
More Bad News for the Remaining Obamacare Co-ops
A Government Accountability Office report released Thursday cautions that four of the 11 surviving non-profit cooperatives that were created as part of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act have recorded sub-par enrollment figures and could be in trouble, despite substantial federal start-up loans and grants.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/03/18/More-Bad-News-Remaining-Obamacare-Co-ops
And apparently Obama admin knew about this in 2012.
Nearly Half of Obamacare Co-Ops Are Closing
Nearly half of the 23 non-profit insurance plans created under Obamacare in 2011 at a cost of $2.4 billion have announced they will close by the end of the year.
Obamacare’s Dirty Secret: 31 Million Still Can’t Afford Treatment
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/05/20/Obamacare-s-Dirty-Secret-31-Million-Still-Can-t-Afford-Treatment
Dem2
(8,178 posts)Sorry I don't believe anybody on the internet
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)accessible. There are millions who are now covered but still cannot afford the co-pays and deductibles. They flat out cannot afford to pay for their medication or doctor visits, let alone a hospital stay. That forced purchase of insurance that they cannot afford to use, is useless. They are paying for nothing. And yet, they are forced to pay.
A very close friend of mine works as a volunteer for an organization which tries to help people navigate around ACA, Medicaid, and Medi-Cal, and it is heartbreaking work. She is only able to help about 15%-20% of those seeking help. Prior to ACA, her numbers where higher because she could steer them to Medi-Cal (CA's enhanced version of Med-Caid) but now, with Federal ACA regs, there is a big donut hole.
For a lot of working poor, it is a clusterfuck.
Response to Dem2 (Reply #98)
passiveporcupine This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)The ACA guarantees insurance coverage, but if you can't afford to see the DR, or the meds they may prescribe what's the point?
I know of plenty of people who have insurance but haven't seen a DR in years. Can't afford it.
Yes, the ACA was a good thing, but it's not the be all to end all. It should be the "incrementalism" they speak of towards universal healthcare.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)We were told it was a first step. Bullcrap.
pnwmom
(109,801 posts)And we would have millions more in coverage if the Supreme Court hadn't allowed governors to reject the Medicaid expansion.
Twenty million more Americans have coverage now. That's a huge achievement for President Obama and the Dems in Congress.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I have a family member paying $300 a month for a plan she will never be able use because it has a massive deductible.
Calling the ACA the "Affordable Care Act" is a sick joke. There is nothing affordable about it. We need single payer.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)But hey, let's toss it out, and start over.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)pnwmom
(109,801 posts)Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Was and is a huge huge gift to the insurance industry..In the last year alone I have seen bills for a few hours in the hospital of 40-50,000$ one over night stay went to over 60k so you bet they have not done a fucking thing about actually lowering health care costs they just gave the insurance industry a few hundred million or more so they would not be so mean
Hekate
(97,014 posts)After all the commiserating over the evil done was over, some of us who were of a more questioning mind teased out the info that it was a compound fracture requiring a lot of surgery and a hospital stay.
I may have forgotten some of the details. If so, I apologize. Bottom line: it was not a simple fracture, which is how it was originally framed.
I completely agree that we have a long way to go to fix this system. If you want the ACA repealed so we can start over, contact all those House Republicans who voted dozens of times to do just that. Brilliant move.
Also, reflect on the fact that Democrats/Progressives stayed home during the first midterm election after Obama was elected and allowed the GOP to take over the House and Senate. It is one of the wonders of the world that Obama got anything done at all, with the opposition he he has faced since Day One.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)We got 90% coverage, we ended refusal of coverage, we ended denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, we got extensions of coverage for our school-aged kids to 26. We got subsidized premiums for lower income families and workers.
More people getting healthcare and treatment and medicines? What geniuses thought that would be cheaper? I guess the ones who believe NOW we can have free healthcare?
Hekate
(97,014 posts)I was just kind of taking a poke at the person I was replying to, and others, who seemed to be following up on the notion that since ACA is not 100% perfect we should scrap it.
We have a sarcasm smiley -- maybe we need an irony smiley, too.
God, some of the stories I read while Obama was trying to get it thru Congress.... One that really haunts me was about the young woman who was a Type 1/ Juvenile Diabetic. Her health care was always covered under her parents' plan until she graduated college, then poof. It's a very expensive disease and one you cannot mess around with, and she could not find a job with sufficient medical coverage. So she tried to economize on her insulin. By not taking her bedtime dose. Godsdammit I am a mother myself and this literally makes me She fell into a coma and died.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. The ACA is not perfect, but it is a plenty good start.
I was one of the ones who were saying in 2010, while the Democratic Party was lecturing us that a) the ACA was just the first step on the road to single-payer, b) that it would save Congress for the Democrats in the 2010 midterms, c) that once the ACA was in effect, and people were experiencing the clear benefits of it, public opinion would turn in favor of it to validate it, and d) that because of c), it would thereafter be politically suicidal for the Republican Party to try to repeal it, that the opposite of each point was true.
It was an ineptly constructed Republican health care plan from the 1990s, passed not by taking on the private health insurance industry (which is the problem itself) but by co-opting them in its writing. Having passed a Republican plan with no Republican votes, now the Democratic Party owns it lock, stock and barrel.
Here we are in 2016, and how did the points above work out?
a) The Democratic candidate the party is lined up behind and tried to clear the field for is holding up the ACA as the reason single-payer is impossible, and in making the case against it regurgitates Republican talking points (Eek! Taxes! Not going to mention the savings of the elimination of private health insurance costs!)
b) The Democrats had a historic slaughter in the 2010 midterms
c) The ACA has been underwater in public opinion since Day One because, having left the problem and cost of private health insurance unaddressed, people were not impressed, and
d) Since it is unpopular, the Republicans have tried to repeal it 60 times at no political consequence to them, because, as mentioned in c) it has been underwater in public opinion since Day One. Meanwhile, they have never tried to repeal single-payer Medicare because it's publicly supported and popular, and therefore there *would* be dire political consequences for that.
I'm not qualified to be a six-figure Democratic strategist, clearly. They've got it all figured out.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The ACA was a half assed attempt. It was to be a first step. Millions are still not covered mostly because they can't afford it. You may think that's swell but I am going to continue to fight tooth and nail until all are covered and insurance companies are out of primary coverage.
By the way, did you notice that rates are still climbing at about 30%? And insurance companies are backing out of the exchanges. This is not a good sign that the ACA is sustainable.
It's time for step two, Medicare for all or at least lower the age to 50.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)or just someone "special" ordering Congress to do his bidding?
I take it you weren't around when Obama had a Democratic majority and what we got was the ACA?
You keep dreaming.
We'll work at getting it done.
mythology
(9,527 posts)United is pulling out of the public exchanges because they are on track to lose a billion dollars in 2 years. People who for years hadn't been able to see doctors came in, they were sicker than expected and so caused massive losses. This is actually public information. It's not that hard to find.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)It isn't working. I didn't see many conversations about the ACA here. Now we're having one? Bernie knows and he tried. Now, I guess it is up to the fates whether people will have it next year, two years from now or at all. And even if it is still around, who knows how much it will cost? The one good thing was getting rid of the ban on pre-existing conditions. If we can keep it. If United is pulling out, does that mean they can now go back to using pre-existing conditions as a reason to deny?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)A successful health insurer doesn't make money by providing coverage. It makes money by collecting large payments from people who don't need it, and then denying actual services as much as possible.
By making insurers somewhat more accountable shines a glaring spotlight on that fact. "Gosh now we have to actually make payments for services for people who have policies, and we have to cover people who actually NEED health services" We can't afford to to that and make a profit."
musicblind
(4,563 posts)While I acknowledge that a lot of people's premiums went up, the ACA made my premiums affordable. I suffer from profound hearing loss, muscular tourettes, and a heart condition. I'm only 33 but I could barely afford anything due to my medical costs.
The ACA helped me greatly. It made some premiums go up so that others could go down.
I would prefer single payer and I hope we get that in my life time. But do not discount what the ACA has done. For every bad thing it did, there was a good thing on the other end.
Hekate
(97,014 posts)
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Anecdotal evidence is often the best a lazy mind can produce.
pnwmom
(109,801 posts)we ALSO need to address the problem of rising costs in Medicare and Medicaid. The major thing that needs to be addressed immediately, for the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid, is the rising cost of drugs.
TDale313
(7,822 posts)No one is saying we've made no progress, but we need far, far more. It is not a personal attack on Obama to argue we aren't nearly there yet. Many people are still suffering and wealth inequality needs to be addressed in a real way.
Take the blinders off. We're far better off than we were 8 years ago, I like Obama and Hillary, but things are not ok in this country.
Prism
(5,815 posts)There are good things. People with pre-existing have insurance.
Then there are bad things.
I've a friend who was uninsured, had to get insured to manage the mandate. He now pays $300 a month for a bronze plan.
He can barely afford this.
And god help him if he needs care. There's a $6,000/$500 deductible.
Facts on the ground - he never goes to the doctor because he knows he's going to pay.
So, he's technically insured under the statistics. He now has insurance.
And he's still not getting care.
So I don't want to hear, "Well, look at all these insured people!"
Insured means shit.
Who's getting care?!
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)
JudyM
(29,542 posts)better on particular issues (some, but not many), relative to the much larger issue of whether it is consistent with our core political values to have a candidate that does x,y,z. Then the firestorm starts about whether x,y,z actually happened, or that talking about x,y,z is fueling right wing talking points, or that we are blowing the significance of x,y,z out of proportion.
So those of us who feel that x,y,z is both real and fundamentally at odds with our deepest political/social values are screamed down. We aren't hearing our brothers and sisters on the other side acknowledging what we see as both reality and bone-crushingly important. We hear denial of its importance. That, to us, seems like a different political party altogether, not just a difference of opinion on the issues that we can reach agreement on.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)We get told that it's pragmatic to accept what we've fed by their masters.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)It's always the election that matters more than any other one.
Then it's over and we all go back to whining about Monsanto.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)You seem to be arguing against your candidate here.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... and I do think this is an important election, but I find it annoying when people go around like those guys in End-of-the-World sandwich boards strapped over themselves. Issues should not only exist every four years.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The Conservative Wing of our party never have been critical of any major corporation, so I really doubt that "we" will be doing anything together.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)But I also understand you gotta win.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)That's what your win is worth. Her an Bill will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Sorry but I aint messing with you guys. Full ignore.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)For those reading (since the audience is all that matters in debate anyway), it is what it is. We've set up a system by which we rely on cash. I'm all for overruling Citizens United. Clooney got this ... yeah, we don't like it, but hey, we'll use it. The fact remains, she's holding the cards not them. They have absolutely no way to enforce that she vote as a result of their contributions.
Oh, and ignore is fun. It guarantees I always get the last word.
xocet
(4,101 posts)Response to xocet (Reply #238)
nolawarlock This message was self-deleted by its author.
ibegurpard
(17,028 posts)Stopped being funny long before you heard about it right?
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts) ibegurpard
(17,028 posts)How awkward...
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)In exchange for personal prosperity.
The little people will just have to suck it up.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)...even GOP people I know are willing to poke fun at their party this year. Including my Republican boss who came to my office today just to ask me if I had heard about Boehner's remarks. He is one of those Republicans who prefers Hillary to what the GOP has to offer this year.
SalviaBlue
(3,065 posts)I do like her disclaimer: "evidence for this is entirely anecdotal. The people who came to hate each other over the Democratic primary are a small, unrepresentative group of political obsessives. Most people never talk about politics online..."
I don't give a shit what Maryna the curator and art advisor thinks about those she refers to as "progressive bros." She claims Hillary's "experience mirrors my experience." Wow! I don't know anyone who could claim that, and I am a 60 year old woman. I doubt very seriously she knows anything about me and mine.
I would like to point out that the majority of posters on this site has supported Bernie. However, a very small percentage of us have burned bridges or have EVER been overly rude. In fact, most have never said a disparaging word about Hillary. Yes, there are some, but a very small number given the number of pro-Bernie people there are on this site.
Skinner, the only thing Michelle's article gives me perspective on is how the NARRATIVE GETS HIJACKED by people who get paid to explain it to us.
I'm not buying it.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)nolabels
(13,133 posts)for the end game of getting your hands on that last measly greenback. We shouldn't feel surprised for them running par for course.
Consider who they work for and what their job is in maintaining the establishment and easy to understand where they get off.
At any rate, point well taken, it's mostly subterfuge and or just plain bullshit
kcjohn1
(751 posts)I can definitely appreciate those in the Dem party who are conservative. While I disagree with their political views, I can understand and respect their decision.
The real hacks have really been exposed in this election though. Those who pretended they were the most progressive have been shown for who they truly are. Anyone before the election that said they believed in single payer, campaign finance reform, higher wages for the poor/middle class, against trade deals, against foreign interventions, radical action on climate change, etc, and still voted for Hillary is not a true progressive.
The most frustrating part is by calling someone like Hillary progressive, they are diluting and confusing the public on true progressiveness. If Clinton called her policies as moderate and conservative, and their supporters said that is what they are, I would feel better about it because when their policies fail, the voters can compare that against true progressive positions. Instead our movement has being cojacked by the DLC.
coyote
(1,561 posts)There is absolutely nothing progressive about Hillary. She speaks a good game, but her actions say otherwise.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)Boy howdy, there are many.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I'm pissed at those who refuse to see the handwriting on the wall. Their support of a candidate willing to fuck us all is incomprehensible.
Perhaps those who see how pointless and unnecessary it is to acknowledge that climate change is a BFD can explain how they rationalized the forthcoming catastrophic weather and environmental events that are most certainly coming.
You think your wealth shields you? (Incredulous laugh)
antigop
(12,778 posts)What this primary has shown is that people have come to a realization that they don't share the same values.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Who wants to live in an echo chamber? I'm glad I have friends that are leftists, rightists, Democrats, Republicans, independents, every racial stripe, and a veritable smorgasbord of religious ideas as well. I've never met anyone who shares all of my values or ideals and I doubt I ever will, thank heavens, because that would be so boring.
antigop
(12,778 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)I've always found that energy that flows is energy that grows. As such I rarely close the door on anyone. You must have some wisdom I'm unaware of.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)jobs, saying no to fracking, educating children, etc. You just want to get along with all kinds of people. That's a nice goal. Me, my mission is a little greater than that. I find lots of diverse people and I go camping with them and to the movies and have dinner. Fortunately, they usually are people that can relate to my compassion for the planet, animals and humans. But that's just me.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)It's right up there with "how long have you been beating your wife?"
Not interested.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)For you told someone the other day that they were an "enemy" for not supporting Sanders. Does this, in fact, mean that anyone in your family and friendship circles that don't support Sanders is also an enemy? Well, it's the Christian thing to love our enemies but, well, yeah.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Anyone who doesn't believe climate change is the #1 electoral issue this year are enemies of humanity. Nothing to do with Sanders really although you can persist in trying to spin it that way.
But please, newbie, continue your quest to render every single thing you say a lie. You do know we can read your post history here?
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)What have I said that's a lie? My views are pretty damned consistent actually.
If you can read my post history, then you can see how many times I've been accused of being a paid troll on Hillary's payroll. That, my dear, is a lie, but I haven't seen you criticize that once so I guess you must actually like liars. Given that, if you think I'm such a liar, then you would think I could be your new best friend.
Just because we aren't for Bernie does not mean climate change does not matter to us. I for one think the linking of the two is disingenuous.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... after reading my post history, then I don't know what to tell you. I got so many accusations of paid troll and sock account for whoever got banned that I pretty much turned my entire profile into a circular ad for all things me simply to demonstrate that I am not a paid troll. Yeah, some of the "you're a paid troll" people decided to attack me personally, all while never quite admitting that their personal attacks must prove that, again, I'm not a paid troll, but whatevs. I can laugh at all of this because I know your candidate is going to lose and I will at least be rewarded the schadenfreude that comes with that.
Hekate
(97,014 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Love the name. She's one of my go-to spirits. Was thinking of going to Lagina at some point.
I live in New Orleans now, though, but am usually up in Salem in October.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It doesn't even take much of a rain to have boats going up and down your street and that was before the sea level really started rising.
The next Katrina is going to totally drown your town but I won't be feeling shadenfreude because I have neighbors right now who left there after Katrina and I know how much they miss their home.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Where did I ever say I wasn't for climate change reform? You don't know every one of my issues. Unlike most Bernie supporters, who suddenly became all, like, pro-gun and stuff because their sainted candidate is, I don't agree with all of these candidates on everything. That said, I think Hillary will get much farther with the climate change issue than Bernie ever would.
But way to be all like disaster movie about it.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Yeah, disaster movie is pretty much it, half our roof blew away, thankfully we were renting at the time and just moved.
Where I live now ice storms are the most destructive natural disasters over a wide area although tornadoes probably kill more people. In the long run I expect a Carrington event type of solar flare is gonna be what really knocks our civilization flat, we are highly dependent on reliable electric power and a strong enough solar flare can take out the electric grid to a big extent.
I'm so old I remember when Jimmy Carter called American energy independence "The moral equivalent of war".. As a grandfather and soon to be great grandfather I think climate change is "The moral equivalent of war" at the moment.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)She has quite an extensive issue statement on the subject:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
The Republicans don't even believe climate change is real. That Hillary has such a strong position on the subject ought to show people how progressive she is.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Where did I say I was a Christian? I'm Christian in name only.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)I may be passionate about this stuff, but I also never take myself or anything else too seriously. But for what it's worth, you're saving my husband from having to listen to me ramble on about politics, a subject he dreads.
ismnotwasm
(42,624 posts) randome
(34,845 posts)I can't think of a single thing that any President has done during my lifetime (57 years) that has affected me personally. I understand that people want change, not just for themselves, but for the rest of the country, too.
But you know something? The President is the least likely person to bring about that change. The power is in Congress. All this vitriol. All this burning of bridges. It's all for nothing.
We need to live our lives. If we want to make lasting change, then we should realize it's going to take a lot more than Facebook likes for a specific candidate or DU recommendations. If we're not going to be working for where it counts, then we need to see DU for what it really is: a discussion forum. That's all.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]
ismnotwasm
(42,624 posts)I fully intend to up my involvement, both in my political district--which is under the fabulous liberal lion Jim McDermott AND my union--I'm already a unit union rep, but I'm going to a leadership conference, and a few other things.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The Presidency is all but powerless, Trump would be totally ineffective at getting his agenda passed.
randome
(34,845 posts)As, perhaps, the Democrats could be if we had control of Congress long enough to make any difference. If we retake the Senate, that's at least one step toward getting there.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I hope you've picked one. Leaders are all important for establishing the vision. Your'e not in business are you? Likes in any blog are a waste of time. Change starts with informed voting. Then engaged and active participation in the process.
Just living our lives does not achieve that.
PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)oh no, they can't, they're dead because they were droned.
And actually the president is very powerful because he has the power of the veto.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If you and I could sit down over a beer, I'd tell you this:
I get that the relationship isn't symmetrical, it's mostly a business/customer relationship... kinda. I know that as a site that is free to me, I'm not really a customer, but my eyes, and the words I type are the product being sold.
I'm fine with that because I felt that we had a shared purpose in... not so much promoting the Democratic party as a jersey or a logo, but promoting progressive change through the Democratic party.
... But there was a competing agenda at work; the party was also being used as a vehicle to promote oligarchy and to enrich families through influence peddling; the purchasing of superdelegates in the guise of "helping downticket", money laundering by exploiting citizens united and superpacs to their full capacity.
When I heard that you have a personal financial stake in the success of that family, I was concerned that I'd been sold out. That what I understood to be our shared agenda had been abandoned.
I appreciate that you haven't... what? Banned Sanders supporters? Not quite sure what the "call it" folks have in mind actually, but I think it would be a show of good faith for you to explain (or deny) the family connection to the Clinton campaign, and to talk about the measures you've taken to be fair with your community, approximately 70% of whom supported Bernie.
One other thing: If the civility at DU was a significant concern, I question the wisdom of opening the cells at azkaban, and guaranteeing that the inmates need not fear reincarceration.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Giving the Transparency Page All-Stars the green light over the past few weeks has not exactly elevated the discourse.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It just emboldened and rewarded them.
andym
(5,926 posts)GDP has been a cesspool of bad feelings since its inception and should be eliminated. See my similar post directly to Skinner below.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think DU will survive, just as it has before, though.
It is interesting that this was the first primary without an incumbent D POTUS running for re-election (2012, again) that was also held under the DU3 system- i.e. Juries and Hosts, not the old Mods system.
I actually think it would have been worse, the way the site used to be run.
artislife
(9,497 posts)He shouldn't be mad at the anger...it has made him a great living.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
I want to sit down over a beer and hear you repeat it!
Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #44)
Post removed
zappaman
(20,621 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Raise your arm in freedom.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts) R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I believe there's a song in there somewhere.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Spent a long time in captivity
He's a big supporter of HRC
Two days left, Skinner set him free
Now he's gonna shill for the nominee
I said freeeeeeeeeeeee, Nelson JoePhilly ...
I think the Specials are still around. Maybe they'll record it.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Your lyrics do them justice.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Meaningful.
Thanks.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)
corkhead
(6,119 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... and get hidden for it. You first stalked and attacked me as a paid troll. When I responded to that by putting my real info in my profile, you used that to attack my personal career outside of this site. Thankfully, I care ultimately care less because, unless you're Bill Cosby, there is no bad publicity and I'm happy for you to shill for me as much as you are Bernie.
That said, someone else alerted your attack so don't lose all your get out of jail free cards. Skinner may bring back Azkaban.
kiva
(4,373 posts)
840high
(17,196 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts) 
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
Azkaban.
+ infinity
mcar
(44,366 posts)We should be working together to fight the real threat.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Republicanism within the Democratic Party. They paint themselves as "New Democrats", these Third Wayers, & they come armed with million$ in corporate backing. They are the real threat, the imminent threat.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/10/06/struggle-for-soul-democratic-party-pits-wall-street-backed-think-tank-against-elizabeth-warren/pYk3SXRnZDmpi7C7N4ZpXN/story.html
antigop
(12,778 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)GoLeft2004
(41 posts)
ReRe
(11,491 posts)... (whew, and what a thread, I dozed off a couple times along the way) and only now do I come to a post I can relate to. Yours, RiverLover. Short and sweet and straight to the point. No ifs, ands or buts. I, too, want the right out of the left once and for all.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)any conservative in any position of power is a real threat
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It would go a long way to clearing some of the worst air around here. Just my "friendly" opinion.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)claiming they would never vote for Gore. And guess what, in a few states that mattered, they didn't, and George W. Bush was elected. It taught the Gore people (of which I was one) that playing nice with people who threaten to split the party is for losers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I imagine it will only get worse, barring some sort of intervention by the the FBI. The whole political process seems to lack resilience. That also seems new.
My spouse who always gets it right says they aren't even sure they can bring themselves to vote in November the way things are going. That is surely new.
It's a hard time to be a Democrat. A very hard time to be American.
antigop
(12,778 posts)1) You benefit from the status quo.
2) You haven't been burned (yet) by the status quo.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)
madaboutharry
(41,803 posts)Someone I was friends with for 15 years. We bonded over our mutual hatred of George Bush and the insanity of the Iraq War. At the very beginning of this election cycle I supported Bernie. And then a couple of months in, I changed my mind and decided to support Hillary. One day I found myself unfriended on Facebook and that was it. It really hurt.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Split the site. Just copy EVERYTHING, keep one called "Democratic Underground" and call the other "Progressive Underground". Both sides will have good traffic, and be happy for not having to deal with each other.
I am one of those who really believes Hillary is going to be facing criminal indictment very soon (the battle cry of the chorus is also obvious to me -"just because she got indicted doesn't mean she's guilty!" so this may not be necessary, but barring that, you have a substantial number of good Dems who simply won't support Hillary in the General for ideological reasons. This isn't a "bummer my candidate didn't make it" - it's "she's an untrustworthy liar who I think is corrupt".
That is my suggestion - double your revenue stream (because you know both sides will visit the other) but also provide a safe place for people to support the views without the purity test trolling.
Good luck!
senz
(11,945 posts)Why relinquish the party of FDR Democrats to the newcomer Al From/Bill Clinton crowd?
Or "Yellow Dog" Democrats and "Blue Dog" Democrats?
I like your idea and agree with your take on the current situation.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I love the passion and the opportunity to vent at my opposition. I get mad but I get over it. Trying to reason with some of these people is like banging your head against the wall. But it's still fun. I suppose a place where you share info to take back to the ring would be good. But the action in the ring is the best.
senz
(11,945 posts)there's very little substance to the debate. The supporters of Bernie's opponent are not the least bit interested in ideas, vision for the future, issues, problems facing the American people, political philosophy (except for a small subset who assume we're all against capitalism and preemptively defend it even when it's not under attack), or any other meaty, worthwhile, challenging subjects. Instead, they talk personalities and the horse race which makes them dull and uninteresting, and more often than not they throw out insults and little one-upsmanship remarks that make them seem, well, loathsome.
It's funny, when I saw your remark and looked at your name, i thought, snowy owl is such a pretty, softspoken bird -- and then came to my senses: owls are the kitty cats of the sky, terrorizing little ground critters. So, yeah, the name is suitable for one who enjoys "action in the ring."
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)anything negative about her to stop being discussed, regardless of whether it is fact based or not.
Her supporters consider the FBI investigation to be imaginary, and have already decided any resulting findings are simply more "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" stuff.
That isn't opposition - that's religious faith and it can't be swayed. I won't shut up, so I will end up banned. It will be a bummer after twelve years, but unless they want to create a "Hillary Sucks" forum (which might be another option) that the True Believers can hide, what else can the admins do (except create a duplicate forum with additional revenue capacities)?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)where only those who tow the line 100% and refuse to form coalitions are accepted.
It's obvious who the real Authoritarians on DU are.
Full Definition of ideologue
1: an impractical idealist : theorist
2: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)Never commented on anything you've EVER posted or written, but THIS post is "more than telling!" Perhaps YOU didn't write the words YOURSELF, but the MESSAGE couldn't be more clear!
Crystal, crystal clear.
Didn't try to kick a field goal, just went through the line for the TWO POINTER!
Some of us here really haven't gotten all that feisty or nasty with anyone else even when we disagreed, but now I feel the UNWELCOME mat was just put in front of the door.
I'm tempted to write more, but will just say WOW, one more time!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)JimDandy
(7,318 posts)We Progressives need to get working on Bernie's policies without having to deal with all the Clinton supporters disrupting our work.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)JimDandy
(7,318 posts)I do not think a Progressive site would do so either.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)destroy his wife's career? Don't see that happening.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)satisfactory explanation. When I read the referenced article my first reaction was kind of a "sinking feeling" but then I made the comment I made.
I just watched Lee Camp's Redacted Tonight which made me feel EVEN WORSE! I've had suspicions for quite some time that there have been too many voting irregularities in almost every Primary. I'm NOT new to politics and have been a poll worker enough times to know a few things and have actually watched what has happened when the ballots for that day were tallied and put in lock boxes. There have ALWAYS been TWO boxes involved, one that contained what I was told were "the votes" that had no problems going through the machines with THAT tally. Then, the other box was for what they told me were the votes that had "problems" when fed through the machines. There were NO tallies for THAT box that I know of but got locked up separately. The first time I saw this I asked what was going to happen to those votes. I was told they would go to the Supervisor's office to get counted, but I wondered if they ever really got counted.
I always tried to get the last shift so I could "see" the procedure and it was always the same. Well, I live in Florida and it's a VERY RED County and knew that we've RARELY had any Democrat elected so not sure ANY outcome would make a difference. BUT there was ONE election when Christine Jennings ran against Vern Buchanan that she contested. She HAD been a Republican banker who got the support of the local Democratic Party who really scammed a candidate who had always run as THE DEMOCRAT who was much more, well like a Democrat. I was told the strategy was that Jennings had more of a chance to win given that she leaned to the right. Okay, THAT happened. BUT, the election was so close and there were about 18,000 under votes involved. Cut to the chase, lawsuits were filed but in the end it was VERN BUCHANAN who went to D.C. SO that happened too and "the local" strategy backfired.
So here were after ALL this time and it's gotten so much worse and I still VOTE because it's what I do.
As I'm typing this my stomach is in knots, I'm feeling light headed, hyperventilating and my face is on fire. BUT, I have been diagnosed with OCD with "conditions" that I take meds for. I've conditioned myself to take less than the doctor wants me too because I hate them, but it's been working for years and I manage very well.
I'm so tired of trying and I KNOW a good cry will help calm me down. Sorry for my sad story, just had to let people know that there are those of us who really want to feel things are fair.
BUT, on the BRIGHT side I do believe that Bernie has done something that no other Democrat has done for "we the people" and has awakened so many NEW YOUNG people who I firmly believe won't be leaving and are going to keep the ball rolling. A lot started with OCCUPY and it's grown into where we are now. Nothing gets done over night but REAL PROGRESS is going forward.
I can't say I really want him to get elected now because what's coming up for anyone who wins isn't going to be pretty. Bernie will be the one who will be screwed by THIS Democratic Party because it's what has happened from day one.
We should be FOREVER thankful and grateful for this man named BERNIE SANDERS!
to all who feel what I feel.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)To all those I offended I am sorry.
Response to Skinner (Original post)
Marr This message was self-deleted by its author.
MADem
(135,425 posts)throw blacks and women off the bus. They aren't shy about it, either.
Their attitude can be summed up thusly: Gee, if there are enough jobs, eventually "those people" will benefit.
That's all fine and dandy if you're not one of "those people."
This is why I prefer old school Democrats, be they liberal or moderate. They don't leave the brothers and sisters behind.
“The conflict is very unpleasant, but it’s also clarifying,” she says. “I believe there was a misogyny that existed below the surface among progressive men, thinking that because they’re environmentalists and drive Priuses and support the Palestinians, they are unassailable.”
Right here on DU, we've seen black members hounded, swarmed and driven from this place in the ugliest fashion imaginable. I'd rather go back to DU2, frankly, with plain "rules" and standards, than continue on with these socks and trolls coming in and having a sixty percent chance of silencing us within days. This place is broken, brother, and it's not going to be fixed very easily. You've got to decide where you want to go with this joint. Is it a place for DEMOCRATS? Can we gather here and not be ashamed of our party affiliation? Or do we have to bend over backwards for people who call us every name in the book and insist it's their "right" because they affect being "left of center" in some fashion? Some of the attitudes are very selfish and Libertarian--Ron Paul has a place for those people, we shouldn't have to put up with their crap here.
People who have no love or regard for the Democratic Party are ruining this joint, IMO.
It's a crying shame.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)I love the way you describe all this. It's so on point.
I saw the whole WillyH thing while I was still lurking and I remember saying to my husband, "jeesh, Trump hasn't just moved the needle of bigotry; he's moved the whole spectrum." Then I saw some agist anti-Bernie stuff and didn't much that like either. I love a good snarky argument and will cackle the whole way along, but some of these tactics have just really sunk to the bottom of the barrel.
Worse than WillyH, in my opinion, were all the people who defended his actions, which is why he shall forever be WillyH to me, because he reminds me of 41 race baiting everyone over Willie Horton.
Some of the self-described 'progressives' here exhibit racism of the hard variety (like those who criticize anyone who raises civil rights issues as 'race-baiters') or from repeated ignorance.
It also appeared to me they alert-stalked people who discuss civil rights and/or said they're voting for the democratic nominee in November. I presume many are trolls and socks, intending only to sow division here.
I say that while recognizing and acknowledging that the large majority of self-described progressives & independents here vote for democrats and aren't as obnoxious as the most loud-mouthed & self-righteous amongst them who constantly yell 'don't vote' or attack every democrat not named Bernie or Elizabeth. We can flourish most effectively, imho, by getting rid of those who constantly troll democrats and other posters here in the most outrageous and personally offensive language possible.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)or 'passive-aggressive'?
You be the judge.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)brer cat
(26,883 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,210 posts)This is a big help.
musicblind
(4,563 posts)aikoaiko
(34,210 posts)I can see why a HRC supporter would think so.
musicblind
(4,563 posts)aikoaiko
(34,210 posts)musicblind
(4,563 posts)If my primary vote for Bernie doesn't really count because I don't meet your purity test for the general election, then you have shut off rational discourse. But you should know, we are the vast majority of Bernie supporters.
aikoaiko
(34,210 posts)Last edited Sun May 1, 2016, 12:56 AM - Edit history (2)
What's the worst thing they cite about Hillary supporters? They called someone a BernieBro?
musicblind
(4,563 posts)Though, I admit, that line made me cringe. I don't think the author MEANT it as an insult, but the BernieBros term and the "comrade" stuff is just awful.
I think it's interesting because later in the article, they pointed out how awful it is to use that phrase:
On the other side is Khaldoun Khelil, a 39-year-old of Palestinian-Algerian descent who is appalled to see some of his female friends overlooking Clinton’s awful rhetoric on Palestine.* “I’m a passionate supporter of women’s rights and other progressive ideals, but when I ask for the same support from them to stand behind me and Palestinians—suddenly I’m a Bernie Bro,” he says. Khelil feels personally wounded by the silence of his Clinton-supporting friends in the face of their candidate’s lopsided pro-Israel rhetoric. “It just turned my stomach,” he told me.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)musicblind
(4,563 posts)But the article itself did not seem bias.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)But it makes sense as I now know how heavilly vested his family is in a Hillary presidency.
1+1=
musicblind
(4,563 posts)But I haven't seen anyone spell it out. What is the claimed connection between Skinner and the Clintons? If you don't want to type up a long response that has already been said on DU, could you link me to it?
A connection to a candidate doesn't ALWAYS mean that person supports the candidate. One of my friends and mentors was related to John Edwards, but I did not choose to vote for him in the 2008 primary.
Though, I would be interested in reading the connections between Skinner and the Clintons. I have always found Skinner to be even handed, regardless of who he supports. It's something I admire about him because he's much more level headed than me. he doesn't seem to get worked up easily in his posts, etc.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You have to understand, many of these folks found DU, which was 85% for Sanders, to be insufficiently pro Sanders such that they had to start another website to be 100% pro Sanders. And sure, many of us Hillary supporters participated in a pro Hillary site but that's, IMHO, much more understandable when you are a 15% minority.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)Just change the name of the website to: Hillary, Come Hell (very probably) or High Water (um, yeah, already happened).
Response to NV Whino (Reply #90)
TekGryphon This message was self-deleted by its author.
2banon
(7,321 posts)gee..
the writer just couldn't wait to lob another snarky punch at progressives.
SMH
corkhead
(6,119 posts)
postatomic
(1,771 posts)The cutting of the cord that attaches us. I recently had to tell of friend of many - many years that we should probably take a break from each other after she said she's supporting The Sandman because Hillary is a liar. Nothing specific about any lies, just that she was a liar. Okay. Whatever.
It's pretty bad when I have Republican friends that I can have a mature conversation with. Sure, we go after each other but at the end of the day we are adults about it.
Sad I am. 
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)You can't really be serious about this. There are long lists and longer videos of her lying. So it seems from here that you are a major part of the problem.
postatomic
(1,771 posts)No specifics were given to me. If there had been I would have addressed them. For some it's just enough to throw a label on someone and go with it. You don't know me. In the non-digital world I am a very caring and compassionate person. I can only take the GDP sewer in small doses. After a while it starts to eat my brain.
On Edit: My suggestion to cool our contact was done out of desire to continue our friendship after this Carnivale' is over in November.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... then they were never really friends.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)But then I live in WA where the Dems went massively for Bernie.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Always trying to progress, even if it means taking a stand based on their principles!
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)and blindly partisan.
Those of us who have some level of maturity understand how to work with others and don't demand 100% adherence to an ideology. We also recognize that Progress is incremental.
Full Definition of ideologue
1: an impractical idealist : theorist
2: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)85% of us here on DU who are Bernie Progressives? Then the conservative Dems who support Hillary and us Progressives can work on separate sites for the issues and policies we each want to see enacted without having to waste time stumbling over each other's posts and posters.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)we always have the excellent new site in my sig line.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)but it was difficult for me to navigate the last time I was there. Skinner can easily set up a site for us, that is as robust as DU and easy to navigate, since he did so with Discussionists for the conservatives.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I think we'd want such a site that is run by people who are 100% on-board with the agenda. Both DU and DKos are run by third-way types, and it does matter.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)He knew I was getting pretty testy about the hides and all the HRC propaganda and thought I'd fit in over there. But I stayed. Still, that's for progressives isn't it?
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I am there, as well as here. If you aren't there you should check it out.
I think the main issues are that board was setup specifically for Bernie supporters, but I'm hoping they will generalize that in the near future to be a progressive board, which it effectively is already. Also their software is not as good as DU's.
I don't think the software is the most important thing, and I think it will improve over time. DU didn't start out looking like it does now, so we should expect a gradual improvement over there (JPR) too. The main problem I had with their software was just reading threads and knowing which posts were responding to which. There's a thread viewing setting over there called "hybrid mode", once I changed to that, it was much easier to navigate.
I think there's room for many boards, and we can hang out where we want to, provided we abide by whatever rules a site imposes.
Autumn
(47,627 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)the software is my biggest issue with JPR. Not your fault...youi guys did great things with what you had, but it's the clunkiest most confusing forum software I've ever seen, and I'm just too old and slow to wanna learn tough new tricks.
'I also like the idea of opening it up to all dems (knowing it's primarily a pro-progressive site). Of course, not until after the GE is over. :lol:
Autumn
(47,627 posts) I think it's going to work out well. zeemike
(18,998 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)It's like you think the man owes you a sandwich. The hubris of some people.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... is how effective Bernie supporters are at using their 80% majority here to rig a flawed jury system.
Beyond that, I have no idea what you expect me to say beyond that those hides were so bogus except for maybe one of them, and even that was obviously just snarky humor. And when you consider what horrid things the Bernie people say here that never gets taken down, it just proves it's bogus.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)of the same amnesty that allows you to remain here in spite of all that nasty. The guilty all say they were wrongfully convicted. This routine of claiming you are being bullied when your comments are so crappy is bogus, it's also dishonest. Own your work like an adult or just stop with typing all that hateful shit. Learn some moderation, you claim to represent a candidate, do that.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)And I don't think they came within a mile of what I was responding to, other than one post, which was a joke made in the Hillary group and was meant as a joke and it was alerted as though I was serious when it was clear I wasn't. The others are completely bogus. You can go on about them as much as you like out of context, but that calling people "assholes," "morons," and every other epithet has been allowed to stay here but I make humor out of something and it's blocked? That hardly seems fair but it is what it is. This has been alert-stalking plain and simple, and it's clear it has happened to a lot of Hillary supporters since I've seen so many of them talking about the flaws in the jury system. I am not the only one. I can clearly and logically break down how nearly every one of those alerts is bogus whether it's asking if someone was applauding a hide (it was hidden after all, wasn't it?), or simply continuing with the humorous reference to a certain dictator that I did not make first reference to yet that post I responded to, nearly all of them was hidden out of context with no reprimand of whatever worse thing I was responding to.
I'm clearly not going to convince you and you are definitely not going to convince me so there's really no point in going on about it.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I notice Bernie supporters are about pro-Bernie ads and graphics. Maybe that's the difference between us.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)I've seen plenty of anti-Hillary images in Bernie supporters' signatures. I'm perplexed that you somehow missed all of them.
Every time I've gotten what I felt was a bogus hide, I spent another ten minutes in Photoshop creating another signature graphic. Now that's Bernie math for ya.
RandySF
(73,064 posts)Because one side is apparently made of porcelain.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Bah, humbug. There are many groups here at this site where self-described progressives are allowed. A genuine contradiction, to me, is that many self-described progressives are not at all what I'd define as progressive. Because they don't listen well to other self-described progressives who are voting for democrats in November.
Characterizing only Sanders supporters as progressive and all Clinton supporters as conservative is part of the problem. Those who believe that sometimes come in to other groups here like the AA group high on their own supply of self-righteous patronizing nonsense.
MADem
(135,425 posts)85 % and beat the crap out of the wingnuts that hang out there. It will give those who want a good fight a place to Have At It and it will give those of us here who think the TOS means something a break.
The DISCUSSIONIST site is very clean and easy to use, and you won't be muzzled.
If you don't want to follow the TOS here--and many of you do not, quite obviously--it seems like a ready-built solution.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)how where next to "drill, baby, drill", who to demonstrate "muscular foreign policy" on next, how to screw workers over with the next "free trade" deal, how to continue the drug war, how trivial and stupid concerns about climate change are, the evils of taxes and how damaging they are to the poor, struggling "middle class" that makes a quarter million plus, how to further empower dragnet surveillance spooks, and how best to wipe your assess with the Bill of Rights.
and
Still get to holler and preach about GUNZ!
Can't beat it, the best of all worlds!
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)The "Don't EAT ANY MEAT, you ASSHOLES" crowd has free rein over there, too. So do the Let's Carry Our Automatic Weapons in the Walmart crowd.
If you hate fossil fuels, nuclear power, solar power, wind power, pedal power, you name it, you can get your fight on and your snark out.
No one "owns" that place--if enough Independents and Greens and other sorts who are unhappy with the Dems found their way over there, they'd be able to make a comfortable home--they might get some push back, but it seems to me they thrive on that. They certainly want to try to tell Democrats how much they suck, here, swarm us, get us "HIDES" to shut us up, so it's not like they are afraid of Internet Fight Games.
But there's going to come a day here where they can't do that shit here anymore, because that's just against the doggone TOS. Our charge, here, in election season, is to elect DEMOCRATS. Not to trash Democrats.
The people who want to engage in knock down/drag out fights can get their fix, the people who want to talk about how much The Democrats SUCK MAN can do it without looking over their shoulders, the cheerleaders can cheerlead, the denigrators can denigrate, and everybody can get their Internet Tough Guy on!
For people who find the TOS here too restrictive (you know, because of that whole "let's elect Dems" stuff) it's a perfect solution....nice platform, easy to use, somewhat like DU but not really...and a wide and diverse range of opinions.
It's like a cage match, with a really nice layout!
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(121,002 posts)There seem to be enough like minded people
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Looks like it's your turn for "the treatment."
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Pffft...
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Carry on...
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)I am hoping to carry on with like-minded Progressives on a new site that hopefully Skinner will set up for us like he set up Discussionist for the Repubs. That will leave this site for right-leaning Dems who I am sure will be as delighted as we will be to finally work on issues without having to deal with disruptors from the other group.
A win win for us all! Please join me in this request to Skinner.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Stopped reading there.
What passive aggressive nonsense.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)If that word choice is not how you perceive Clinton supporters (which you have self-identified as) then please excuse me. I have found that her supporters are far more conservative in their concerns and approach to solutions than I am. I know no one wants to be defined by other's labels and I use it solely as a convenient short cut. There is a reason why you support Clinton and I support Sanders, though and it is independent of labels.
Your entire reply to me including "passive agressive nonsense" is exactly why we both would be much more productive in our own space working on goals with other like-minded people.
I am approaching the last 1/3 of my life and am simply tired of wasting energy on unproductive interactions online and IRL. Skinner's and his team's skills in designing and operating websites is phenomenal. I would like to be on a powerful site designed by them for Progressives to work on what I perceive to be essential issues. If you are not interested in supporting a separate site for us in order to drastically reduce unproductive conflicts then just say so, and I'll bid you adieu.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)
Loki
(3,826 posts)You've only been here a very short time, some of us have been here since the *selection. (In case you don't know what the refers to, its when GWB was appointed to the *presidency). Been through many election cycles and I've never even gone to the depths of attacks that I've seen here and I won't tolerate or dignify, the republican talking points and smear attacks that the BS group has adopted against Hillary and Obama, so keep your "right-leaning passive aggressive" label because it's not me and it's not the HRC group. I have never been banned from posting on any group here until I posted in the BS group the first time. You like to throw your idealism around like a cloak of superiority. I've worked for Democratic ideas since I turned 21, I've never voted for a republican in my life, I come from a very proud and strong union family. I don't disdain your values, but you seem all to willing to disdain mine. I've had my candidates lose, I had one of my early favorites assassinated. Think on that for a moment, because even in losing, I've found new things to be sure of. I will never vote for a republican, and I will work within the party to make changes the I want to see. See I work on the state and local levels too, not just the top of the ticket. You want change, then work for it, and remember change is not an overnight sensation, it takes hard work and commitment. Are you ready to do that without name calling and divisiveness? We shall see.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)The DLC, Clintons, From and all the blue dogs have taken our party far to the right and away from the working person. And using a term passive-aggresive describes what I observe and experience today. I'm sorry it hurts your feelings. I was banned from Hillary group. I'm laughing. I guess that makes us even. I don't know why anybody gets banned. Your post is exactly the problem. Why take it so personally? If you don't think you are guilty of those underhanded attacks, then I accept that. You ask how do I know her here? From reading a lot of posts from people who use passive-aggressive language whether they can own it or not.
I keep going back to an OP Sparkly wrote wherein she asked for a list of why we are pro-Bernie. Instead of saying, ok I get it. I don't agree but I get it. She rationalized, generalized and sort of trivialized every one of them. And when she was called out on it over and over, she quit playing. That's the sort of lame behavior I read so often on the Clinton side. I would have rather read something that could explain why the items we listed were handled better by Clinton. But she could not do that.
Loki
(3,826 posts)never will be. I have worked in a profession all my adult life that demands a reality based environment. I work for the obtainable, the workable and the most inclusive not exclusive. We want a better world, but to think that we can do it singlehandedly without the cooperation and commitment of the people is just talk and unrealistic. If you call that trivialization, I call it reality. Unions, of which my father was a long time member and helped establish, became their own worst enemy. They gave the anti-union forces all the ammunition to use to convince the American worker that they didn't really need a union to support them. Every Republican worked on that and we have to deal with the fact that this is what contributed to the downfall of the middle class and our manufacturing base. We have helped elect people that have made a firm commitment to destroy the unions and the middle class by staying home and not voting and thinking this will have absolutely no effect on them or our economy. It has devastated the middle class, yet you seem to want to lay that squarely at the feet of the DLC and the Clinton's. I don't see it that way, and I lived through the Reagan years and watched deregulation unfold and the worst economy in my lifetime destroy the middle class, see people and families living on the streets or sleeping in the hospital smoking room under chairs. Men sleeping outside and having their extremities frozen and coming in to have their fingers and toes amputated. Every decade has different problems facing people and different solutions which may not and are often not good ones today. I want cooperative solutions, not ultimatums without accepting a compromise. We have lived for years with a party that accepts nothing but what they want and disregards any attempt at compromise. I refuse to become them. You can label me anything you choose, but I will remain always one who works for change, however I can accomplish it, and willing to work across those party lines and ideological lines that continue to divide us. That's the way to effect real change, lasting change. Banning an opposing idea or opinion is self-defeating. How do I know this, because many of my parents generation who have voted years and years for Republicans, have openly spoken of not being able to vote for Trump or Cruz. That is an enormous leap for these people. We may not agree on all things, but they know when something is going to be more destructive than even they are willing to tolerate. So be it Bernie or Hillary, they are both light years ahead of anyone in the republican party and those posters who continue to demonize and do the republican party's work for them, need to stop.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)or didn't understand the post you're high-fiving here.
The "passive-aggressive" reference was mine, and it was used to describe the "right-leaning" comments this poster used rather gratuitously. Looks like you just mishmashed them together to come up with this insulting post.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)I'm not going to waste another minute of my time correcting these false, self-serving assumptions. The narrative you're weaving here is beyond tiresome and just plain silly at this point.
Skinner doesn't owe you a site to express yourself or "work on" issues. Some folks may want to consider supporting this site financially before they start making requests for Skinner to provide yet another platform to accomodate their needs. There are groups galore on this site where you can "work" in relative peace. If this isn't acceptable, there is a VAST web out there.
As for your "conservative" references, if I may quote you:
"Pfffffft "
UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)My definition of friend is typically different from most people's definition. I have 3 friends but many acquaintances. My 3 friends know all my secrets and are absolutely ride or die for me. They are 3 people I know that I can call at 3am and say OMG I need you to help me dig a hole and they aren't asking me what happened or no I can't do that or are freaking out. Their response would be "just tell me where to meet you".
If you are losing a friendship over politics what is your definition of friendship and how good of friends were you in the first place? It should not be that serious.
jillan
(39,451 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)
Jeffersons Ghost
(15,235 posts)
herding cats
(19,668 posts)...unrepresentative group, of political obsessives."
I consider myself to be a part of that small unrepresentative group, of political obsessives. Yet, I haven't lost Democratic friends this primary. This stuff isn't what's taking place for most of us, no matter who we choose to vote for in the primary. We're getting along with each other, and we still riff on Cruz and Trump saying how our choices are so much better.
I know that's not the actual point you were trying to make here, but it's all I've really got to offer at this point.
I'm not trying to disrespect your site in the least. I just don't think what's taking place here, and in some other pockets of the Internet, in any way represents what the majority of we Democrats actually deal with daily. The Internet allows people to be jerks who aren't jerks otherwise. It's a fact of life we all deal with when we choose to wander off into abyss. It's not your fault, and you can't make everyone happy all the time. That's just how it is. I suspect most of us get it, even when we bemoan the fact.
jillan
(39,451 posts)more than politics.
If a friend started going off on Bernie I would tell them to stop and that our friendship was worth more than our political differences.
ITS NOT Hard!
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)It's not hard. I've gotten slightly terse with some of my Trump friends but then they sorta rub it in my face that I have way more to gain from a Trump presidency than they do so I just figure I'll shut up. I have a very close friend who's a HUGE Bernie supporter and we sure did go at it about the Vatican visit but it was never in anger on either of our parts because we're mature enough to know that who we are to one another isn't just about which candidates we support. Heck, I have friends who are young earth creationists and I have all I can do not to rag on that. I had a pentecostal minister at my gay wedding. Heck, we were on the cover of the Wall Street Journal together because he was excommunicated for being friends with me. All this hullaballoo going on here is ridiculous. Yeah, I can be snarky with the best of them (and probably better if need be), but that's only cuz that's the all or nothing tone people seem to want to have here so I'll play along, but I haven't lost one friend over this race and I've got friends supporting pretty much everyone but Cruz. Now that I think I might lose a friendship over. hahahah
Hekate
(97,014 posts)
Cha
(309,258 posts)You can't deal with people like that.
Beacool
(30,361 posts)If they're good friends, their friendship means a lot more to me than whichever candidate or party they support. People get passionate about a candidate and lose perspective, but elections come and go. Hopefully, the people who care about us remain.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)He is finding it difficult this year, though, of supporting any of the Republican candidates.
Beacool
(30,361 posts)Tell him that maybe he should vote for the sane person this election and vote Democratic.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)California primary. He's giving it some serious thought. He's 72 years old and has been a registered Republican all of his life. It is a big step for him.
Beacool
(30,361 posts)Hopefully he'll see the light.
akbacchus_BC
(5,813 posts)who offered you a blankie became friends on here. That is how democrats behave on here.
Good to see you are still here. I really feel that Mrs. Clinton will continue President Obama's legacy, except for single payer medicare. She will be a great President.
Beacool
(30,361 posts)Yes, Dionysus is my DU bud. I don't even know which candidate he supports. It really doesn't matter.
I too think that Hillary will be a good president. She's extremely smart and very hard working. She gives 100% to any task, so at least I know that she'll give it her best.
akbacchus_BC
(5,813 posts)Not only that, Mrs. Clinton will continue President Obama's legacy. She will be good for America! She knows what she is doing and she will serve Americans Well. I really like her.
I was a Bernie supporter but now am rooting for Mrs. Clinton. Trump cannot win over Mrs. Clinton!
Beacool
(30,361 posts)After the fur has settled we need to come together to defeat Trump. I can't think of any less fit nominee of either party in my lifetime. The thought of him becoming president is downright scary.
no friends of mine support G W Bush. You should look closer.
Beacool
(30,361 posts) Maru Kitteh
(29,894 posts)on both sides seem to have come from outside this community. Hopefully we can all learn, and relearn, how to engage in more thoughtful, civil discussion again. I can't promise perfection, but I will try to do my part. Thank you for the post.
andym
(5,926 posts)In the election of 1912, there were three progressive candidates for President: Taft, Roosevelt and Wilson. There was even a socialist, Debs. There were arguments among all over who was the real progressive. The enmity between Taft and Roosevelt, former friends, had historical negative ramifications for the GOP. The next time the GOP won a presidential election they had a nominated a conservative, Harding, 8 years later.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(121,002 posts)That was the whole reason Teddy Roosevelt mounted a third party run against him.
andym
(5,926 posts)There's even a book that goes over this:
Lurie, Jonathan (2011). William Howard Taft: Progressive Conservative. Really he was a mild progressive.
Taft was most progressive when it came to filing anti-trust suits-- to break up the trusts-- basically fighting against corporations.
In fact, he was more aggressive about breaking up the trusts than TR.
What really annoyed Roosevelt about his hand-picked successor was related:
from Wikipedia:
"Taft continued and expanded Roosevelt's efforts to break up business combinations through lawsuits brought under the Sherman Antitrust Act, bringing 70 cases in four years (Roosevelt had brought 40 in seven years).
from
https://ehistory.osu.edu/exhibitions/1912/trusts/trtaft
"On October 26, 1911, the Taft administration filed suit in federal court against the United States Steel Corporation for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. One important part of the suit was the complaint that the acquisition of the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company by U.S. Steel in 1907 was anticompetitive, done deliberately and unfairly to reduce competition.
The filing of this suit was a violation of the gentlemen's agreement between the Roosevelt Administration and J.P. Morgan in 1907 that the acquisition would not be pursued in an antitrust suit.
By late 1911 the two former friends, Taft and Roosevelt, were already estranged on several important matters. Breaking this gentlemen's agreement further enraged Roosevelt, and led directly to his decision to try to wrest the Republican presidential nomination away from Taft in 1911.
The suit observed that U.S. Steel and Morgan had obscured their full motives from Roosevelt in 1907. This charge was true. However, the charge was politically very embarrassing to Roosevelt. In effect, it damaged his reputation. And it belied his belief in that the most desirable federal policy toward the trusts was a system in which the federal government, defining the public interest, decided in advance of a merger whether or not the merger was anticompetitive and in violation of the antitrust law."
So Roosevelt went to Wall Street and cut a deal with the richest Banker/Magnate of that era. Taft decided to ignore the deal and break up the trust, and ignore Wall Street.
RandySF
(73,064 posts)others belong nowhere near politics.
Sparkly
(24,552 posts)I like this quote from the Slate article:
Liberals can’t understand why those to their left refuse to recognize that incremental progress is better than none, particularly given the intolerable danger of the modern GOP. Leftists are increasingly convinced that liberals, ever eager to compromise, aspire to nothing beyond a more diverse ruling class and are thus obstacles to revolution.
The only thing I'd challenge is the idea that pessimism or realism is further "right" and optimism or idealism is further "left." Political ideology is separate from beliefs about how best to get there. I understand there are people with right-leaning beliefs who support Senator Sanders, as well as leftists who support Secretary Clinton.
I think it's important to separate these out as process vs. product, or the goals versus the means. Let's not assume that different means = totally different goals, or that common strategies = identical goals. Otherwise we can get blue in the face making assumptions and arguing with straw men. The outrage is real, but the assumption on which it is based is not.
It seems to me we want the same things. If one candidate has a plan for saving kittens, and the other has a plan for animal adoption, it doesn't help to accuse the first one of hating puppies or the second one of callousness toward kittens.
Similarly, both want to raise minimum wages as high as possible; both want universal health care to the best level possible; both want to protect the environment, keep the country secure, and serve the global community to the greatest degree possible.
Put another way: I've heard it said that no candidate is ever as perfect, or as evil, as we'd like to imagine them.
I've seen this play out many times before. The only difference is how steeply the stakes keep rising.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Hillary is not progressive. The author cannot acknowledge that so uses pseudo terms. Liberal has become centrist. It isn't even left anymore.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)With all due respect, Skinner, you – and you alone, as the sole owner of this site – have allowed the ruination of many “friendships”, along with the ruination of a sense of community and common purpose right here on DU.
When you initiated the jury system, and declared that those juries would set the community standards, you put the site into the hands of people who have often allowed the most vile political and personal attacks to stand.
And so those “community standards” set the tone. If someone calls your candidate a vicious name and it’s voted to be left alone, you can be damned sure someone is going to respond in kind, which elicits another vitriol-laden reply, which prompts another vile response – and on and on it goes.
You allowed this to happen. You allowed “random jurors” to leave some of the most disgusting posts imaginable – and according to their decisions that have been posted here – a leave or a hide vote is often based on whether a juror “likes” or “doesn’t like” the poster who’s been alerted on, or which candidate the alerted-on poster is known to support.
You stood by and did nothing while demeaning attacks – on the candidates, on the Democratic Party, and on DU members personally – were deemed “acceptable” by your juries. You did nothing when these attacks escalated. You did nothing. So it’s kind of difficult to buy into the “can’t we all just get along” meme when you did nothing to stop the infighting, the vitriol, the personal attacks.
Yes, friendships have been ruined here – because “community standards” dictated that posters could say whatever they wanted without fear – which, in turn, encouraged people to say things in terms they normally wouldn’t use – which, in turn, led to people replying in terms they normally wouldn’t use.
You could have stopped this a long time ago. You could have over-ridden juries that voted to leave incredibly vile posts. You could have deleted those posts, regardless of a jury’s decision. You could have made it clear that juries or no juries, certain things were NOT permitted on this site.
But you didn’t. You stood by and did nothing.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)This place had no moderators. Clear ToS and SoP violations.
You're right, NG.
Sad but true.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... but I agree.
And sure, people will say, "how do you know all this if you're not a sock." Well, first off, I have lurked here for years, mostly during major elections. Secondly two bogus time-outs and of course I'm going to learn fast.
Now, that being said, I think this looks to me like an issue of people just not having the time to run things, so here, have a jury system. I would like to see someone behind that jury system you could appeal to so that if people are just hiding things because they think you're being snarky or don't like you or don't like your candidate, they can't do that. But what do I know. I've only been here six weeks so I must have only just discovered the internet, graduated high school, just allowed to vote, am a sock, a paid troll, or whatever other fantasy someone wants to hang on me.
You are dead on and, frankly, brilliant.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)to come back in from their 5 hides...only to let them rack up even more.
The jury system works, skinner sats, until in conveniently "doesn't work" all of a sudden.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... many, many months ago that DU was 85% BSers - which meant 85% of the jury pool were BSers.
Yes, that really made for a "fair and balanced" jury system.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
The poor victim shit really gets old...especially since skinner is pro-Clinton.
If he were pro-Sanders and did the opposite it would still be wrong.
But he's not. He has a spouse tied up in Hillary's future so it makes what he's done highly suspect.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... have to do with 85% of the jury pool being BSers?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)but act as if they are: seeing every hide as an attack on their freedom to be aholes.
What you're telling me is that the 15% are poor misunderstood victims, but I have seen some of the transparency pages, and your hypothesis is bunk.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)many, many times.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... if you want to believe that juries consisting of 85% BSers didn't lead to more hides and timeouts for HRCers, that's your prerogative. The fact that it defies common sense shouldn't stop you.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)You are suggesting that...
1) Every time a poster is flagged for rude conduct that, when they are Clinton supporters, they are somehow poor victims of the tyrrany of the majority: never responsible for their own actions.
2) Every time a poster is flagged for rude behaviour that, when they are Clinton supporters, that they are somehow victims of only Sanders supporters on juries.
3) There is no possibility that juries may consist of supporters of Nartin O'Mally?
4) There is no possibility that juries may consist of non-Sanders supporters.
And the last for best...
Actions have consequences.
5) Every time a poster is flagged for rude behaviour that, when they are Clinton supporters, that they are somehow victims of only Sanders supporters on juries,and just somehow all those Sanders supporters are evil and untrustworthy assholes?
BTW: you have 4 hidden posts. I don't so own it, and stop with the victimization.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... that when 85% of the jury pool is made up of BS supporters, the chances of getting a "random jury" where the majority of the jurors are BS supporters is pretty much a given.
I understand that math is a problem for many BSers - but seriously, the numbers actually DO speak for themselves.
Have HRC supporters been given "hides" that were deserved? Absolutely. Have BSers been given a "leave" on some of the most vile posts imaginable? Absolutely.
The argument that just because 85% of the jury pool is comprised of BS supporters doesn't impact jury decisions is like saying that if a real life jury is comprised of 85% Evangelical Christians, an avowed atheist can expect a fair and impartial jury decision - or a woman charged with "murdering" a fetus via abortion can expect a fair jury decision when 85% of the jury pool consists of anti-choicers.
Jesus Hussein Christ. How anyone can hold to the idea that a jury pool made up of 85% Bernie supporters is going to result in "fair and balanced" jury decisions is just too utterly ridiculous for words.
The "victimization" screed is now being spewed by BSers - who, despite their majority here on DU, are whining about the fact that they are getting "hides". When you are 85% of the jury pool and you're STILL bitching about how unfair the jury system is, it's time to own-up to the fact that you believe the only "fair" jury system would exclude that 15% of HRCers who have the fuckin' nerve to be part of the "impartial" jury pool.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I don't have a problem with math inasmuch as the burgeoning "victim class" has a problem posting hit-n-run shit all day then whining like 5 year olds when caught doing so.
Don't engage in rhetorick that will earn you hides and you will be fine.
That's the common sense answer that is missing from your mathematical equation, friend.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts) stevenleser
(32,886 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)You have my sympathies.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)and your phantoms: victimization and accusation.
I don't post at JPR.
And frankly I am sick of the poor little old me routine.
I would ask that all the poor victims, who have been acting like assholes, to just grow up, but arguing with abusive sore winners never ends well.
Big hug now. Sleep well.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Nance never said those things nor did she come close to implying them.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)It takes a lot to ignore the truth and make up your own facts.
Poor team Victim.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)ibegurpard
(17,028 posts)Courtesy of your Canadian healthcare.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)ibegurpard
(17,028 posts)I realize that you are the kind of person that lacks the self-awareness to know how obscene it is to be sitting in a country where you have access to the kind of taxpayer provided benefits people in this country desperately need while actively supporting politicians who fight the efforts to give them those same benefits. I was born in Canada and know how incredibly different healthcare was there than here. You are leeching my birthright while denying your own countrymen the same. You literally make me sick.
I don't comment on your posts to try to make any kind of headway with you... I do so to show others what kind of person you are.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... where I have great healthcare. And this is my great sin? It is "obscene" for me to be here?
I am supporting politicians who are "fighting against" healthcare? Really? Name them.
I am "leeching your birthright"? You sound like a distraught character from a Bronte novel, or perhaps Austen in one of her darker moods.
I am "denying my own countrymen the same"? Sweet Jesus, I had NO idea just how powerful I am.
ibegurpard
(17,028 posts)Hillary Clinton
And you probably shouldn't be referring to universally - regarded classic authors...it just draws negative comparisons to your own literary shortcomings.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... is "fighting against" healthcare - and has been for decades.
Puleeze ...
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts) brer cat
(26,883 posts)The community standards should have been established by the owners and then enforced. The tone could have been changed long ago, but it had to be done by the owners, not random jurors.
akbacchus_BC
(5,813 posts)you do a great job, you and your colleagues. This place is wonderful. Kudos to all of you.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)Their opinion of me has done a 180 since they learned that I dislike Hillary Clinton even more than they do.
For the first time in 25 years we actually agree on a political topic.
Now, when they scream "she oughta be in jail", I respond "for life" and they all laugh and high five me.
Thanks to SOS Clinton we're a family again!
coyote
(1,561 posts)My trump supporting friend are closer than ever. We have a common enemy. Hillary has brought her enemies closer together and for that I am thankful.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts) bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ibegurpard
(17,028 posts)And has helped me realize how far this place has fallen and what a colossal waste of time it is to come here. The people that used to lead on progressive ideas left long ago and have been replaced by a bunch of nodding sycophants for the type of politicians the denizens of this site used to rail against. I have no doubt today's DU would be happily cheering on Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.
We are not friends and it has become apparent we never were. Nor does it appear we share the same goals or values. Enjoy your shrinking echo chamber.
andym
(5,926 posts)GDP has been a cesspool of bad feelings since its inception. In 2004, Dean, Clark and Edwards supporters were at each others throats. In 2008, mostly Obama and Clinton supporters carried out a very unpleasant war in GDP. This year it's as bad as ever with Bernie vs. Hillary. DU would be fine with groups for candidates like it has, where political strategies can be plotted. But discussions of candidate vs candidate should be eliminated from DU, outside the candidates' support groups. There mods should decide if opposing viewpoints are welcome. As a supporter of free speech, it saddens me to write that GDP is responsible for increasing the chances of people losing friends over politics and should be eliminated immediately.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Reading through all the posts I see people like myself who are task analyzers and just want to get shit done. Really. We want a better planet, better people, better jobs, all the stuff that's been listed ad infinitum. But, the others side, well let's all be friends. The relational group. Everybody just needs to get along. Generalities, happy talk, optimism, incremental steps like anybody knows what that means and honestly put downs on both sides out of frustration generally.
However, on one side is a clear meanness. I'm speaking to those of you with the comics of Bernie swirling down the drain and other such comics. The B side has "go Bernie" type messages and the Clinton side does have pro-clinton graphics, pics etc just like the Bernie side but some of you have really mean comics showing Bernie in mocking ways. I went back and couldn't find even one showing Hillary that way on any post. Perhaps you don't realize that with every post your are putting down Bernie. That's just in-your-face mean.
I have never like Michelle Goldberg. She does live in a rarified atmosphere and she is a true Hillary girl. She is on MSNBC frequently and I've found her to be extremely patronizing and superficial in her analysis. Seems like she's limited in a lot of ways.
But it was fun read. I can't imagine posting where I'm preaching to my own choir. I would like a place where information can be shared so I'm not constantly googling to find evidence for my posts! Hillary people, you don't have to worry about that. You never seem to need evidence.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... the one that comes to mind immediately is the animation Bernie popping the balloon with Hillary's face on it.
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)It's her run in the General we fear. We believe she will lose. Period.
Its funny, we get criticized for being glossy-eyed blind followers of Sanders and see stuff that isn't happening because we really like our candidate.
Only we feel that the Clinton Supporters are being even blind to the task ahead even worse.
If the Majority of Americans like her her approval numbers wouldn't be almost as low as Trumps.
We want to win.
Everyone wants to win.
We criticize so people can see how easy and how much there is to criticize.
It has nothing to do with how she pees.
And don't give me the bullshit stock answers about this primary.
We need Independents to win.
And we are chasing them off because Hillary wants the prize more than a junkie wants a fix.
Maybe its because I live in a Solid red state but I do know a lot of people who don't like her.
I went from stomaching and holding my nose for her to questioning my ability to even do that.
Since I live in Kansas my vote doesn't matter because Democrazy.
All in all it was an appropriate article and a good read. And I do agree with a lot of it.
The idea that impressions of people only exist in a small subculture is both 100% correct and 100% assumption IMHO.
And I really don't envy the Management here. Even though they are probably more or less supporting Clinton they have always been fair to me. I hold no ill will against anyone here.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)This primary was the same groups of people that hated each other before lining up behind a candidate.
The fighting will continue long after this election.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)To a poster these same folks have hated each other since I joined in 2003 and as a moderator from 2007-2010 I saw a lot.
Nothing has changed. Except the door was held open for socks and disrupters simply because of the candidate they support. Oh and that helped the tone here immensely.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)The topics change but the sides don't. And each topic is the most important thing in the world to the people involved whether it be the primary or Edward Snowden.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)boil it down I believe there are a lot of folks who like arguing on online forums. While I have thrown my fair share of snark around, I don't enjoy it. It makes me feel crappy and frankly I like feeling good. So I have kept pretty quiet during this primary.
People know who I support and I don't have a need to validate that to anyone, nor do I feel the need to rip on their candidate. Hillary isn't my choice but I'll survive.
pengu
(462 posts)If you supported Clinton, then we really have nothing in common.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)(For an explanation of the above paragraph, read some of the many sincere and intelligent posts by Sanders supporters on this site, who have been writing about it and documenting it for months now.)
I saw the author of the OP article on one of the MSNBC shows yesterday, not knowing any of her writing including this article, and I was not impressed. The first quote below from her article, seems to be in the right ballpark, but although correct enough as far as it goes, it falls short because she does not get the full meaning of the statement I just made in my subject line and first paragraph above. The reason she doesn't get it, I believe, is that she was born in 1975 which makes her the same age as my children. (I looked up her bio in several places.)
My children (like many others their age, fortunately) understand more than she does because they know that folks who lived during the time events took place, are a better source than books on the subject. And this comes back to what I saw on tv today. She is commenting on a subject she believes she understands, which she does not. Of course, she's not the only one doing the exact same thing today. But the fact remains that the destruction of FDR's Democratic party and its replacement with the Clintons' disgusting Third Way, is something she didn't live, as we older Dems have.
She didn't exist to experience what an FDR America was still rising to achieve after WW2, she didn't exist during Nixon's atrocities and what all of that meant to life at that time, and she was a kid during Reagan's tragic demolition of FDR America, just as she was a school student through the Clinton years and all the well-hidden corrosion that administration produced then and since. Many principal players in these tragedies still remain on the stage today, more such as Kissinger are still in the wings mentoring people like HRC, and certainly their ideas are still very much at the core of the continuing destruction going on now.
The victors write history. So the reality of those times, especially times of such repression and persecution (read the Church Committee findings, and my sig line), has never been written into history book or treatises on this-and-that, which are used to indoctrinate people like the author at institutions of higher propaganda like Berkeley and NYU.
Could we get some professionals in the political media and commentary realm who know these issues first hand? Could those of us who were there and politically aware be listened to at all before we all drive off of this cliff in front of us? What does it take to restore some semblance of reality to what we're doing here?
Us old people are trying to tell you (general "you" Dems) you're putting pedophiles in charge of the kindergarten -- do you give a damn? The answer would seem to be no, judging by Clinton's "inevitability".
I could understand this if, as is usually the case, there was no GOOD CHOICE among the choices. But the reason why this election is so telling, is that there IS ONE, and it is being rejected for the worst of the worst. Good God, people, quit pounding your social justice bullshit drum for 10 seconds and look at what is true. Information abounds. The responsibility for this next chapter of tragedy for America is squarely on the shoulders of those forcing us into this disgusting madness of putting the Clintons in the White House AGAIN. Oh. My. God.
Which brings us back to this site. I appreciate what you tried to do by posting this article, Skinner. But if there is a clamp down on Sanders posters here, I fear it really will for all intents and purposes end this site as we know it, and that would be a shame in my view. I HOPE you don't do that. If you must, I really hope you take the suggestion of IdaBriggs and others above, and clone this site for us original Dems, the FDR wing. I value this site, I value many of the people on it, and I would like to see its resources continue, in some fashion.
That's my two cents, for what it's worth. The quotes below are others from the article. Bolding mine.
...
The ideological divide between Sanders and Clinton, however, is much wider than that between Clinton and Barack Obama. The 2008 primary was a battle over representation, raw because it pit the first female candidate with a legitimate shot at the presidency against the first black one. There was not, however, much of a gap between what Clinton and Obama hoped to accomplish in office.
This year is different. It’s a split between liberalism and the left, between those who seek greater representation within the existing system and those who would replace it entirely. Liberals can’t understand why those to their left refuse to recognize that incremental progress is better than none, particularly given the intolerable danger of the modern GOP. Leftists are increasingly convinced that liberals, ever eager to compromise, aspire to nothing beyond a more diverse ruling class and are thus obstacles to revolution.
...
On the other side is Khaldoun Khelil, a 39-year-old of Palestinian-Algerian descent who is appalled to see some of his female friends overlooking Clinton’s awful rhetoric on Palestine.* “I’m a passionate supporter of women’s rights and other progressive ideals, but when I ask for the same support from them to stand behind me and Palestinians—suddenly I’m a Bernie Bro,” he says. Khelil feels personally wounded by the silence of his Clinton-supporting friends in the face of their candidate’s lopsided pro-Israel rhetoric. “It just turned my stomach,” he told me. “I think the bad feelings will persist. It showed me that I’m kind of a lower peer.”
...
Talking to people on both sides of the divide, I heard similar sentiments over and over. People thought their friendships were built on a shared worldview. They thought their friends respected their experiences, their judgments, and their identities. But the primary has revealed opposing priorities and, fundamentally, different apprehensions of reality. “I feel like I’m living in the Twilight Zone,” says Katie Halper, a writer, radio host, and outspoken Sanders supporter. To her, Clinton’s flaws are manifold and glaring, and watching fellow feminists deny them is driving her mad. “This is the first time I’ve ever felt gaslit in my life,” she adds.
...
Angie Aker, a 37-year-old web writer and progressive activist in Kenosha, Wisconsin...
“I’m not going to refuse to do business with Hillary supporters or start fights with them at our friends’ bridal showers, but neither will I ever forget that when they had a chance to vote for and support a truly progressive future for people worse off than them, they decided a neoliberal feminist-in-name-only getting her turn was more important,” she replied. “It will color the way I see them from here on out, as I’m sure the force with which I’ve spoken against their views will color how they see me.” With that last part, at least, Clinton supporters will surely agree.
"The river is high
And the bridges are burning
I know I've been hurt
But I keep on returning
I have traveled the paths of desire
Following smoke and remembering fire
The night is falling
The path is receding
I don't need to see it to know
Where it's leading"
("Paths of Desire", October Project)
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I blame media for that. The lack of diversity in broadcasting and the greed/profiteering.
And, to some extent, our educators who now are imprisoned by curriculums (out of Texas often) no longer valuing deep analysis because to some it smacks of teaching values. Well, we used to have similar values in this country but once money took over and greed became the heir apparent, our values are no longer similar. In Seattle an excellent teacher was transferred because after years of teaching and mentoring students in learning about social justice. He was on the front lines of addressing racism. Many of his students year after year decided to make social justice a life's journey and went on to college in that field. His teaching was rigorous and demanding. After years of teaching, one family complained about those demands and his program is gone. Simply gone.
Many students and families stood up for him but in this day and age of wimpy administrators, it was easier to just dismantle his program. One family. And those who stood up for him represented years and years of teaching.
That's where we are today. That's what makes Bernie so right. He remembers. He knows what we used to be. With his loss, I am feeling that it is hopeless. We are going to sink much lower before people finally wake up. I'm glad now I'm old because I have less time to endure the the journey down.
Just one more thing: how many times does Bernie or anybody have to message that other socialized countries can do it. We are the richest on the planet and we can't? Explain that one to me, please. It isn't rocket science.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Afraid to lose friends, afraid to speak out at work, afraid to lose out on access and money.
I am sure many friendships suffered at every moment of change for the better in this world. Despite the pleas to hush up.
DemonGoddess
(5,126 posts)always good reads, to inform the reader just what not to do IRL. Having said that, I've just finished reading all the comments.
There are some things that become glaringly apparent in those comments.
For some, in order to be a true "progressive", you can't support the candidate of your choice. You can't possibly be like I suspect many of us are, left of center, and be a Democrat. We're labeled as REPUBLICANS. God forbid someone openly admits to being centrist, that person will undoubtedly be deemed a right winger. Democrats come in all stripes, from ultra left, to the centrists, but we're all DEMOCRATS.
I've also seen where people who openly say that they are liberal, are somehow just not "progressive" enough. What the hell is that about? Those of us who are older I'm sure remember that the word used to be LIBERAL, and that progressive became the common usage after "liberal" became a dirty word to many, particularly those on the RIGHT.
Then, there are the blatant TOS violations, which is why I avoid GDP. I know that if I alert on it, nothing will happen. How do I know? I alerted on libertarian PAULITE sources, and the post was allowed to stay. Part of what the jury system was supposed to accomplish, was us self policing to ensure that the TOS was followed. It didn't work that way, which is why it is now being overhauled (I'm making a guess on that). I serve on juries all the time. There have been some for instances where I've cancelled my participation in the jury I was called to serve on, because I couldn't see myself being impartial for that particular jury. In instances such as that, I excuse myself from the jury. I've seen picture posts, where it was nothing at all snarky, or nasty, or anything LIKE that, hidden, because of who the poster supported. By the same token, I've seen calls for third party formation, calls to join a party that is not the Democratic party, ignored and allowed to stand, because of who the poster supported. Those third party things, by the way, are direct TOS violations. So we all know the jury system flatly doesn't work, at least not in the way I believe it was intended to.
I expect because I haven't been that participatory for a long time, that someone or another will come out with something negative because I have become much more active than I've ever been, this election cycle. Did it not ever occur to the people who make those attacks, that perhaps some of us had nothing to add to the conversation and so didn't say anything? Probably not.
Something else I've been seeing is this call for "Progressive Underground". You know what? This board is for electing DEMOCRATS. That many Democrats are very progressive SHOULD be something that is understood. That many Democrats are not ultra left, should also be understood. That doesn't mean that they're not progressive. That's just silly.
Finally, I've seen more RW smear jobs perpetuated on this board, than I ever have in all the years I've been here. It really needs to stop.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)The progressives should split from the Democratic Party they hate so much and create the Progressive Party, that way they can be like their counterparts on the right, the Tea Party. Don't get me wrong, I too am a progressive but I'm not a huge fan of loyalty pledges and I understand that the Democratic Party has a bug umbrella and can hold the gamut of Democrats--from centrist to leftist.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Really? Do you care about principles or labels? The democratic party is more right than the Republicans were int he fifties. What's with that?
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Yes, I care that the party has moved further right than I want it to be but this is because people, for the most part, don't get involved in local politics. It's also because of republican gerrymandering too.
If, we the people, aren't getting more progressive candidates to run, whose fault is that? If we can get more progressive candidates to run but can't get people to vote for them, whose fault is that?
The reality is, is that there are all kinds of Democrats in the Democratic Party--should those people not get the representation they want? People in the Midwest generally want a moderate Democrat to represent them--Claire McCaskill comes to mind. Should we instead run a more progressive candidate against her that won't get elected?
The other thing to consider is that, as a nation, we've become more conservative in some ways but as the older generation begins to die off, we're seeing that start to turn around--look at the huge support Sanders is getting. If Clinton wins the primary and then the General, I think the next Dem to run has to be more progressive than Sanders but at this moment, it seems the people want HRC.
As long as the Democratic Party gets to make the next 2-3 Supreme Court justice nominations, I'll be tickled pink--because that really is the most pressing issue before us because decisions made by that court can effect our lives much longer than our upcoming Presidential nominee will ever do.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)
Thanks for the image that conjured up!
stone space
(6,498 posts)Now, if I had more Trump supporters among my fiends to start with, then it might happen, I suppose.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,044 posts)Friends are lost due to posting an opinion? Or, if some friend calls me a "sellout" because I'm a HillBot or BernieBro, maybe they weren't such a friend, anyway.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)2016 promises to be about a little more than whose team wins, and that means tensions will also be higher.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)This is pretty much how most of my Sanders-supporting friends feel about our Hillary-supporting friends.
It's a value we believed was a shared value an so it is naturally disappointing to learn our values are not shared after all. It's like when you like someone, enjoy their company, share many views, and then you learn they are a racist or a homophobe or some other type of bigot - it makes you doubt whether you ever had all that much in common.
It's pretty cold comfort to try to patch things up with "hey, but we both still don't like Trump, right?"
If we nominate Hillary and Sanders endorses her, I'll vote for her with the same enthusiasm as I would vote for Kasich over Cruz or Trump if those were my only options.
demwing
(16,916 posts)then it's under the bus with progressives.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)aren't all that much Democratic Party material.
Just a little under half the voters in the next election will not be voting for Hillary. Why aren't you with them wherever that is?
Why you have to urinate in our sandbox?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)From a lot of comments from Hillary camp I kinda thought that's the way you all felt.
Good to know.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Personal histories for partisan goals as well as self identity...I don't think those were friends or allies to begin with
yardwork
(66,046 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)99.99999% of it by one group in particular who by and large left the realm of remotely rational discourse shortly after their candidate declared their intention to run.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)says the man with nine hides on his transparency page.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That's part of the leaving the realm of rational discourse. When they couldn't bully and shout down Clinton supporters here, they ganged up on them and silenced them via the jury system.
And of course you knew all of that. But thanks for playing.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Is that I've had three hides since I've been here, and except for the first one that was meant as a joke played off a previous post, that I should have put a sarcasm tag on, I deserved every one of them and willingly admit I did. And I deserved the first one for leaving off the sarcasm tag. It would have been better if I'd never said it anyway, because of the way someone might construe it.
The last one I even said if you hide my post you better hide the OP, and they did. Both. But I knew the last two were going to get hides and I was so pissed I posted them anyway. And yet they are nowhere near as nasty as some of the stuff I've seen Hill supporters say.
But every time you Hillary supporters wine and cry about how many hides you have, you almost never admit you deserved them. Any of them. And most of the ones I've checked out were just as deserved as mine...and many of them were so disgusting I can't believe the posters are still here.
Not only do you not see how nasty some of your (collectively) posts are, you even whine and cry when you get a hide for it. But as someone mentioned above, there are a lot of Hillary supporters who have no hides, much less a transparency page loaded with hides, and there are plenty of Sanders supporters who do have some hides, and even a few who have transparency pages of them. Those Sander's supporters usually go on my ignore button.
It's time to grow up and admit you (collectively) aren't nice all the time. Victimhood is so unseemly here. And crying about a hide, while you have a full page or more of transparencies...and crying about being locked out of a private group, where you probably said something that upset someone (and yes, both sides do it) are just sophomoric. Anyone can walk away and not subject themselves to what they read here.
there is one poster here (not you) who is always bashing Sanders' people. Every single post I've read of hers is bashing Sanders' people, and she does nothing but cry and whine about how nasty we are, without even realizing how nasty her posts come across.
Nobody here who gets hides is a victim. We ALL deserve them.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Sanders supporters weren't satisfied with 85% control of DU. That wasn't enough for them. They had to create JackPineRadicals where there is 100% Sanders support at all time. They couldn't stand to hear anything remotely pro Clinton.
It's that same mentality that caused this massive majority to abuse the jury system here so badly that Skinner had to step in and suspend the Five Hides in 90 days and You're Suspended policy.
All of which is pretty hilarious when you consider that Sanders supporters main attack on Clinton supporters is that we aren't progressive enough, but there is nothing more progressive than allowing another person the freedom to speak and be heard, and nothing more reactionary than plotting to deny them that opportunity.
So you can try the tactic of calling us victims, but the reality of JackPineRadicals and what it represents is something you can't explain away. Sanders supporters couldn't tolerate a single Clinton supporter and used the power of their large majority here to make that happen here as much as they could.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)in the AA group.
Using RW bullshit sources are part of THAT community's standards. Good riddance.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)fellow Sanders supporters on average would have to vote to agree that the post was over the top since on average between five and six jurors out of every seven seat jury are Sanders supporters.
So those Sanders folks who received a lot of hides the last few months? Yeah, your fellow Sanders supporters even thought you were over the top. Don't go blaming us Clinton supporters. We are a small minority of jurors pretty much every time.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)the offsite Hillary support forums were started first (one by George ...I think it's referred to as the Hill cave?...and one by Skinner), so they wouldn't have to listen to Sanders' supporters, and at the Hill cave, were they could privately bash Sanders and his supporters to their hearts' content. They have hidden areas where you can't see what they say just for that purpose. And they even coordinated attacks to try to get Bernie members timed out. As far as I know Bernie camp does not have anything like that.
JackPineRadicals was started because of people being banned at DU for not conforming to the TOS...in other words a place where all discussion was allowed without penalty, even discussion about "Gasp" people saying they would not vote for Hillary, no matter what if she won the primary.
JackPineRadicals is not just for dems who support Bernie (some of whom refused to vote for Hillary, but were banned for saying so), but for independents too,who were either being driven to silence on DU, or tombstoned for speaking their minds. We lost too many good people, so we created a place where they could go and be safe.
But I wouldn't even imagine you would understand this, because you can only think of "bad" reasons why JPR was started. Because people tend to think others are doing what they themselves would do.
Oh, and nasty threads about DU and it's members are not allowed at JPR. No hidden forums where people can talk nasty or organize attacks. You are welcome to read the forums, but I don't think you'd be welcome as a member (but then we aren't welcome at the Hill forums either). Wish I could say the same for the Hillary forums. Someone from your side even went so far as to create the Jackassradicals spoof forum to say really disgusting things about Bernie supporters. And I mean disgusting. But there were some pretty disgusting things being said over at the Hill cave too, before they realized we could read it and they had to hide it.
There really is no comparison to the way Bernie Supporters and Hillary supporters behave. Yes, both sides have claimed the victim card at times, but it's pretty constant with the Hill camp, and it's the Hill camp that came out of the gate first calling Bernie supporters, racists and misogynists and sexist...and while that has quieted down some, it's still there.
You can make up any preposterous complaint you want Steve, but the truth is out there. You are not victims. You deserve everything you get. You could have started a cleaner debate here...but you started with a bloody war, so I don't know what you expected.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The problem for you is, there is a crap ton more posters at Jackpine than there are folks who have been banned here since the primaries began. It's not about those people. It's about intolerance and needing to not have anyone be pro-Clinton.
And sure, there are pro-Hillary websites started here. Specifically because Clinton supporters are a small minority here and have been alert stalked. Wanting your own space is kind of understandable if you are a 15% minority and have a contentious relationship with the 85% majority.
It's not understandable when you are the 85% majority. You can try and spin it anyway you want, you can't spin away that level of intolerance.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)JPR was supposed to be started so just a few people could go over there and talk to each other by themselves? How rude. No, it was started so any of us could go over there and talk about things we could not talk about here (like maybe not voting for Hillary if she wins the primary...a lot of people are thinking that way, but they can't talk about it here), and it was started, so we could reunite with our friends who had been banned from DU. So how could we reunite with them if they don't get to come back to DU? Oh wait...that's what JPR is for.
It was open for everyone, not just those few who were banned. It was also started because any time we tried to have a positive thread about Bernie on DU, that wasn't in the Bernie group, it was invaded by Hillary supporters and turned into an ugly fight. So, just like Skinner's Hillary support group where people could support Hillary without ugly interruptions, we now had a Bernie group too. The thing we made sure we didn't do is turn it into a Bernie cave were we could hate on Hillary supporters from DU, like the Hillary cave group does. You see, THAT is intolerance. And if we were so intolerant that we couldn't stand DU, then why are all of us still posting on DU? At least I believe most of us are.
You just keep projecting your feels all over the place and trying to make us into what you are and it's not going to work. I'm done with this game. Maybe I'm becoming intolerant of talking to someone who isn't really ready to have a conversation...just a neener neener contest. So bye...it's been fun...NOT!
Zorra
(27,670 posts)me she voted for Clinton.
I'm still friends with her. Kind of. But I will never look at her the same way. I don't care what her reasons were. There are no valid reasons for anyone with a heart to vote for Clinton instead of Bernie, just as there are no valid reasons for anyone with a heart to vote for a Republican.
She's very well off economically. I now see her as more like the few Republican acquaintances and family members that I associate with, who are also very well off economically.
I have yet to see a single Clinton supporter, on DU or anywhere else, express what I consider a valid reason for voting for Clinton over Bernie
The disparity in comprehensive universal awareness between Bernie and Clinton is enormous, just as this disparity between Bernie and Trump, or Cruz is enormous. The difference between profound and shallow, the difference between authentic and plastic, the difference between wise and ignorant.
So, after much reflection on my friend voting for Clinton, I have concluded that we simply have very different value systems, and that this difference means that I cannot ever trust her enough to be any closer to her than shallow friendly acquaintances.
Because she's deliberately voting to deny my grandchildren the possibility for the critical progressive social, political, economic, and environmental changes that will guarantee my children, and my grandchildren, a future.
In my world, this makes us natural enemies.
All in all, she's just another brick in their wall.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)It's true that my relationship with my own party has been ruined...but it was on the rocks before this primary season.
It's true that I've developed a deeper antipathy for Hillary Clinton than I had before, and I've disliked her since my first exposure back in the early 90s.
It's true that I've lost some respect for many of her supporters; but I didn't know them well enough to call them friends to begin with.
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)Or is it illustrations, posturing and opportunity?