HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Critique of HRC From Bern...

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 06:48 AM

Critique of HRC From Bernie Supporters Shouldn't Lead to the Phrase 'You Sound Like A Republican!"

Critique of Hillary From Bernie Supporters Shouldn't Lead to the Phrase 'You Sound Like A Republican!'
by H. A. Goodman
8/19/2015

....big Snip....

...This divide between Hillary and Bernie camps is growing, and it's still 447 days away from Election Day. Thus far, I've already "unfriended" two people from Facebook, I've succumb to endless Twitter debates, and I've done my best to convince (successfully, I might add) friends and family that Bernie is far better for Democrats and the country than Clinton. However, this battle for the soul of the Democratic Party isn't merely a vapid clash of old regime against progressives tired of Democrats who vote for wars, own personal servers, can't answer simple questions about Keystone XL, and promote unfair trade deals 45 separate times.

No, this liberal infighting isn't only about competing allegiances. It's about values, communication style (one candidate answers questions directly, the other uses semantics as a shield), regulating Wall Street, a debate over Clinton's aggressive foreign policy and Bernie's recent Congressional Award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the future of the Democratic Party. Will the cold "pragmatism" of Clinton's past become our progressive future, or will the Racial Justice Platform of Bernie Sanders and his willingness to break up the banks emerge as the next era of liberal politics?

Ultimately, the supporters of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have two opposing mentalities. Many Clinton voters believe that any critique of Clinton's scandals should be linked to either Benghazi, or a right wing conspiracy to undermine the Clintons. These supporters usually warn others about never criticizing Hillary Clinton, since often times the belief exists that Bernie Sanders can't possibly win a general election, and any critique would only be used against the "eventual" nominee.

...Snip...

Inevitably on the part of Clinton supporters, any honest critique, even from a liberal Democrat, leads to the following rebuttal:

"You sound like a Republican!"

Or, my personal favorite, simply one word that summarizes the viewpoint of many Clinton supporters when presented with a logical critique:

"Benghazi!"

....Snip...According to an article in The Hill titled Clinton probe tests FBI chief, even the FBI must defend itself from accusations of partisanship:....

....Snip...

...Therefore, is it rational to call the FBI a partisan agency intent on ensuring Bernie Sanders wins at the expense of Hillary Clinton?

Is the FBI acting like a Republican?......

Plenty more to read here~
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/critique-of-hillary-from-bernie-supporters-shouldnt-lead-to-the-phrase_b_8007684.html

170 replies, 7682 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 170 replies Author Time Post
Reply Critique of HRC From Bernie Supporters Shouldn't Lead to the Phrase 'You Sound Like A Republican!" (Original post)
RiverLover Aug 2015 OP
CanadaexPat Aug 2015 #1
RiverLover Aug 2015 #3
LineLineReply .
mmonk Aug 2015 #14
Post removed Aug 2015 #21
SidDithers Aug 2015 #2
DanTex Aug 2015 #4
RiverLover Aug 2015 #5
sibelian Aug 2015 #60
DanTex Aug 2015 #61
sibelian Aug 2015 #70
DanTex Aug 2015 #76
sibelian Aug 2015 #78
druidity33 Aug 2015 #163
Gothmog Aug 2015 #126
Dawson Leery Aug 2015 #166
sufrommich Aug 2015 #6
RiverLover Aug 2015 #7
JoePhilly Aug 2015 #141
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #8
zeemike Aug 2015 #10
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #12
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #15
RiverLover Aug 2015 #17
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #19
RiverLover Aug 2015 #20
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #29
RiverLover Aug 2015 #33
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #84
Bobbie Jo Aug 2015 #89
zeemike Aug 2015 #25
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #28
zeemike Aug 2015 #32
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #38
zeemike Aug 2015 #48
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #50
zeemike Aug 2015 #73
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #80
zeemike Aug 2015 #86
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #87
zeemike Aug 2015 #106
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #110
zeemike Aug 2015 #119
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #121
zeemike Aug 2015 #124
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #125
Armstead Aug 2015 #59
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #67
Armstead Aug 2015 #68
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #69
Armstead Aug 2015 #83
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #85
dreamnightwind Aug 2015 #167
jeff47 Aug 2015 #36
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #41
jeff47 Aug 2015 #43
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #49
RiverLover Aug 2015 #54
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #62
jeff47 Aug 2015 #55
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #56
jeff47 Aug 2015 #57
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #71
jkbRN Aug 2015 #109
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #112
jkbRN Aug 2015 #113
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #120
jkbRN Aug 2015 #132
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #138
jkbRN Aug 2015 #140
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #143
jkbRN Aug 2015 #145
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #149
jkbRN Aug 2015 #150
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #155
jkbRN Aug 2015 #156
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #162
jkbRN Aug 2015 #164
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #165
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #42
cosmicone Aug 2015 #74
jkbRN Aug 2015 #111
Bradical79 Aug 2015 #37
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #40
Bradical79 Aug 2015 #93
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #96
sibelian Aug 2015 #63
rock Aug 2015 #9
phleshdef Aug 2015 #11
EEO Aug 2015 #13
RiverLover Aug 2015 #16
Cherry Creek Native Aug 2015 #24
RiverLover Aug 2015 #52
mymomwasright Aug 2015 #18
jalan48 Aug 2015 #22
JoePhilly Aug 2015 #30
jalan48 Aug 2015 #35
JoePhilly Aug 2015 #44
jalan48 Aug 2015 #45
JoePhilly Aug 2015 #94
jalan48 Aug 2015 #122
JoePhilly Aug 2015 #128
jalan48 Aug 2015 #131
JoePhilly Aug 2015 #134
jalan48 Aug 2015 #135
JoePhilly Aug 2015 #139
jalan48 Aug 2015 #161
JoePhilly Aug 2015 #169
jalan48 Aug 2015 #170
marble falls Aug 2015 #23
Fuddnik Aug 2015 #26
kath Aug 2015 #31
RiverLover Aug 2015 #39
ibegurpard Aug 2015 #65
Amimnoch Aug 2015 #27
jeff47 Aug 2015 #34
RiverLover Aug 2015 #51
Metric System Aug 2015 #46
RiverLover Aug 2015 #53
Cosmocat Aug 2015 #47
Post removed Aug 2015 #58
sibelian Aug 2015 #64
cherokeeprogressive Aug 2015 #81
Armstead Aug 2015 #66
seabeyond Aug 2015 #72
Romulox Aug 2015 #77
seabeyond Aug 2015 #82
Bradical79 Aug 2015 #97
seabeyond Aug 2015 #99
Bradical79 Aug 2015 #100
seabeyond Aug 2015 #102
Post removed Aug 2015 #104
seabeyond Aug 2015 #107
Bradical79 Aug 2015 #123
seabeyond Aug 2015 #127
seabeyond Aug 2015 #103
Bradical79 Aug 2015 #105
seabeyond Aug 2015 #108
Warren DeMontague Aug 2015 #98
seabeyond Aug 2015 #101
Warren DeMontague Aug 2015 #114
seabeyond Aug 2015 #115
Warren DeMontague Aug 2015 #116
seabeyond Aug 2015 #118
Warren DeMontague Aug 2015 #146
AgingAmerican Aug 2015 #129
seabeyond Aug 2015 #130
AgingAmerican Aug 2015 #133
seabeyond Aug 2015 #137
AgingAmerican Aug 2015 #142
seabeyond Aug 2015 #144
Warren DeMontague Aug 2015 #147
seabeyond Aug 2015 #117
Lancero Aug 2015 #157
d_legendary1 Aug 2015 #75
Lancero Aug 2015 #158
MaggieD Aug 2015 #79
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #88
MaggieD Aug 2015 #90
seabeyond Aug 2015 #92
seabeyond Aug 2015 #91
JoePhilly Aug 2015 #95
MaggieD Aug 2015 #168
emulatorloo Aug 2015 #136
Warren DeMontague Aug 2015 #148
Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #151
HassleCat Aug 2015 #152
NanceGreggs Aug 2015 #153
HFRN Aug 2015 #154
Lancero Aug 2015 #159
HFRN Aug 2015 #160

Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 07:00 AM

1. That sounds like something a Republican would say...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanadaexPat (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 07:08 AM

3. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanadaexPat (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:46 AM

14. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanadaexPat (Reply #1)


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 07:06 AM

2. Depends on the "critique"...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 07:09 AM

4. This is hilarious coming from H.A. Goodman, a Rand Paul supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to DanTex (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:06 AM

60. Who gives a TOSS whether or not he supports Rand Paul?


How is that even slightly relevant to the point?

Do you HAVE a counterpoint?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #60)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:08 AM

61. I guess the irony of a Rand Paul supporter bashing Hillary and then insisting

that Hillary-bashers don't sound like Republicans is lost on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #61)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:39 AM

70. Yeeeeeah.


See, DanTex, it is possible to criticise an individual from differing perspectives. The individual being criticised need not be criticised for the same things from different people from these two differing perspectives.

This being the case, whatever "irony" you perceive in someone who criticises Hillary stating that someone else crticising Hillary from a different stance isn't criticising them the way THEY are stems from your oversensitivity to criticism of Hillary in general rather than anything between the two critical stances that is actually comparable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #70)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:50 AM

76. Which is ironic, coming from a Rand Paul fan.

I mean, here's a guy pretending to be one of the "good" Hillary bashers, and yet he's a Rand Paul supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #76)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:53 AM

78. ...meaning what?


Maybe you just don't know what "irony" means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #76)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:57 PM

163. It sounds like

he's a Bernie supporter now.

"Thus far, I've already "unfriended" two people from Facebook, I've succumb to endless Twitter debates, and I've done my best to convince (successfully, I might add) friends and family that Bernie is far better for Democrats and the country than Clinton."

Might lend credence to the idea that Bernie can draw I, L and occasionally R votes.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:32 PM

126. The irony is hard to miss

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:43 PM

166. Ann Coulter and Rand Paulbots are now being used

by the left to assault Hillary. Sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 07:15 AM

6. I wonder what this dude's DU name is? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 07:18 AM

7. I actually wondered that myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:37 PM

141. For a chuckle ...

... check the subthread I'm in down below.

Apparently Hillary can't be President because Bill got a BJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:10 AM

8. If the OP's are directly linked to RW media talkers and sites....then can we say "you sound like

a Republican"?

Please, pretty please, can we then??

If anyone fails to see the connection between the Bengazhi GOP driven propaganda and the current EGazhi GOP driven propaganda.....then no one can help you get out of that tunnel of vision.

Hint: each had not one scintilla of evidence anything was done wrong.....not one scintilla...it is all about the goose chas, no one actually cares much about catching the bird, as long as it is kept on the run.....no thanks from me for Democrats willing to join in on the chase and ally with Republicans...no thanks at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:34 AM

10. What connection is that?

You mean the emails never happened?...she did not have a private server?
Benghazi is now the straw man to protect her from responsibility...now that is acting like a Republican IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #10)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:42 AM

12. "You sound like a Republican"...thanks for the confirmation!

Anyone refusing to see the connection between similar propaganda blitzes...no one can help the willfully blind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #10)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:52 AM

15. I guess you failed to see...

 

I know, it's shocking that the SOS would have emails on... wait for it.... an email server!!!... ZOMG!!! I mean, come on what was she thinking!!! doing exactly what her predecessors did!!1!!1! It almost like she was following SOP!!1!!!!

And we haven't nearly investigated BenGAAAAHHHHHZIII!!!!1!!! enough yet. Only umpteen investigations have not found zilch to report. We obviously need to spend millions more on dozens of new media investigation.

When someone comes up with nothing other than GOP witch hunt talking points as a "critique", how is one supposed to distinguish said person from a GOP attack troll? If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, one is supposed to believe that it ISN"T a duck, because it happens to be on the left side of the road?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:54 AM

17. No other federal official has EVER conducted all govt business on a private email server stored in

their house.

Its corrupt from the start.

As Democrats, that should bother ALL of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #17)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:59 AM

19. No other federal official has been the spouse of a former POTUS

 

and had a server available for use, set up for a former POTUS, and secured by Secret Service presence.

What was your point again? Oh yeah, you prefer someone other than Clinton, and any GOP talking point is good enough for you.

Quack, quack.

I'm sure the Sanders Supporters will see me as a Clinton loyalist. And the Clinton supporters would see me as a Bernie Bot, (if there were any right wing attacks on Sanders). I'm not yet supporting a Dem candidate, but I'm very much AGAINST using right wing attacks to tear down Democratic candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #19)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:08 AM

20. Utter BS. That's been debunked.

For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house.

The inquiries by the FBI follow concerns from government officials that potentially hundreds of e-mails that passed through Clinton’s private server contained classified or sensitive information. At this point, the probe is preliminary and is focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-looks-into-security-of-clintons-private-e-mail-setup/2015/08/04/2bdd85ec-3aae-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html


But I understand why you're confused. The Hill camp spins out a lot of BS. Its hard to know what's real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #20)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:35 AM

29. You claimed "It is corrupt from the start." WTF? Please cite your charges.

 

What illegalities exactly are you claiming have been committed? What charges should be used to prosecute SOS Clinton?

Or are you just parroting right wing talking points to "support" your choice of candidate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #29)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:47 AM

33. You sound like a Republican!!

/nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #33)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 12:53 PM

84. Nah, I sound like someone is accusing someone of blindly parroting right wing talking points.

 



I'm curious, why bother including "/nt" in the body of your post? I've seen it used on the subject line to indicate there is nothing in the body, but placing in the body means that one would have to open the body (or be viewing all) to see that there is nothing in the body. As such it would mean something like "This space left intentionally blank"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #33)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 01:56 PM

89. Unresponsive

that wasn't even a decent snarky comeback.

Questioning the parroting of RW talking points isn't "sounding like a Republucan."

There's a simple solution, stop parroting RW talking points and the accusations will stop.

Simple...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:24 AM

25. What you mean all SOS have email servers in their house

where they conduct government busniness?...well I did not know that so chock it up to ignorance on my part.
See I thought that would present a security problem...you know like a housekeeper could hack it and sell the information to China or something....but what do I know?

And I forgot the law that says if there is one phony scandal it means they are all phony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #25)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:35 AM

28. You are late to the game. What other SOS have had 24/7 Secret Service protecting every aspect

 

of their household? You know like everyone entering the house being screened? I would guess that you know that you support a different candidate and believe that attacking another candidate with right wing bargle is a good thing,

Even though your candidate would not approve...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #28)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:45 AM

32. Yes I know, all criticism is and attack.

And must be right wing.
As long as we have a boogie man to blame it on nothing can be said that is not an attack. Triangulation is imposable without one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #32)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:54 AM

38. Calm down. Breath. Spell Check.

 

A "critique" consisting of nothing other than right wing talking points is indistinguishable from a right wing attack. Why would any rational person be surprised at that. If all one has to offer is right wing attacks, they are, effectively, a right wing troll.

From what I have seen, Sanders and Clinton have avoided attacking one another. Why is it that their supporters, who claim to love their candidates standards, see fit to do exactly the opposite, and attack?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #38)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:14 AM

48. Because someone has to say it.

Silence allows people to get away with things they should not get away with.

I don't want or expect Sanders to do it...I expect him to talk about the important issues this country faces. And because he has not been lured into that trap of personalizing it the issues are front and center.

But I have no such constraints, and feel it is appropriate to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #48)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:21 AM

50. Ah, so you claim to be Sander's attack dog.

 

How are we to know that you are not the Clown Car's attack dog?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #50)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:44 AM

73. criticism is not the same as attack.

Although I understand you see them as the same thing.

And I don't play that with us or against us game...made famous by Bush.
No need to point out the fallacies of a clown car...it is self evident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #73)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:57 AM

80. If the worded exactly the same, they are the same thing.

 

I believe I have been clear on this point.

A "critique" that contains nothing but right wing points is exactly the same as a right wing attack.

There is no way to tell them apart.

There are ways to contrast and compare candidates without just parroting talking points, but those have been relatively rare as of late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #80)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 01:10 PM

86. So in other words all you need to dismiss a critique is

pointing out that a right winger said it too.
That indeed is a powerful tool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #86)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 01:23 PM

87. So you believe one should accept a right wing attack, if it is sent on DU?

 

Yes, that is indeed a powerful tool to attack those that the right wing is also attacking.

I'll repeat one more time.

If a post contains nothing but Right Wing Talking Points, how is one to determine if it is a "Critique" or an "Attack"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #87)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:08 PM

106. No I believe you should accept facts regardless of who has used them before.

But a post of facts could contain "nothing but Right Wing Talking Points" if the right wing also used them...thus they have the power to nulify the facts just by using them...acording to you.

Example...HRC had a server in her home and conducted State Department business on it and it presented a security threat.
That is a fact, and just because a right winger said it does not change that fact or deminish it in any way.
If you want to argue that it is no big deal go ahead, but don't tell us it is bullshit because the right said it too.

You are seting up a false dichotomy...it is true only if the right does not use it...and they are alwasy wrong and we are always right...with us or against us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #106)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:20 PM

110. Your's is just as false.

 

The end result of of emailgate will likely be the same as Bengahzigate and the same as all the other right wing attacks on the Clintons. zip, zilch, nadah. At this point, they don't even care as long as they can grab headlines. Harold Watson Gowdy, III is failing to even be able to get on page B43.

Millions spent on try dig up some dirt, any dirt to inject in to the news cycle.

Your example contains some non-fact. Claiming that is was security threat requires some proof to make it a fact. That is, at best, conjecture at this point. We are going to spent millions to determine if it was or not, thanks to a GOP compulsion to try to damage the Clintons in any way possible.

The fact that you are repeating that conjecture, without a shred of documentation, is indistinguishable from a right wing attack. Facts don't matter to the right wing, and apparently to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #110)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:39 PM

119. "Claiming that is was security threat requires some proof"

What proof would satisfy you?...the words of experts? or are they in on that right wing smear too? But are you saying it is not a problem unless you can prove the information was stolen?

Sorry but for me as a non expert on security it seems obvious, Not to mention that if you are doing government business it should be on a government server not one in your home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #119)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:53 PM

121. Hey, that would be good. Or the prosectors that have indicted Clinton.

 

Oh wait, no one has. If you are going to make a claim, be prepared to back it up. Simply parroting nothing right wing talking points is basically doing the right wing's bidding. Is that such a hard concept to understand?



Seriously? Claiming that something you admit to not knowing anything about is obvious...

"Your honor, we call the next witness."

"What is you expertise in this matter?"

"I don't know tha first damn thing about it, but I knows I don't like tha defendant..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #121)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:17 PM

124. Security risks are not determined in a court of law.

If they are then you miss the point of risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #124)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:22 PM

125. You have consistently missed my point.

 

And have tried to distract and divert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #38)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:05 AM

59. You are missing the point -- ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY

 

I do not know if all the smoke arising from investigations by executive branch and law enforcement agencies are going to find any fie of actual wrongdoing or illegality on Clinton's part.

It can be -- and is -- totally debatable.

Maybe nothing maybe something in the legal sense.

But just dismissing all questions, criticisms, and even unfounded use of it as an attack by supporters her primary opponents and other critics is not merely "echoing Republican talking points" or engaging in GOP smears or "being right wing" or anything else of that nature.

That is just an all purpose "shut-down" tactic.

The fact that GOP criticism happens to coincide has nothing to do with the legitimate questions or criticism. Nothing.

What? If a Republican said "The sun rises in the East" and a Democrat repeated and agreed with with that, does that make the Democrat a "right winger" or GOP stooge. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I totally disagree with and disapprove of Ron Paul (and Randy boy) on many, many things. But I did totally agree with Ron Paul's outspoken opposition to the Iraq War. He spoke for me lot more than Democrats like Clinton, in that situation on that issue.

Does pointing that out, and saying Paul turned out to be correct and Clinton was wrong make me a riught wing stooge, or a secret Republican? Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #59)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:15 AM

67. Actually, you are missing the point.

 

Reasonable debate is one thing. Parroting nothing but talking points can not be differentiated from the words of a right wing troll.

And face it, much of what passes for debate is just rewarmed pablum that someone heard somewhere else and modified to better suit their biases.

Like I said, one that walks like a duck, looks like a duck and spreads nothing but duck shit should not be surprised or offended if they are mistaken for a duck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #67)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:22 AM

68. Republicans in 2009 -- "We do not like Obama's proposed health care plan."

 

Many Democrats and other liberals/progressives 2009 -- "We do not like Obama's proposed health care plan."

They were tarred with the same bullshit back then. "Oh you're just spouting GOP right wing talking points and hate Obama."

The fact that the left opponents of the ACA were opposed to it for completely different (and opposite) reasons than the GOP/right wing made no difference to some.

"The GOP is against it You're against it. Therefore you are spouting right wing GOP talking points."

Such uses of it is not "reasoned debate."



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #68)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:31 AM

69. So your point is that an apple is not an orange?

 

Read my lips? (keystokes...)

if ALL one is saying is right wing talking points, they can not be distinguished from a paid, right wing troll.


If one opposes the same thing, but for different reasons, but uses NOTHING but the other team's reasons, there is no way to tell they are not on the other team.

I am not "some". Please don't try to group me with with others chosen to bolster your view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #69)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 12:24 PM

83. You made a generaization, so did I. I know we are all individuals

 

No "side" in a debate ought to just dismiss criticism as that. It's always context.

In some cases certain labeling is inevitable. For example, If I say Clinton's economic policies are too similar to Republican ones, that is a valid point, though I should be required to explain what I mean specifically if challenged.

However saying someone is only supporting Clinton because they are a right winger, is a different matter, That's just a blatant smear and the equivalent of "red baiting."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #83)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 01:04 PM

85. No, I was quite specific. If one has nothing but RW talking points,

 

one is, for all intents and purposes, a right wing troll, based on that one post. The context is that one post.

That's a counter to the OP, which BTW, is quoting a right wing source.

I notice that you are trying to divert and talk about supporting rather than attacking. Changing the context does not change my argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #67)


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #28)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:52 AM

36. Feel free to point out how they stationed the Secret Service between the server and the Internet.

Also, tell us again how secure it was despite leaving the default VPN keys installed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #36)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:59 AM

41. I'm sorry, I thought the beef was the physical location of the server.

 

Since you did not pick that up from the previous poster, I'm not sure you have a good grasp on the conversation. Feel free to jump in with some more ridiculous right wing talking points, but don't be surprised if that is seen as a right wing attack.

BTW, Bernie wouldn't approve of your actions...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #41)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:04 AM

43. No, one beef is with the security of the server

Which includes both its physical security and its network security.

Then there's the beefs over the obvious reason for the server - control. Nothing gets out of it without Clinton's approval.

Then there's the TS/SCI information found on it. A government peon who sends classified via their personal email gets in deep shit, but why on Earth would Clinton be held to the same standard?

Feel free to jump in with some more ridiculous right wing talking points

Don't you hate it when reality has a political bias? It's so annoying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #43)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:19 AM

49. Don't you hate when you find out that you are spouting Right WingTalking Points

 

You claim that you have insight into Clinton's SOS organization? You were involved in the decisions? Or did you just pull that out of your ass/the right wing press?

Bottom line, so far in this thread, you are indistinguishable from a paid, right wing troll. I'd bet you aren't, but when all you have is right wing bargle, you sound like a duck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #49)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:31 AM

54. I hate when we hand facts over to them which can be used as RW talking points.

Unlike BS like Benghazi or Obama being Kenyan...Now we have a front-runner who has just given them true crap to fling on a platter.

Facts & truth are supposed to be progressive points. Its something new to the rethugs. Ticks me off to no end the DNC has done this, making HRC the anointed one. Its better the worse facts come out now though, than after the primaries. If she goes down during the run-up to the GE, the country will be truly f*ked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #54)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:09 AM

62. " If .... goes down during the run-up to the GE, the country will be truly f*ked."

 

As it will be if the nominee, who ever it is, goes down. That's why I am opposed to Democrats attacking Democrats.

The GOP will invent a scandal that serves their purpose, just as they are currently doing.

Whatever your preference, the Clintons have been the subject of national Right Wing attack for going on 30 years, Sanders has been an Independent until recently. That's a negative for Sanders, he is virtually untested by GOP dirty tricks.

On the plus side, Sanders' policies appeal to me more than Clinton's.

See, there a contrast and compare does doesn't just parrot right wing talking points.

Whoever gets the nomination MUST win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #49)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:34 AM

55. No. I claim to read.

And plenty of sources looked into the network security of her email server, since it's trivial to do. You can go to it right now: http://clintonemail.com

(Tip to Clinton campaign - might be a good idea to put a web server there that points to your defense of the email issue.)

That only requires understanding the basics of network security. There's no need to understand anything about Clinton's SOS organization or decisions.

As for why it's obviously about control, there was no reason to set up her own server if it was only about convenience (convenience being her stated reason). It's a lot harder to set up her own server, and a lot harder to configure her client devices. Sign up for a gmail account instead. Easy, and all the clients are written to access it out-of-the-box.

You don't even have to worry about making a typo on your mail server. See, someone registered clintonmail.com (no "e" between the n and m). Accidentally make that typo, and you just sent your username and password to a random person on the Internet.

Lastly, I had a security clearance, so I am familiar with SECRET versus TS/SCI, what the rules are, and what sort of things land in each bucket. I'm also quite familiar with what happens to nameless government peons who send TS/SCI from their personal accounts, having gotten to watch someone lose their job over it.

Now, tell me again how reality is exactly like a right-wing troll. It really demonstrates just how much you actually understand what's going on, and how much you are shoving your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALALALALA".

Heck, maybe you could take a moment to explain why Obama is trying to hurt Clinton's campaign?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #55)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:43 AM

56. You win, you were secret agent spy man.

 

you aren't just spouting right wing agenda, you aren't a paid wing wing troll, you aren't ignoring facts inconvenient to your predetermined outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #56)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:47 AM

57. Hardly. I was a random peon working for a contractor.

But even random peons are trained in what classified information is and how to treat it.

you aren't ignoring facts inconvenient to your predetermined outcome.

Feel free to point out the facts I'm ignoring. So far, all you've pointed out is "You weren't there!!!" as if that was required.

Also, why is Obama trying to destroy Clinton's campaign? It's his FBI and DNI investigating this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #57)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:40 AM

71. OK, so you weren''t as good as you appeared. Sorry for thinking you were something that you were not

 

How about that there is yet no proven material that would be a crime to have on the server? Kinda inconvenient, that. There a couple hundred emails, out of millions, that they want to review. But note that have not claimed that they do indeed contain material that was was classified at the time the email was sent. They even leaked some of the emails and made big black marks through them, as it would certainly be stupid to reveal anything classified. If they leaked stuff without redaction that would collapse their argument totally.

And note that "they" is the GOP....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #41)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:11 PM

109. Server, server, server

is the problem. It is unprecedented and negligent that she decided to use a home email server. Many people will jump and scream "Powell used one as SOS!!!" Half true, Powell used a personal email but not a personal SERVER. Servers, if not handled correctly can be easily compromised. I am a supporter of HRC (second to Bernie), but realize the fact that her using a personal server is negligent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #109)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:24 PM

112. FUD. ZOMG!!! It's a SERVER!!!!1!!1!

 

They can't possibly be set up by anyone ever!!! They are scary!!! There's like, more. and stuff... and IT"S A SERVER!!!1!!!1!!

The fact that you don't know what it takes to set up a server and your fear of them, does not impress me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #112)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:28 PM

113. First of all,

my boyfriend works in IT specializing in network security and cryptography. Also, my brother is a lawyer--please take your temper tantrum elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #113)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:43 PM

120. Oh sorry, you mistook my mocking for a temper tantrum.

 

So when your boyfriend joins up and has something to post, or you brother weighs in with a opinion, that will be discussed.

In the meantime, I'll point out your apparent lack of any substantial knowledge on the topic you are posting about, and your fears, uncertainties, and doubts. Take those elsewhere, or post something you DO know about.

Oh, and my dad is bigger than your dad, so there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #120)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:01 PM

132. Lol,

your tactics are sad.

If you had a viable response to negligence (and yes, criminal negligence is an enforceable law), I would take you and you responses seriously.

But, you just come off as ignorant and pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #132)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:25 PM

138. Ignorant and Pathetic! Thanks, that was just the phrase I was looking for to describe your posts.

 

Griping about something you don't know about, claiming knowledge by virtue of of dating some guy and having a brother who is a lawyer.

Sorry, I don't have tactics other than to note your lack of anything substantive to say... You don't appear to have any tactics at all, as your posts are incoherent. I'm not even sure what you are try to say.

I'll give you a recap of what I have said. If one posts something that contains nothing but right wing talking points, one should not be surprised or offended to be mistaken for a right wing troll. If you bring something more to the table, then people can have a discussion.

All you have offered is your apparent fear of technology and that you know people that might have some unspecified knowledge of something...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #138)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:34 PM

140. Hm,

oh my, I must not have noticed that you are screaming about your opinions instead of facts or viable rebuttals.

Go read some books & educate yourself because it doesn't seem like you can contain your emotions while debating a topic. All I interpret from your posts is whiny bullshit

Note: what I acknowledged is that her choice in using a private server puts cables at unnecessary risk which yes, is a negligent choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #140)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:43 PM

143. Hey why don't we just skip to the "I know you are, but what am I?"

 

That's been the level of your discourse.

If you have a coherent point, please cite it because all you have spouted so far is Servers are scary and my boyfriend and brother are smarter than me.

I'll respond to any salient points, if you can find any.

I'll give you a freebie too, since you have been unable to interpret my meaning: I've been mocking your lack of, well, anything. Not angry, not whiny.

If you do anything, please attempt to refute my point that when a right wing hack says "Bernie Sanders is racist", and a DUer says "Bernie Sanders is racist", you can't tell one from the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #143)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:51 PM

145. Well,

I assume you can read the posts again, my points were clearly stated which you refuse to respond to.

You really need to grow up. Your posts are littered with condescending attacks. So yes, to me you are insanely whiny and your attacks are bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #145)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 06:53 PM

149. Ah, I see where you got the whiny from, must have been an echo in teh room where you are..

 

"Server, server, server
is the problem. It is unprecedented and negligent that she decided to use a home email server. Many people will jump and scream "Powell used one as SOS!!!" Half true, Powell used a personal email but not a personal SERVER. Servers, if not handled correctly can be easily compromised. I am a supporter of HRC (second to Bernie), but realize the fact that her using a personal server is negligent. "

1. Yes, it was unprecedented that a SOS was a spouse of a former POTUS, with Secret Service protection around the clock.
2. You have already admitted that you are ignorant of servers.
3. Please cite the make and model of the server that you choose to classify a "Home Server" as opposed to a Business Class Server.
4. I don't hear any people scream and shouting other than you.
5. Please provide proof that no other government using a private email account did not use a server under their control.
6. All computers connected to the outside world can be compromised. Easiiy? See point 2.
7. Negligent? That is yet to be determined, that is why the GOP is conducting yet another witch hunt. Get back to me when the investigation is done and there are any findings.

Actually, you can ignore all that as I am not wanting to argue your right wing talking points. For all I know, you are paid to disrupt. Which proves my point, that when all one has to say is right wing talking points, they are indistinguishable from a right wing troll. I doubt you are, since you had such a glowing endorsement of Sanders, but there is no way to be certain.

Yes, I have probably been a bit condescending to you, because you have nothing substantive to say.

Have a nice night. Maybe there will be some juicy new GOP "scandals" in the morning!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #149)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:17 PM

150. First things first, I'm a nurse

not a paid person lmao.

1. I haven't seen a law anywhere that would make a SOS or FLOTUS exempt from SOP's while working for the government outside of her husbands presidency
2. Again, I'm a nurse. Of course, when I want accurate info I ask people who work within the field I am asking about.
3. It's the fact that she used an outside server, made by a private company where government officials cannot verify if it was used proper methods and had safe guards in place--does amount to being negligent.
4. You should read over your posts if you don't understand why I used "screaming" if you need a hint, it's your first reply to me.
5. Maybe you missed this in all of the corresponding posts--but I will type it out for you again: the private server is the problem not the email address.
6. You're right, and often high level officials are the target of the types of attacks
7. Maybe you need to read the definition of negligence; a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #150)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:41 PM

155. Maybe you forgot the part where I said I wasn't going to argue right wing talking points with you.

 

Your lack of attention to detail makes me worry for your patients.

Again have a nice night, you can pick tangential, miscellaneous arguments with someone else tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #155)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:57 PM

156. You're right, pediatric oncology

takes an enormous amount of attention to detail.

Your inane rhetoric does nothing for your argument. Also, I responded to every part of your "talking points".

Buh-bye!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #156)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:36 PM

162. Good night, nurse that isn't paid.

 

Hope you don't have any dreams about scary servers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #162)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:00 PM

164. Lol, Your assumptions are too good

how did you know I do all of my work for free?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #164)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:15 PM

165. You said you weren't a paid person.

 

I knew what you meant, but that was what you said. Good thing you don't make mistakes like that at work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:00 AM

42. Zilch on Ben Gazhi, zilch on E-Gazhi, but the hunt is more fun than actually catching the prey!

Happy hunting to all Republicans and Democrats so inclined to join the hunting party.

Too bad there actually is nothing to catch, but what can you do but make shit up when the target is an accomplished and respected political leader with such vast experience and name recognition that threatens to turn the anticipated 2016 election cornucopia of CU promised media CASH, in a close race....into a potential bust?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:45 AM

74. Did Bernie have a call with Rince Penis before he announced?

 

Like Trump had a call with Bill Clinton? I mean .. just to get advice, strategy pointers, shoot the breeze, set a date for a beer etc.?

There seem to be an awful lot of republicans wishing Bernie well lately .... just saying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #74)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:23 PM

111. Eeek,

you just made yourself look ridiculous while throwing your candidate of choice under the bus.

Bernie never took that phone call
Whereas, Bill Clinton did take the call with Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:53 AM

37. Sure

 

When someone is going after Hillary for the email "scandal" without understanding what is actually going on, then I think it's fair (though probably not helpful). Same goes with defending NAFTA and other right wing free trade agreements, repeal of banking regulations, conservative corporate donations, defense of Trump's idiotic immigration policy, and numerous other right wing Republican policies I've seen defended on this site recently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #37)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:55 AM

40. It is fair to criticize without knowing what is going on? Essentially that is the basis of the entire argument.

"I do not understand what is going on, not a clue.....but there must be something going on because my TV says so....so I am outraged!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #40)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:39 PM

93. I agree. Isn't that what I said? -nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #93)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:43 PM

96. Yes. I was being satirical. Thanks for the support!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:09 AM

63. No, you can't, because saying what ANYONE "sounds like" is a way of NOT responding


to what they SAY, Fred.

Either you have a counterpoint or you don't, and no, linking to right wing websites is of no consequences whatsoever if you cannot demonstrate that what the right wing website is saying is actually wrong.

It doesn't matter which group of people says something, it's what they say that's under discussion, if you can't understand that no-one can help you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:32 AM

9. Unless it does

And if the criticism is an old, conservative, disproven lie then, well, what a you gonna do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:39 AM

11. People need to stop being so thin skinned about the candidate they prefer.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:45 AM

13. Hillary Clinton is a bad choice. She should have the logo of every bank she take $ from...

on her shirt. And she has way too much baggage that her opponents can use to take her down

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EEO (Reply #13)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:52 AM

16. I think all of the candidates should wear jerseys with their major sponsors on them.

That way people can see what they're actually voting for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #16)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:17 AM

24. And Bernie will be wearing his off-the-rack suits

 

with nothing on 'em, and people will find him very attractive handsome man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherry Creek Native (Reply #24)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:23 AM

52. Very attractive, indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:58 AM

18. Clinton voters already "oathed" themselves to her after the 2008 election

I wasn't above voting for Clinton, but integrity and record overshadow "evolving" and nuanced answers to me. People who blindly support their candidate are akin to talking to a brick wall (like Republicans).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:11 AM

22. I thought we were to supposed to support Hillary in order to help her avenge the

great national shame and humiliation she was forced to endure while her husband was President. It's more that politics, it's a cause!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #22)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:40 AM

30. Did you just being up Bill's BJ??

Ironic given the OP topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #30)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:51 AM

35. It's pretty obvious I would say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #35)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:04 AM

44. Obvious that folks who bring that up ...

.... "sound like Republicans".

I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #44)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:08 AM

45. Yes, her past experiences have nothing to do with her actions today.

Let's all just pretend it's a brand new day and start all over!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #45)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:39 PM

94. So Hillary is responsible for Bill getting a BJ??

Maybe we should make Hillary wear a scarlet A because Bill got a BJ.

You could not sound more like a Republican if you were trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #94)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:12 PM

122. The issue isn't Hillary's responsibility.

The issue was that it happened in the White House while Hillary was living there as Bill's wife. Now she wants to return to the place of her great national shame. It's just a fact. I don't think human's compartmentalize and forget that easily. Becoming President is a big way for her to overcome the shame, I imagine it's a factor that drives her to be President. Bush Jr. had a similar situation with his father's "wimp" factor over Iraq. It's one of the reasons that drove Bush to get Saddam.

I don't know why you keep saying "you sound like a Republican". Do you want to pretend the past never happened?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #122)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:44 PM

128. "Her great shame" ... did you actually use that phrase????

That's EXACTLY how Republicans talk about Bill's infidelity.

The GOP is very big on "shame". And apparently you think Hillary is supposed to feel personal shame for a sex act she wasn't even a part of.

Truly amazing line of thinking you have there.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #128)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:56 PM

131. You don't think Hillary felt shame over what happened? Especially the impeachment?

I think it's amazing that you live in a bubble like you do. What do you think Hillary felt for her and her daughter? Oh, BJs happen, let's move on. You are too funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #131)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:02 PM

134. You feel shame about your own behavior, not the behavior of others.

She felt anger and disgust towards Bill.

Bill would feel shame. He got the BJ.

But I get it ... you actually think Hillary see this as "her great shame".

That's you projecting emotions on to her.

You think she should feel shame because her husband committed adultery. And not just soem shame ... it should be "her great shame".

Republicans sound like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #134)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:08 PM

135. You are really into your Republican thing. I guess it works for you.

So anger then? Ok, and now she and Bill want to come back to the exact place of this great national scandal/shame/anger? Why do you think she wants to do this? It is a bit odd, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #135)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:32 PM

139. Because she wants to be President maybe.

And as for folks sounding like Republicans, that's the topic of the OP.

And "great national scandal" ???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #139)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:15 PM

161. Hillary has some major baggage.

It's amazing that she's the best the Democratic Party has to offer. Oh well, she's better than the Republicans! That's what we always say. Rah! Rah! Go team!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #161)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:06 PM

169. Surprised you used "baggage" and not "package".

Not at all surprised by anything else in your post.

And yea ... she's much better than any Republican ... even with her "great shame" and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #169)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 02:48 PM

170. You must have been in grade school in the 1990's. You seem very unware of what took place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:14 AM

23. For someone who really isn't "the chosen one with the fix in", her supporters act like she is.....

While a lot of we Sandernistas did definitely talk patronizingly to blacks who do/did not get Bernie, Clintonites certainly have been nuclear on anyone who challenges any of Hillary Clinton's stands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:26 AM

26. There's Republicans in the mix alright.

They've pushed Republican policies for years, such as neoliberal economic and trade policies. They've supported invading foreign countries. They've pushed regressive welfare "reform".

They evolve on social issues when it becomes politically expedient.

They support Military coups in Central America, when democracy starts to break out, just like Henry Kissinger.

These DINOsaurs are on the verge of extinction, and they just don't know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:44 AM

31. Yes, this!

Those are the Republicans I'm concerned about, and way sick of.

We need to get them the hell out of our Party. They've done far too much damage already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:55 AM

39. Thank you!!!

You absolutely nailed it. Great post, Fuddnik.

Fighting HRC, to me, IS fighting Republicans. Or at least the corporatist conservatives who've taken over the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:12 AM

65. And Heritage Foundation healthcare "reform"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:34 AM

27. Funny considering it was the Ron Paul of the left fanatics who called Hillary "Jeb Bush" first.

 

Kind of stings, doesn't it?

You get your Bernie fanatics in line, and I'll happily pull back the rhetoric.

I'm sick and tired of seeing the candidate I support (who happens to actually BE the Democratic Forerunner) attacked with complete impunity, while anything that disparages Saint Berniedict the Pious solicits copious quantities of gasps and frantic pearl grabbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:50 AM

34. Well, with so much to defend against, there really isn't enough time for a thoughtful response.

So you just gotta Benghazi! three-quarters of them right out of the gate.

Then it's really hard to keep track of things like when First Lady time counts and when it doesn't. So you just have to "You sound like a Republican" those so the person with the critique has to spend time claiming they aren't.

Then you have plenty of time for important things. Like writing posts about how awesome Clinton's campaign logo is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #34)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:21 AM

51. Bingo!

(It is a pretty awesome logo, though!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:09 AM

46. This Goodman has written so many negative articles about Hillary and so many positive articles

about Sanders, you'd think he was working for the latter's campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #46)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:25 AM

53. Yes, that must be it. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 10:11 AM

47. Sorry

First, let me say there are definitely some level headed and decent Bernie supporters here.

Also, I like Bernie A LOT and after being behind Hillary for a long time for this race, turned to supporting and voting for Bernie soon after he announced.

But, while it leaves a lot of his supporters balling around, most discussions here in regard to him are EXACTLY like the brain numbing things I have to deal with republicans on the internet and in the real world.

Same exact stuff.

AND, most of it actually is not related to Hillary.

So, you get people balling about this, you can't call this republican like, that is BEYOND THE PALE! while any kind of statement that is not gestating toward Bernie makes you some kind of super secret, double agent Hillary supporter, which is ... what you get in talking to republicans, anything other than completely being on board with there insanity makes you some kind of deviant.

Intellectual dishonestly abounds. People get into measuring the white house drapes and how bernie is going to sweep all of congress with him and if you note that polling today shows him behind Hillary by a good amount is dismissed immediately, because THE ELECTION IS FAR OFF. Which is what Rs do, dismiss actual data and reality for what they WANT to believe.

All polls are dismissed off hand, until such time as one poll comes out with Bernie that shows him ahead and THAT shows what is really going on - the whole climate change "debate" that 99% of the numbers don't show what people want to believe and are dismissed, one thing that shows what they want to believe is the end all be all.

Nate Silver is a guy who is almost always right and uses data to draw analysis. Because the numbers just are not good for Bernie and he draws his analysis from that, he is a one of the secret Hillary double agents.

You aren't a TRUE LIBERAL if you don't vote for Bernie - you aren't a TRUE AMERICAN if you don't vote republican.

It is rampant and unending, but it is all OK because this and that about Hillary ... The go to republican move ...

And, that is not getting into the railing on republican ginned up BS against Hillary. The e-mail thing is like 1,000 other things republicans have ginned up against not just her, but Bill, Gore, Kerry, Dean, BHO ... Just complete bullshit narrative to slog up the political waters and public opinion.

There are a LOT of people like me, who like Bernie and who are going to vote for him who don't see Hillary as some kind of evil creature that is all that is wrong with the world (again, a republican thing). There are a LOT of people who like Hillary and are not coming over to Bernie because of this stuff, and his margin is such that is a problem for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #58)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:11 AM

64. No, actually you just don't know anything about Republicans.


Wanna know what Republicans sound like?

Listen to THIS:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #58)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 12:02 PM

81. Mmmmmmkay.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:13 AM

66. "Right wing talking point" should not be used as the new form of "Red baiting"

 

(I posted the below in another spot on this thread, but thought I would also add it to the main line.)

Claiming that someone is just using "right wing talking points" is a new form of the Red Baiting of the McCarthy era on the Democratic/Left half of the political spectrum. An attempt to shut down discussion with facile labeling. Sometimes people who do not agree with the GOP (or whomever) otherwise might have things in common with GOP or right wingers. So f-ing what?

For example, regarding the e-mails, I do not know if all the smoke arising from investigations by executive branch and law enforcement agencies are going to find any fie of actual wrongdoing or illegality on Clinton's part.

It can be -- and is -- totally debatable.

Maybe nothing maybe something in the legal sense.

But just dismissing all questions, criticisms, and even unfounded use of it as an attack by supporters her primary opponents and other critics is not merely "echoing Republican talking points" or engaging in GOP smears or "being right wing" or anything else of that nature.

That is just an all purpose "shut-down" tactic.

The fact that GOP criticism happens to coincide has nothing to do with the legitimate questions or criticism. Nothing.

What? If a Republican said "The sun rises in the East" and a Democrat repeated and agreed with with that, does that make the Democrat a "right winger" or GOP stooge. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I totally disagree with and disapprove of Ron Paul (and Randy boy) on many, many things. But I did totally agree with Ron Paul's outspoken opposition to the Iraq War. He spoke for me lot more than Democrats like Clinton, in that situation on that issue.

Does pointing that out, and saying Paul turned out to be correct and Clinton was wrong make me a riught wing stooge, or a secret Republican? Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:41 AM

72. sanders is courting repug, libertarians, teabaggers and populist. they want the right to criticize

 

with rw talking points and the dems to leave them alone?

they do not get my party, even if they vote sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #72)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:51 AM

77. LOL. Tell us about "trickle down" populism again! That's *always* fun! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #77)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 12:05 PM

82. trickle down social justice. and that is very cool, huh? all over the nets now. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #72)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:44 PM

97. Now you are just flat out lying.

 

It's laughable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #97)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:47 PM

99. nu uh

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #99)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:50 PM

100. Now you just sound like a Republican

 

:-P

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #100)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:51 PM

102. talk to sanders about it. he is reaching for working and middle class, ALL parties.

 

he says so himself. if that is not creating his base, then what is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #102)


Response to Post removed (Reply #104)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:08 PM

107. hey dude i say he is courtin... and you called me a liar. now your backpedaling. i was right, you

 

wrong i was stating fact you were calling me names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #107)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:13 PM

123. You don't seem to know what backpeddaling is

 

Or facts for that matter. I haven't changed my stance on your honesty. I just pointed out some of Bernie's policies that showed you were being dishonest. Anyway, if you think I crossed the line, alert on it. That's why we have the jury system. Either way, I'm done talking with you here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #123)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:41 PM

127. Meh... Don't care

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #100)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:51 PM

103. and do not call me a liar and republican. against civility rules. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #103)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:04 PM

105. You lied. outright. I've expanded on the accusation above.

 

And I think you're the last person who should be lecturing on civility rules. The Republican comment was an admittedly poor joke based on the original article posted because I thought your response was silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #105)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:09 PM

108. you can expand to redefine repug lib tea pop all you want. you just confirm my fact, still calling

 

me a liar

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #72)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:44 PM

98. Sanders wants to raise taxes, bigtime. How is that "courting repug, libertarians, teabaggers"???

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/05/politics/bernie-sanders-raise-taxes/

Words have meaning.


What specifically do you think Sanders is doing to court "repug, libertarians, teabaggers"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #98)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:50 PM

101. yes. words do have meaning. demographics. teabagger.

 

you will hear sanders often saying, .... repugs in the crowd, listen to me

working middle class

and on and on.

you know, you will see the threads from sanders supporters cheering him reaching to the repugs, libertarians, teabaggers and defending it and lecturing on the right of it.

i am not the only one saying this.

sanderrs is saying this. lol. i actually listen to sanders and believe him when he says something. like

i am not a liberal.

cause words have meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #101)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:35 PM

114. He's running to the left of everyone else on the field. That's a simple fact.

Obviously any candidate wants to bring in as many voters as possible- that's how you win. You're imagining things if you think Hillary won't do the same.

What exactly do you think you mean by "libertarian"- someone who doesn't share Chris Christie's position on the NSA, or Rick Santorum's on the 1st Amendment?

In terms of specific positions, there is not a single goddamn one he has, that would appeal to the club for growth or the teabagger crowd.


There aren't any. Trying to paint Sanders as some stealth teabagger is just beyond silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #114)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:36 PM

115. he is CAMPAIGNING to the middle and working class. all parties. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #115)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:37 PM

116. you didn't answer my question on what, specifically, constitutes a "libertarian" to you.

Odd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #116)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:38 PM

118. rand paul, sittin in the libertain party, advocating libertarian talking points. you know....

 

a libertarian. words have meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #118)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 06:26 PM

146. Right, and probably on the NSA, Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders are in agreement.

Just like neither of them would agree with Chris Christie.

I'm pretty sure, though, that on subjects like upper income tax bracket rates, Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders are NOT in agreement. (And any "teabaggers" who are going to sign on to Sanders' ideas on funding education, health care, etc. are going to be few, and far between)

So-- is your point that agreeing with "a libertarian" on anything means one is "advocating libertarian talking points"?

Because guess what- Chris Christie is a Republican. (so is Rand Paul, technically, but since that doesn't gel with using "libertarian" as DU shorthand for "doody-head", nevermind that for now) So if someone agrees with him on the NSA, would they be "advocating Republican talking points"?

Hmmmm. Yeah, you're right... maybe that's the case.

Sort of like how if one agrees with Rick Santorum on certain of his cultural platforms one is most definitely advocating far right fundamentalist Republican positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #115)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:48 PM

129. Which is why he will win

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #129)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:55 PM

130. Some will own it, some won't. Some sometime and not other times.

 

Makes conversation challenging

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #130)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:02 PM

133. The truth has broad appeal

 

This is a bad thing to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #133)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:20 PM

137. consistency and not being a hypocrite has broad appeal to me, yes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #137)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:41 PM

142. Then you definitely should be supporting Sanders

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #142)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:49 PM

144. i tried but i found two i like better. i will support him if he wins the primary. for sure.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #137)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 06:34 PM

147. you mean like the Iraq War vote, or "Marriage is between a man and a woman"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #114)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:37 PM

117. Trying to paint Sanders as some stealth teabagger is just beyond silly.

 

yes. it is silly and dishonest so please do not GIVE me that silliness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #72)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:59 PM

157. Jury results, 3-4 leave

On Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:43 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

sanders is courting repug, libertarians, teabaggers and populist. they want the right to criticize
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=533400

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

accusing a candidate of collaborating with republicans, tea party, and libertarians

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:56 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I think the post is delusional, because all candidate will be courting voting groups outside of their bailiwick, Sander is "courting", not collaborating. I would take more issue with the premise that any criticism, no matter how valid, is a RW talking point.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Disruptive shit stirring against a Democratic Candidate.

The more our party fights amongst itself, the greater the odds of a Republican winning - So, lets keep the hitposts against D canidates shelved and work towards putting a Democrat - Be it Hillary or Bernie, we'll let the general election decide - in the White House.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is unfortunately a true statement. It is within the DU TOS and community standards. No reason to alert, much less hide.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:48 AM

75. One of you Clingons is gonna have to explain to me

how all these distractions she's going through right now is going to help her become a successful POTUS. What guarantees do we have from her that the cons won't investigate her like they did her husband to the point where Bubba passed terrible legislation. We all remember Gramm-Leach-Bliley, his speech about the era of big gubbermint being over, ended welfare as we knew it, DOMA, Omnibus Crime Bill, etc. Hell, Alan Greenspan (the guy who took Bubba into a room and told him how the world works) called him the best Republican President we've ever had! Is HRC going to be the next great Republican President we've ever had? Or Worse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to d_legendary1 (Reply #75)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:09 PM

158. Heh, Clingons... That's a new one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:56 AM

79. LOL - a republican says it's okay....

 

.... For liberals to co-opt and advance republican talking points against Hillary, and Bernie supporters agree.

It just doesn't get more precious than that. No sir, it really doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #79)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 01:41 PM

88. But haven't you heard, we should listen to what the RW nutjobs have to SAY, it is only the

respectful thing to do...but only if the linked nutjob commentary is a bashing of Clinton only though, let us be clear on the limits.

Others may show the proper amount of respect by not reading what the RW nutjobs say in the first place.....unless you can work up some mockery to accompany the forced reading of the RW nutjob scribbling, but that is just me.

I would wager most Samders supporters are quietly not pleased with any other similar supporter linking to Fox News pundits, ex or current, dead or alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #88)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:24 PM

90. I think the only people who seem to think....

 

... We should pay attention to right wing nut jobs are Bernie supporters. Never thought I would see that day here, but it is hear. Honestly, if I thought that was representative of actual liberals and the Democratic party I would stop considering myself a Democrat.

I can tell it definitely disgusts me to hear liberals spouting right wing talking points. Just makes me SMH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #90)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:28 PM

92. We should pay attention to right wing nut jobs

 

they are who have become part of the base. sanders is reaching out to them as working and middle class.

this is what happens that i started discussing since the liberty university announcement and before.

sanders and his supporters cannot have it both ways. not gonna happen. when you court the repug, libertarian, teabagger, populist as your base, you gotta own it. i am not gonna look away and pretend otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #79)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:26 PM

91. exactly maggie. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #79)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:42 PM

95. One up thread brought up Bill getting a BJ ...

... as if its something bad Hillary did .... and doesn't think that makes them sound like a Republican.

It starts here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=533146

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #95)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:35 AM

168. Just like Freeperville.

 

Sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:10 PM

136. If you are uncritically citing/quoting Ann Coulter, Newsbusters, Trey Gowdy, Fox News 'personalities

Kirtsten Powers, "Clinton Cash" etc etc then you are using Republican opinion makers talking points against a Democrat. These and other right wing opinionators are being quoted as 'experts' at DU.

That is not all that difficult to understand. When you give those creeps credibility,
You are using right wingers and right wing talking points at DU to slam Democrats.

Hillary is too conservative for me, as she was in 2008. That being said, if you post right wing critiques by right wingers to support smear Democrats, I have zero tolerance for that.

When Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire, these same "experts" are going to open their sewage pipes on him. I think that's something one should remember the impulse comes on to use one off them together HRC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 06:46 PM

148. Republicans criticize Hillary, therefore, everyone who criticizes Hillary is a Republican.

Sort of like how rodeo clowns are people, therefore, all people are rodeo clowns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:21 PM

151. Wow, an Independent telling a Democrat they sound like a Republican.

No, Hillary is a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:23 PM

152. Pretty common defense

 

When someone supports a political candidate, they tend to lump all criticism together, and they tend to see anyone who criticizes for any reason as the enemy. "If you say something bad about my candidate, you're one of them."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:25 PM

153. Well, it's kind of difficult ...

... to NOT say "you sound like a Republican" in response to someone who's quoting Ann Coulter, or citing FOX-News polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:37 PM

154. a good percent of criticism on DU is either 'you're a republican' or 'you're a racist'

 

actually, a form of McCarthyism, calling anyone you disagree with a label that will destroy their reputation within a group

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HFRN (Reply #154)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:14 PM

159. At the rate DU is going, that criticism will soon become...

"You're sexist" or "You're anti-semitic"

Seeing how much supporters on both sides are fighting amongst each other makes me sick really - Many love to call out Republican canidates for slinging insults at each other, all the while slinging insults against each other.

Bit sad to see how quickly both sides take to emulating Republicans. Be nice if we could, you know, actually have some standards of decency?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Reply #159)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:17 PM

160. 'Internet Civility' is kind of like 'Jumbo Shrimp' nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread