Thu Dec 3, 2015, 03:38 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

If you're reduced to complaining about a temp tribute in a logo...

You've already lost. You just don't realize it yet.

And by the way, why can we not mention this about Bernie given that it's objectively true? Please explain. TIA.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bernie-sanders-1972-essay-rape-fantasy-surfaces-article-1.2240379

355 replies, 15897 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

355 replies	Author	Time	Post
If you're reduced to complaining about a temp tribute in a logo... (Original post)	MaggieD	Dec 2015	OP
Lost what?	darkangel218	Dec 2015	#1
The election....	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#2
Many posters who support Clinton found the said logo distasteful as well.	darkangel218	Dec 2015	#4
Who and why?	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#10
You posted the OP, you must be familiar as well with the threads.	darkangel218	Dec 2015	#13
Yes, but they make no sense	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#16
Not interested. Carry on.	darkangel218	Dec 2015	#17
So you can't explain it either	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#20
Plodding through that article, it's hard to imagine Bernie fantasizing	Hortensis	Dec 2015	#45
I think he demonstrates how clueless he is	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#64
Did you skip over the sentence in the article where it said that it was an attempt at dark satire?	Fantastic Anarchist	Dec 2015	#213
It's not new, others have made that claim here before.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#250
He is clueless about women's right AND wants the ACA repealed	davidpdx	Dec 2015	#273
I want the ACA repealed, too.	Fantastic Anarchist	Dec 2015	#298
Have you seen the full essay that Sanders wrote? That was just an excerpt.	George II	Dec 2015	#295
"Plodding through the article..." I meant the essay. :)	Hortensis	Dec 2015	#297
No, I must admit, I haven't ... but again, he claims it was satire, so ...?	Fantastic Anarchist	Dec 2015	#299
Not interested after four replies.	George II	Dec 2015	#294
I have to admit, I'm one who does disagree.	Amimnoch	Dec 2015	#54
I agree with you	mythology	Dec 2015	#57
The logo was used for a few hours on the day of the anniversary....	George II	Dec 2015	#302
Nobody wants to discuss his writing because it was just that terrible.	bravenak	Dec 2015	#3
I know, right?	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#6
I refuse to read such garbage.	bravenak	Dec 2015	#7
I found it truly disgusting	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#9
That was all him.	bravenak	Dec 2015	#19
So, the "attempt at dark satire" part of the article escaped you?	Fantastic Anarchist	Dec 2015	#218
That's the classic disclaimer, "I wasn't serious", "I was only joking", "it was satire".....	George II	Dec 2015	#324
Again, the same question applies.	Fantastic Anarchist	Dec 2015	#335
"he advocates raping women" That meme came from the Cave.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#341
It's like they're seduced by irrational thinking ...	Fantastic Anarchist	Dec 2015	#342
Most of them are only feigning outrage.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#343
So sad, too. n/t	Fantastic Anarchist	Dec 2015	#345
I think Bernie called it dumb or stupid	aikoaiko	Dec 2015	#65
Yeah, I didn't get the whole brouhaha, either.	BlueCaliDem	Dec 2015	#5
Yeah, I just told my wife about it	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#8
Do you find Sanders' 40 year old fiction more distasteful than...	thesquanderer	Dec 2015	#56
Absolutely - yes	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#60
True, Bill is not running, but...	thesquanderer	Dec 2015	#63
I don't really care if they are "obstacles" for Bernie or not	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#67
Of course,	okasha	Dec 2015	#326
Did he cheat on them?	thesquanderer	Dec 2015	#336
Why was that?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#337
And we probably shouldn't get into the story of what happened when HRC defended an alleged rapist	kath	Dec 2015	#251
Clinton's husband isn't running against Sanders.	George II	Dec 2015	#296
But the person who chose to stay married to him is.	thesquanderer	Dec 2015	#301
Sanders remains married to a woman who received a golden parachute from	Thinkingabout	Dec 2015	#334
Not sure of your point, but...	thesquanderer	Dec 2015	#338
I went back and reread your post #301	Thinkingabout	Dec 2015	#339
I agree, Bill and Hillary's marriage is their own concern	thesquanderer	Dec 2015	#340
And if Hillary gets.....	Delver Rootnose	Dec 2015	#42
You're forgetting one fundamental truth...she's been vetted FOR 30 YEARS.	BlueCaliDem	Dec 2015	#58
Can we agree that U.S. mass media are no friends to Democrats?	Fawke Em	Dec 2015	#59
If you really believe that, you haven't been paying attention.	BlueCaliDem	Dec 2015	#69
I've been here a very long time....	Delver Rootnose	Dec 2015	#66
Thats really inappropriate and rude...	CoffeeCat	Dec 2015	#300
....x10+	840high	Dec 2015	#201
I am so afraid now...not. nt	artislife	Dec 2015	#78
And he can explain it like he already has, and state that it was a poor attempt at satire.	Fantastic Anarchist	Dec 2015	#222
speaking of being reduced to complaining about things.	Warren DeMontague	Dec 2015	#11
I'm searching for an objective explaination of why....	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#14
I didn't say the logo was bad. Maybe badly designed, sure.	Warren DeMontague	Dec 2015	#18
Oh I read most of it, until I was too disgusted to continue	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#22
Again, you're misinterpreting the thing, I have to believe deliberately.	Warren DeMontague	Dec 2015	#24
No i'm not	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#25
That's not even an answer. That's phoning it in. I get it, context/nuance are, like, hard.	Warren DeMontague	Dec 2015	#26
If that grosses you out, don't google the candidate's name and "cervical cancer."	MADem	Dec 2015	#28
You just broke the insanity meter with this one...	MattSh	Dec 2015	#47
No, Maggie has pretty well topped herself with her own comments lately	davidpdx	Dec 2015	#274
I don't know who's more evil, Bernie or his supporters.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#276
I know, can't they make up their minds?	davidpdx	Dec 2015	#277
I did add another to the long list of smears, it's getting rather unwieldy.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#278
Two more for your list	davidpdx	Dec 2015	#280
Wow, I'll try to work those in.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#281
Andy Kaufman didn't die, oh no.	Warren DeMontague	Dec 2015	#279
.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#282
Post removed	Post removed	Dec 2015	#29
that doesn't even deserve a response.	Warren DeMontague	Dec 2015	#30
Deserves a hide	Capt. Obvious	Dec 2015	#51
Why? Even Bernie's spox said his essay "looks as stupid today as it was then."	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#118
like Skinner sez, "you take your chances".	Warren DeMontague	Dec 2015	#268
It was "censored" for accusing a DUer of condoning rape.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#270
You're a hoot.	Scootaloo	Dec 2015	#12
Just following the Bernie supporter trend here	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#15
I think it's silly that you keep doing what you insist you have a problem with	Scootaloo	Dec 2015	#21
Hey, I will quit the moment the Hillary smear brigade does	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#23
No, by all means, continue.	Scootaloo	Dec 2015	#35
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Dec 2015	#75
I do	Scootaloo	Dec 2015	#76
So, no original thoughts from you then?	cherokeeprogressive	Dec 2015	#207
What do you think of someone who would say this to BLM activists.	Kalidurga	Dec 2015	#27
Cool. White lady thinks it's okay. Got it.	Bonobo	Dec 2015	#31
Oh please, I don't know any intelligent adult woman who is upset by that essay.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#32
"There's gotta be a pony under here somewhere!"	Warren DeMontague	Dec 2015	#36
QUIT MANSPLAINING, I'M TRYING TO FAINT OVER HERE!	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#37
And the pearls! What the hell happened to my pearls?	Divernan	Dec 2015	#41
Right?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#43
...	winter is coming	Dec 2015	#61
...+1	840high	Dec 2015	#208
Another recycled meme, what a shock, eh?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#211
Post removed	Post removed	Dec 2015	#33
Intelligent adults understand it was an essay about gender stereotypes.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#38
I'm starting to think some people only understand information in sound-bite sized chunks.	Warren DeMontague	Dec 2015	#39
Must be all those years reading the tabloids and watching the boob tube.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#40
Post removed	Post removed	Dec 2015	#34
if you cant see that hillary would do ot say anything at anytime to anyone	bowens43	Dec 2015	#44
It has been made clear to me....	NCTraveler	Dec 2015	#46
I've seen posts that are nothing more than Bernie quotes hidden	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#62
How concerning!	Change has come	Dec 2015	#256
A disjointed and unfocused Flame bait OP.	morningfog	Dec 2015	#48
But now it's a CONSPIRASEE!!! Don't you understand? DU won't let anyone talk about it!	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#49
The fact that HRC supporters are on time out	Capt. Obvious	Dec 2015	#52
It's only a matter of time before they get you too, Capt. Obvious.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#53
It's proof that some Clinton supporters can't post within the TOS.	morningfog	Dec 2015	#72
This again	artislife	Dec 2015	#81
Is that a problem?	Change has come	Dec 2015	#257
Hello.	merrily	Dec 2015	#50
Uh huh	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#68
Mention the article all you want, it won't get a hide.	morningfog	Dec 2015	#70
I don't think the facts bear out your claims	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#71
The fact is that the article you referenced has been discussed in hundreds of posts without hides.	morningfog	Dec 2015	#73
Oh get real	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#74
You are not a victim on this board.	morningfog	Dec 2015	#77
I'm not, huh?	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#80
Post removed	Post removed	Dec 2015	#82
A disruptor? Let me translate that for you	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#85
That was a piss poor translation.	morningfog	Dec 2015	#86
Are we still pretending Bernie is a Democrat?	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#88
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA That is the funniest fucking thing I've read all week!!!	morningfog	Dec 2015	#91
Keep laughing	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#92
Bully!	morningfog	Dec 2015	#94
In case you were curious	Juicy_Bellows	Dec 2015	#160
Your post was hidden because you said Bernie "thinks women enjoy being raped".	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#79
Did you read the essay?	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#83
Yes I read it and thats a lie. Link to Hillary being called a "whore" daily?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#84
Here's a nice quote from it	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#87
Link to Hillary being called a"whore" daily? Do you want everyone to think you're lying?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#89
Jury Results	Live and Learn	Dec 2015	#263
"use of the word w**** "? Seriously? That's the 4th failed alert on my posts tonight.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#265
Yep. I'd take that as a sign that you are doing something right. lol	Live and Learn	Dec 2015	#266
No doubt!	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#267
Do you really not understand the difference between consensual sex/fantasies and rape?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#90
My hidden post had nothing to do with that	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#93
No that's NOT what you said, here is your post again:	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#95
The plain meaning is clear - crystal clear	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#96
Which one of your posts was a lie?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#97
"A woman enjoys intercourse with her man, and she fantasizes about being raped	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#98
So you lied when you said Bernie "thinks women enjoy being raped"?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#99
He does think that - plain as day	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#100
So you don't understand the difference between consensual sex/fantasies and rape?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#101
Rape is NOT consensual and a MAN pretending	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#102
Pick one, either you lied about the essay or you don't know the difference.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#103
RAPE is not CONSENSUAL	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#104
Very good, now why did you confuse rape and fantasy when you posted this?:	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#105
Why do you keep pretending rape is consensual?	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#106
Why are you lying about my posts? And why did you say "Bernie thinks women enjoy being raped"?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#107
Women don't "enjoy" fantasizing about rape. Bernie's essay suggests they do. That is OFFENSIVE.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#121
Are you really that naive? Women do fantacize about it, and they write about it too.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#123
OMG. I can't believe I am having this conversation on a progessive board...with an adult.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#124
ZOMG! I can't believe you haven't read erotica before.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#126
Those fantasies involve men those women WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#129
Well, duh. Who do you think Bernie was writing about?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#136
Women who have fantasies are not victims. I am not "pretending."	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#151
I'm not suggesting it, I'm stating it as a fact, women do fantasize about it.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#196
It is not a fact. You don't get to define rape. nt	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#202
You're trying to tell me that you know what other women fantasize about?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#206
Women do not fantasize about actual rape.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#215
You have no idea what other women fantasize about.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#221
Rape is not about sex. Rape is an assault.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#229
Since I was attacked I'm well aware of what rape is. But thanks.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#230
Do you think women fantasize about being attacked, against their will...	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#236
How do you know what women do and don't fantasize about?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#239
I figured you wouldn't answer my question.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#241
First you claimed that women don't fantasize about rape.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#244
According to Psychology today you are mistaken.	LostOne4Ever	Dec 2015	#272
Well there you go, thank you.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#275
it is more the bodice ripper thing	treestar	Dec 2015	#285
They definitely need more articles on this from other women	LostOne4Ever	Dec 2015	#308
Kind of goes against the idea we often say	treestar	Dec 2015	#310
No, "bodice rpper" fantasies are not rape fantasies.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#305
It cites specifically and solely mentioning rape to women. Read both articles in full	LostOne4Ever	Dec 2015	#307
Again, please read the articles in full	LostOne4Ever	Dec 2015	#309
Except, it is a fact...	opiate69	Dec 2015	#210
But the "forced sex" or domination is by a man they want to have sex with.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#224
I'm active in the BDSM community...	opiate69	Dec 2015	#227
I was just going to warn you that they will alert on your posts.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#228
Ah yeah.. I'm at zero as it stands though, so...	opiate69	Dec 2015	#238
Awesome.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#242
Lil' old me?	opiate69	Dec 2015	#245
Yep, thanks for showing the thought police they're out of their league!	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#246
People just don't seem to be able to think outside their little middle-America box..	opiate69	Dec 2015	#247
We used to be able to talk about stuff like this on DU.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#249
Women who are voluntarily involved in the BDSM community are engaged in consensual acts.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#232
Again.. you are profoundly, laughably ignorant.	opiate69	Dec 2015	#237
If you claim those "abductions" are not in fact consensual, then you are describing a crime. nt	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#240
Newsflash...	opiate69	Dec 2015	#243
Do they fantasize about getting shot at?	treestar	Dec 2015	#311
Could be. Is there something wrong with fantasizing about those things?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#318
maybe not, but it would not be sexual	treestar	Dec 2015	#354
People in that community say they consent	treestar	Dec 2015	#347
According to the these PsychologyToday Articles you are 100% correct	LostOne4Ever	Dec 2015	#271
But I bet the man doing the "raping"	treestar	Dec 2015	#312
How do you know what other people fantasize about?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#319
I don't but it is hard to imagine	treestar	Dec 2015	#346
So you admit you don't know but are making the claim anyway.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#350
I'm not judging but cannot imagine enjoying	treestar	Dec 2015	#353
Yes. Am I the only Baby Boomer here who's read Nancy Friday's "My Secret Garden", about women's	kath	Dec 2015	#259
I haven't read it but come on, who hasn't heard of 50 Shades of Grey?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#261
That is not true.	Curmudgeoness	Dec 2015	#132
I assume you are fantasizing about having sex with someone you want to have sex with.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#178
Where did Bernie write about women "being dominated by men they find repulsive"?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#182
I said Bernie suggests that women "fantasize" about being "raped."	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#186
They do, so what? It's a whole genre and it's very popular.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#188
There is nothing wrong with women's fantasies.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#192
How the hell do you know what other women fantasize about?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#194
I am not judging women. I am correcting your mistatements about women. nt	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#204
Yes you are, women do fantasize about rape, you seem to be the only one who doesn't know that.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#212
Nope, no one has "documented it" as something women generally do.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#217
Google it, the internet is full of rape fantasies written by women.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#226
It'd be like imagining being shot	treestar	Dec 2015	#348
Jury results	Cassiopeia	Dec 2015	#108
My goodness, now they're lying in alerts? What a shock!	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#110
and the results are in...	yuiyoshida	Dec 2015	#109
Thanks! Looks like trying to "prod" me into a hide didn't work.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#111
I was going to post it but	yuiyoshida	Dec 2015	#112
Good jury! Saw right through it.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#113
Looks like you think it's okay to call people liars	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#114
Where did I call you a liar? I asked if you were lying when you posted this:	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#116
There is no place in this thread where BMUS called you a liar.	Curmudgeoness	Dec 2015	#138
Read the thread	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#141
Tell me which reply to read.	Curmudgeoness	Dec 2015	#144
And the envelope please:	LiberalArkie	Dec 2015	#115
It's true! The jury system is rigged! Bernie Underground DOES exist!	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#117
Gah, do you not understand the difference between sexual FANTASIES and what someone would actually	kath	Dec 2015	#258
Aggravating, isn't it? Women have fantasies, who knew?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#269
Maggie, cmon help me out	zigby	Dec 2015	#133
You'll soon find out that Hillary supporters are stalked here	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#140
Now, now, no need to devolve into conspiracy theories.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#142
There is a whole other web site where the stalking is tracked	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#145
You mean the site where you guys alert stalk Bernie supporters?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#146
Here is her transparency page	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#155
As richly deserved as all of yours were. :)	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#158
Again, I don't call anyone names	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#163
"The jury system here has been bastardized by Bernie supporters."	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#166
You have an amazing capacity to deny reality	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#173
Oh ffs, no one tried to "MIRT" you. Who told you that?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#148
This is where the conspiracy theory orginated	TSIAS	Dec 2015	#150
Exactly, he's not even on MIRT.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#153
In case you think the smears in MIRT are private	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#157
No one tried to MIRT you, the claim is ridiculous on its face.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#162
Oh, the founder of that cesspool Hillary Cave site. Yeah, he's a real fine trustworthy, upstanding	kath	Dec 2015	#283
Oh yes they did	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#152
How would that poster know what goes on? He's not even on MIRT.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#154
Why did Earl lock the MIRT thread then?	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#156
Ask whoever gave William the information.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#161
Did you not hear me?	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#168
I heard your conspiracy theory about someone trying to MIRT you.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#172
Do you deny there was a thread by the MIRT team about me	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#174
I'm telling you that you've been played.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#177
Chickie, I know MIRT started a thread about me that Earl locked	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#181
MIRT followed protocol. No one tried to ban you. Period.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#183
uh huh	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#197
Nope, I'm claiming that no one tried to ban you.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#199
Why did Earl lock the MIRT thread then?	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#200
I'm not going to discuss MIRT functions with you.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#203
Why did Earl lock the MIRT thread then?	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#205
What did I just say? It's not my place to discuss what goes on in MIRT.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#209
Why did Earl lock the MIRT thread then?	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#214
If you have questions about how MIRT functions ask admin in ATA or by pm.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#216
I'm asking you - you're on MIRT	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#220
See posts #203, 209 and 216.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#223
I've seen them - they are your usual deflections when you get busted	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#233
See posts #203, 209 and 216.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#234
I've seen them - they are your usual deflections when you get busted	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#235
You left out post 183 where you changed your story.	R B Garr	Dec 2015	#248
OMG the drama!	Change has come	Dec 2015	#262
"We can't even MIRT anyone over a certain amount of posts."	Capt. Obvious	Dec 2015	#304
No only admins can	treestar	Dec 2015	#313
Nope! But that doesn't stop people from pretending they're victims of the system.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#315
YOU EVIL EDITOR YOU!!!!!	opiate69	Dec 2015	#321
Ima Rick-n-Roller!	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#322
=(	zigby	Dec 2015	#189
Nice quote that proves your point	R B Garr	Dec 2015	#170
Thank you	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#176
lol, exactly. I see now to wait between replies and not	R B Garr	Dec 2015	#195
Good for you for standing up for yourself.	hrmjustin	Dec 2015	#303
What "mirt thing" would that be, justin?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#323
Seems some folk aren't quite as concerned about confidentiality IRT MIRT anymore...	opiate69	Dec 2015	#325
Oh my! Yes indeed, the hypocrisy is stunning.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#328
People calling her a troll when she is clearly not.	hrmjustin	Dec 2015	#329
And who did that?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#330
I apologize if I left the impression you did it. Iwill edit.	hrmjustin	Dec 2015	#331
Thank you, justin. :)	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#332
You're welcome.	hrmjustin	Dec 2015	#333
I think what is rather obvious is that you didn't understand the essay. nt	Live and Learn	Dec 2015	#264
why should that be hidden?	treestar	Dec 2015	#284
For the same reason posts calling Hillary a "murderer" are rightfully hidden.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#286
I doubt the right wing even knows yet	treestar	Dec 2015	#287
Oh please, who do you think started this crap about him advocating rape?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#289
You can rest assured that the RW and GOP know.	NurseJackie	Dec 2015	#291
Yes they do. Youngcons got to it first I believe.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#293
No they aren't	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#290
Link to a post calling her a "murderer" that wasn't hidden?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#292
Bullshit. DUers WILL get a hide for posting or describing that essay.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#119
That post was not about the article.	morningfog	Dec 2015	#122
Yes it was about Bernie's 1972 essay.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#137
Yep	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#143
It got hidden 7-0 for claiming Bernie "thinks women enjoy being raped".	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#127
No. I'm talking about post 29. Keep up if you are going to butt in. nt	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#131
You mean the one where that poster accused another member of condoning rape?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#139
No, the poster was noting the hypocrisy of condoning Bernie's 1972 essay.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#147
Nope, they were accusing someone of condoning rape: "Rapey is a-okey?"	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#149
The jury would agree the moon is made of green cheese	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#159
Sure, it's all a HUGH CONSPIRASEE!!1!	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#164
It's not a conspiracy	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#165
Mmmm hmmmmm.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#169
That is bull.	Curmudgeoness	Dec 2015	#171
Bernie was in his 30s when he wrote that essay. nt	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#180
It was about gender stereotypes, not rape. How can you not understand that?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#184
That may have been his intent, but his examples and wording were offensive.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#185
So even though you know what his intent was, you're still hung up on the rape fantasy?	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#187
I don't know what Bernie's actual intent was, I can only go by the words in his essay.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#190
Just because you don't want to admit it doesn't make it so.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#191
see Nancy Friday's book about women's sexual fantasies, "My Secret Garden".Entire chapter about rape	kath	Dec 2015	#260
Those are not rape fantasies. These are scenarios the women desire to happen. That is not rape.	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#306
So amazing how far people will go to defend Bernie!	treestar	Dec 2015	#314
"rape and sex are not the same thing?"	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#316
what that is standard	treestar	Dec 2015	#349
I've been attacked, you don't have the right to accuse me of not knowing the difference.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#351
so you're going to pull a personal card	treestar	Dec 2015	#352
You claimed I don't know the difference, YOU made it personal.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#355
Yep. nt	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#320
Yes, they are. Fantasies can be both, something you want to happen or something you just think about	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#317
Paranoid?	840high	Dec 2015	#219
Isn't it funny that only Bernie supporters deny this?	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#231
No, they were noting how some claim Bernie's "rapey" essay is "a-okey."	SunSeeker	Dec 2015	#167
Sure, whatever you say, it's all a conspiracy, except when it's not.	beam me up scottie	Dec 2015	#175
All the hides based on being critical of Bernie are bullshit hides	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#179
Agreed	Gothmog	Dec 2015	#55
Wow, 25 recs. A lot for a hillary post. nt	Logical	Dec 2015	#120
I'm gung-ho Hillary but the logo was tacky	zigby	Dec 2015	#125
+1	Buzz Clik	Dec 2015	#128
If Bernie did this, your side would be foaming at the mouth in mock outrage	jfern	Dec 2015	#130
See "Killer Mike"	MrWendel	Dec 2015	#134
Yes they would and it would go on for weeks.	Bread and Circus	Dec 2015	#198
I'm just curious. Are you	floriduck	Dec 2015	#135
It's not the logo, actually the logo is cool. It's the hypocrisy of the thought police.	Bread and Circus	Dec 2015	#193
Well then Hillary supporters double lost.	cui bono	Dec 2015	#225
The OP was alerted on just now.	Starry Messenger	Dec 2015	#252
Told you - they are alert stalking me	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#253
I've been on three juries today.	Starry Messenger	Dec 2015	#254
They will just keep trying until they silence all his critics	MaggieD	Dec 2015	#255
if you get the right jurors, you are not allowed to mention it	treestar	Dec 2015	#288
Whatever they're paying you...	Jester Messiah	Dec 2015	#327
You are reacting to the reaction	AgingAmerican	Dec 2015	#344

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 03:46 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

1. Lost what?

Clinton supporters complained or agreed that the said logo was not cool as well.
It had nothing to do with Bernie.

Reply to this post

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 03:47 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

2. The election....

And possibly several other things. LOL!

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 03:49 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

4. Many posters who support Clinton found the said logo distasteful as well.

Apparently they "lost the election " too, according to you.

Reply to this post

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:06 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

10. Who and why?

Links?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:08 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

13. You posted the OP, you must be familiar as well with the threads.

Reply to this post

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:14 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

16. Yes, but they make no sense

Does it make sense to you? Please explain.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:15 AM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

17. Not interested. Carry on.

Thread trashed.

Reply to this post

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:19 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

20. So you can't explain it either

Thanks for letting me know. LOL!

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:57 AM

Hortensis (55,767 posts)

45. Plodding through that article, it's hard to imagine Bernie fantasizing

about rape. Sadly as it turns out, quite the contrary as obviously at that age he could bore readers to death even after tossing in an otherwise-gratuitous prurient element to grab their attention. He himself equally obviously had no interest in it, since he immediately moved on to the real issue.

I do not believe the rape sentence illuminates the character of the man today and feel honest people should not be trying to use it as a weapon. Sure, those for whom political discourse is all about attacking the "other side" make a habit of this behavior, but should others copy them just to needle them back?

IMO, this is a defining question about defining behaviors.

Reply to this post

Response to Hortensis (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:54 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

64. I think he demonstrates how clueless he is

.... about women's rights and issues. I don't believe people really change to that extent as they age. You don't accidentally spout off those kinds of beliefs. They come from within.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:17 AM

Fantastic Anarchist (7,309 posts)

213. Did you skip over the sentence in the article where it said that it was an attempt at dark satire?

Or was that conveniently left out so as to mis-characterize his position? I mean, I certainly hope you don't believe that Sanders believes that raping women is okay, do you?

Reply to this post

Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #213)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 02:28 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

250. It's not new, others have made that claim here before.

They're just recycling old memes because it's easier than discussing issues.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 04:56 AM

davidpdx (22,000 posts)

273. He is clueless about women's right AND wants the ACA repealed

My GOD this Bernie Sanders is a monster.

Reply to this post

Response to davidpdx (Reply #273)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:33 AM

Fantastic Anarchist (7,309 posts)

298. I want the ACA repealed, too.

And replaced with a single-payer system.

Bernie "The Monster" Sanders advocates this position as well. How barbaric!!!! And how can he hate women????? Women are good people!

Reply to this post

Response to Hortensis (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:45 AM

George II (67,782 posts)

295. Have you seen the full essay that Sanders wrote? That was just an excerpt.

Reply to this post

Response to George II (Reply #295)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:32 AM

Hortensis (55,767 posts)

297. "Plodding through the article..." I meant the essay. :)

Reply to this post

Response to George II (Reply #295)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:34 AM

Fantastic Anarchist (7,309 posts)

299. No, I must admit, I haven't ... but again, he claims it was satire, so ...?

Reply to this post

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:43 AM

George II (67,782 posts)

294. Not interested after four replies.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:43 AM

Amimnoch (4,558 posts)

54. I have to admit, I'm one who does disagree.

I do think the outrage about is is hyperbolic at the least, but I do agree with the few, more temperate Sanders supporters about this logo modification.

I absolutely believe that Hillary and her campaign meant no disrespect at all to such a great and iconic figure. I do fully believe that the intent was good, and absolutely no disrespect was meant. I absolutely do believe that the few that are trying to assert that the intent was to put Rosa Parks at the back of the bus are ridiculous, insulting, and outrageous, and shame on those posters for even thinking that way.

However, I do agree with them that this wasn't the right way to portray Rosa Parks. The intent may not have been meant to be disrespectful but I do feel it was. Putting out one of the photo's that Hillary has had with her would have been a better choice imo.

Reply to this post

Response to Amimnoch (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:42 AM

mythology (9,527 posts)

57. I agree with you

It was a dumb move, but nothing in the end.

Reply to this post

Response to Amimnoch (Reply #54)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:50 AM

George II (67,782 posts)

302. The logo was used for a few hours on the day of the anniversary....

....which was already and done with days ago. I didn't see any civil rights activists (INCLUDING Sanders) complaining about it. John Lewis, who DID march with MLK, apparently didn't have a problem with it.

The only people who complained about it were right-wingers and Sanders followers. And the only people still whining about it are doing so probably because that's about all they can grasp onto at this point.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 03:48 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

3. Nobody wants to discuss his writing because it was just that terrible.

Better to say "Goldwater Girl", about a WOMAN who was not old enough to vote for AUH2O.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 03:57 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

6. I know, right?

If the truth must be hidden it must be pretty damning. That's all I can think.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 03:58 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

7. I refuse to read such garbage.

No way! Ewww!

They hide it cause it made them say eww, too!

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:04 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

9. I found it truly disgusting

Could not finish it. But I think they hide it whenever it comes up because they want to pretend he doesn't really think like that.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:18 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

19. That was all him.

Writers write what is inside of them. I can write terrible things. If I wrote it, it would be in the horror category or true crime.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:21 AM

Fantastic Anarchist (7,309 posts)

218. So, the "attempt at dark satire" part of the article escaped you?

And you'd rather believe everything else, no matter the basis in reality, and so out-of-character of Sanders? I mean, is it easier to fathom that Sanders believes in raping women, or that this was more than likely a poor attempt at dark satire? Which do you think is more in line with reality?

Reply to this post

Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #218)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:56 PM

George II (67,782 posts)

324. That's the classic disclaimer, "I wasn't serious", "I was only joking", "it was satire".....

.....but those WERE his words.

Reply to this post

Response to George II (Reply #324)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:10 AM

Fantastic Anarchist (7,309 posts)

335. Again, the same question applies.

Something so out-of-character for Sanders, and you'd rather believe he advocates raping women?

Wow.

Reply to this post

Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #335)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:57 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

341. "he advocates raping women" That meme came from the Cave.

They decided now would be a good time to run with it again.

Recycling old smears, it's all they've got.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #341)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:37 AM

Fantastic Anarchist (7,309 posts)

342. It's like they're seduced by irrational thinking ...

... from their, what I could only assume, is their hatred for the man. It boggles my mind.

Reply to this post

Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #342)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:45 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

343. Most of them are only feigning outrage.

I would say all of them but you never know who might take offense at a 40 year old essay on gender stereotypes.

It's just the latest swift boat attempt from people who don't want to discuss the real issues.

And the only reason they hate him is because he got in the way of Hillary's coronation.

Before that all of DU loved Bernie.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #343)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 09:31 AM

Fantastic Anarchist (7,309 posts)

345. So sad, too. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:55 AM

aikoaiko (33,348 posts)

65. I think Bernie called it dumb or stupid

Seems like a good response to me.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 03:52 AM

BlueCaliDem (15,438 posts)

5. Yeah, I didn't get the whole brouhaha, either.

As for the article at the link, you do know that if Sanders wins the primary, the Republicans are going to use that first and foremost. And they will use it ad nauseam. It will be a guaranteed loss for Democrats and then we can say good-bye to SCOTUS for a generation.

Reply to this post

Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:02 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

8. Yeah, I just told my wife about it

She was like, what??? Why??? No one really knows apparently.

And yes, the thing that cannot be mentioned here without being hidden will feature prominently in rethug attacks. And sadly, it would be legit. Other than John Edwards I cannot think of another Dem presidential candidate in my lifetime with such a terrible skeleton in the closet. It makes Gary Hart's monkey business look quaint.

Most women voters don't know anything about it and Hillary has been very nice not to make an issue of it, I suppose because she has no need. But I cannot imagine most women would vote for him once it is made more widely known.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:16 AM

thesquanderer (11,571 posts)

56. Do you find Sanders' 40 year old fiction more distasteful than...

...say, what HRC's husband actually did with a cigar and an intern?

Perhaps this has something to do with why "Hillary has been very nice not to make an issue of it."

Reply to this post

Response to thesquanderer (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:46 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

60. Absolutely - yes

And Bill is not running.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:53 AM

thesquanderer (11,571 posts)

63. True, Bill is not running, but...

...HRC chose to stay married to such a man.

Of course these things aren't black and white. But if you're going to speculate on how the electorate will respond to "sexual skeletons," there are all kinds of possibilities.

Personally, I don't see any of these things as as serious obstacles.

Reply to this post

Response to thesquanderer (Reply #63)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:57 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

67. I don't really care if they are "obstacles" for Bernie or not

It's a window into his mentality about women and it's not pretty.

Reply to this post

Response to thesquanderer (Reply #63)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:00 PM

okasha (11,573 posts)

326. Of course,

Sander's first wife and the girlfriend who had his son chose not to stay with "such a man."

Be careful where you step on this one.

Reply to this post

Response to okasha (Reply #326)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:09 AM

thesquanderer (11,571 posts)

336. Did he cheat on them?

And was it their choice not to stay together, or his choice, or was it mutual?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but it sounds like you do...?

Reply to this post

Response to okasha (Reply #326)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:13 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

337. Why was that?

Sander's first wife and the girlfriend who had his son chose not to stay with "such a man."

Was he a serial philanderer like Bill?

I don't give two shits about Clinton's affairs but if you want to drag Bernie through the same mud you'd better have more than idle gossip from the Cave to back it up.

Reply to this post

Response to thesquanderer (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 02:53 AM

kath (10,565 posts)

251. And we probably shouldn't get into the story of what happened when HRC defended an alleged rapist

And laughed about it (and she took the case voluntarily, in order to curry favor with a judge - always looking to do what will benefit her politically). Google it. Lovely story.

Reply to this post

Response to thesquanderer (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:49 AM

George II (67,782 posts)

296. Clinton's husband isn't running against Sanders.

Reply to this post

Response to George II (Reply #296)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:43 AM

thesquanderer (11,571 posts)

301. But the person who chose to stay married to him is.

And I bet she even voted for him, despite knowledge of his sexual indiscretions. So maybe she is more open-minded than some of her supporters are, and recognizes something about babies and bathwater.

If you're going to rule out anyone who's ever had a "distasteful" sexual thought -- not even action, but merely thought -- that probably rules out virtually all males, and a good number of females as well, from ever being qualified to be president.

I mean seriously, regardless of what he wrote--keeping in mind his actual public policy actions--does anyone genuinely believe Sanders would govern in a way that is not supportive of and respectful toward women? Really?

Reply to this post

Response to thesquanderer (Reply #301)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:23 PM

Thinkingabout (30,058 posts)

334. Sanders remains married to a woman who received a golden parachute from

Burlington College even though he doesn't think there should be any golden parachutes. His wife chose to marry him after his rape article.

Reply to this post

Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #334)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:16 AM

thesquanderer (11,571 posts)

338. Not sure of your point, but...

to the first, I don't think her golden parachute rises to the level of potential marital issue that an affair with an intern does, depite perhaps their different philosophies about such things. To the second, similarly, I don't think that article (did you read it?) rises to that level either. Though again, I'm not criticizing HRC for staying with Bill. My main point is that I think this "rape article" is just not much of an issue, nor going to be an issue for much of the electorate even if it is more greatly brought to their attention.

Reply to this post

Response to thesquanderer (Reply #338)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:35 AM

Thinkingabout (30,058 posts)

339. I went back and reread your post #301

" But the person who chose to stay married to him is"

Perhaps we have a difference of opinion, you don't think the rape article is much of an issue, Bill and Hillary's marriage is not much of an issue to others outside of their marriage.

I did read the article, and I find it disturbing.

Reply to this post

Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #339)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:45 AM

thesquanderer (11,571 posts)

340. I agree, Bill and Hillary's marriage is their own concern

But I guess i found it ironic than Hillary can get past some arguably unsavory actions, while some of her supporters can't get by some arguably unsavory thoughts--not action, but thoughts--from 40 years ago in their consideration of BS, this even despite his strong support of women's issues throughout his career,

I think a good sum up of the BS article issue is here:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/29/410606045/the-bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy-essay-explained

Reply to this post

Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:14 AM

Delver Rootnose (250 posts)

42. And if Hillary gets.....

...the nomination how many little steaming piles from her past will be used repeatedly. I would rather take a chance with Bearnie's past than Hillary's.

Reply to this post

Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:43 AM

BlueCaliDem (15,438 posts)

58. You're forgetting one fundamental truth...she's been vetted FOR 30 YEARS.

They haven't even begun to vet him.

Up to this point, it's been nothing but a media love-fest for him. They've taken a hands off approach with him and the only real vetting he's getting is here, on DU, and opposition research by Hillary Clinton supporters (just as Sanders supporters are vetting her here and on every left-leaning blog by Sanders supporters).

If you've been here long enough (since 2009 but a low post count tells me you don't really follow DU), you would've noticed how we criticize the way U.S. Media have ignored Republican hypocrisy, distortions, and outright lies. We complain that U.S. Media never takes Republicans to task no matter how outrageous they talk or act. Ultimately, we've come to the conclusion that U.S. Media favors Republicans over Democrats on any given day, any given time. And in 2012, the Pew Research Center's study vindicated us by showing that a sitting Democratic president running for reelection with high popularity among Democrats, Independents, and Liberals, gets the least favorable coverage in all U.S. media, and a sitting Republican governor from Texas got the most favorable from the get-go.

Can we agree that U.S. mass media are no friends to Democrats?

Okay. Ever since he announced his candidacy, aside from the kid-gloves the media are handling Sanders with, Republican strategists have called for Operation Chaos 2016, called for their people to donate to Sanders' campaign, and big Republican operatives have even been tweeting "feelthebern". Now you need to ask yourself why that is.

Reply to this post

Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #58)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:46 AM

Fawke Em (11,366 posts)

59. Can we agree that U.S. mass media are no friends to Democrats?

Not in this case. They'd rather have a Republican, true, but if they can't get one, they'll take the DINO every time.

Reply to this post

Response to Fawke Em (Reply #59)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 12:40 PM

BlueCaliDem (15,438 posts)

69. If you really believe that, you haven't been paying attention.

And there's nothing more to say to you about this.

Reply to this post

Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #58)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:55 AM

Delver Rootnose (250 posts)

66. I've been here a very long time....

..and I follow politics a lot. I have been following since the Carter/Reagan race.

I just don't post here a lot.

That said, the media isn't treating sanders with kid gloves, they are largely ignoring him in the hopes he goes away.

And what you call vetting is really they have been attacking Hillary and Bill for decades. You are correct in that. And while nothing has stuck leagally it has conditioned a generation to think negatively about the clintons. That is why she has high negatives. No other person on the democratic side will motivate republicans to come out and vote more than her and in a year where what remains of the moderate business republicans have little to look forward to.

It is my opinion that nominating Hillary will lead to high republican turnout and depressed democratic turnout. Which is not a good place to be as a candidate. There is a VERY strong anti establishment bent in the electorate, as shown by trump and Carson's popularity, and you really can't get more establishment than a Clinton. Even sanders years in the senate, and relative low name recognition, is nothing compared to Clinton.

Reply to this post

Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #58)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:39 AM

CoffeeCat (24,411 posts)

300. Thats really inappropriate and rude...

...to call out a fellow DUer for their "low post count" and then make assumptions like "you really don't follow DU."

And then you make further condescending and presumptuous comments about their failure to understand the "U.S. Media (sic)", etc.

It's ok to slug it out politically, but calling out people like that is wrong.

Reply to this post

Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:08 AM

840high (17,196 posts)

201. ....x10+

Reply to this post

Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:43 PM

artislife (9,497 posts)

78. I am so afraid now...not. nt

Reply to this post

Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:23 AM

Fantastic Anarchist (7,309 posts)

222. And he can explain it like he already has, and state that it was a poor attempt at satire.

And while he's providing his defense, he can actually hold the Republicans record on women - which would be turning his supposed weakness into a strength.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:06 AM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

11. speaking of being reduced to complaining about things.

Oh, le irony.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:11 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

14. I'm searching for an objective explaination of why....

It's okay for Bernie to pretend he's the second coming of MLK, but paying tribute to Rosa Parks is bad. Can you explain?

Also, want to weigh in on why this is hidden so routinely? It's true, and quite insulting to women. Why is it off topic for discussion?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bernie-sanders-1972-essay-rape-fantasy-surfaces-article-1.2240379

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:15 AM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

18. I didn't say the logo was bad. Maybe badly designed, sure.

As for the mimeographed page-long essay in the alternative weekly from 1972, to the contrary, it was discussed into the ground when it was first "unearthed", and I will gladly explain again - you yourself boasting that you haven't bothered to read the thing, but you want to make damn sure you reference what you claim it implies anyway - at least my interpretation of what it is about.

It is a poorly-crafted attempt at a contemporary (by 1972 standards) analysis of the state of gender and sexual roles and politics. Badly written and certainly outdated, but not all that different from similar analyses done by the likes of Andrea Dworkin and her ideological fellow travelers, in the same decade. It's not even close to the "gotcha" that you seem to think it is.

Now, if you bothered to actually, you know.. read it, you might get that.

Also, to add, your post wasn't hidden 7-0 because you referenced that old story. It was because of the absolutely ugly allegation you made, fallaciously based on the thing.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:29 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

22. Oh I read most of it, until I was too disgusted to continue

And I was in my teens back when he wrote that. It wasn't any more acceptable then as it is now to pretend women fantasized about being raped. At least not to women. Let's not pretend it was okay back then. So much for your revisionist history.

As for the hide, what makes it fallacious and an "allegation" instead of a fact? Are you claiming he wrote something he didn't really believe, or that he evolved in his views on women? He's divorced and has an out of wedlock child. What do those two women think about him? Do you care? I do.

Men that think that kind of thing don't evolve. At least not in my experience. Why should women trust him?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:39 AM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

24. Again, you're misinterpreting the thing, I have to believe deliberately.

Because anyone who was around in the 70s likely remembers the rather stark and bleak interpretations of the state of gender politics popularized by some of the louder and more ideologically rigid voices of that decade.

He's' making a comment on an interpretation of society and socially prescribed roles, not suggesting that that situation is ideal or healthy.

Your logic - such as it is, here - is akin to suggesting that because he made Schindler's List, Speilberg is a Nazi.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:51 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

25. No i'm not

You're making excuses for your hero. And you know it.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:54 AM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

26. That's not even an answer. That's phoning it in. I get it, context/nuance are, like, hard.

Shit like using 9-11 as an applause line to deflect from questions about donations from Wall St. and financial deregulation?

Easy-Peasy.

Phoooooooooning it in.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:04 AM

MADem (135,425 posts)

28. If that grosses you out, don't google the candidate's name and "cervical cancer."

You'll be infuriated.

He doesn't have much sensitivity or understanding of women at a very basic level. His writings show that.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 07:12 AM

MattSh (3,714 posts)

47. You just broke the insanity meter with this one...

"It's okay for Bernie to pretend he's the second coming of MLK"

But that's OK. Others will come along and top that in 3...2...1...

Reply to this post

Response to MattSh (Reply #47)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:00 AM

davidpdx (22,000 posts)

274. No, Maggie has pretty well topped herself with her own comments lately

She also claims that Bernie Sanders has no clue about women's issues and that he wants the ACA repealed.

God damn he's such a monster!!

Reply to this post

Response to davidpdx (Reply #274)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:33 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

276. I don't know who's more evil, Bernie or his supporters.

Some days it's like watch really bad street theater.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #276)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:07 AM

davidpdx (22,000 posts)

277. I know, can't they make up their minds?

Christ almighty!

Reply to this post

Response to davidpdx (Reply #277)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:11 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

278. I did add another to the long list of smears, it's getting rather unwieldy.

According to Hillary supporters on DU Bernie is Israel's #1 shill, a pro gunner that thinks women enjoy being raped, racist, gun nut, scheming little sneak, drooling, sweating old fool, scumbag, pandering phony braggart with some kind of emotional instability, tool for the NRA, Republican man with his head between women's legs, who protects the minutemen militia, pedophiles, racist cops, has rape fantasies, thinks that orgasms prevent cancer, wants the guns in the streets, and is supported by Stormfront.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #278)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:15 AM

davidpdx (22,000 posts)

280. Two more for your list

He wants the ACA repealed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=872491

He is clueless about women's rights and women's issues:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=869580

Reply to this post

Response to davidpdx (Reply #280)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:17 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

281. Wow, I'll try to work those in.

I'm going to need a bigger boat.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #276)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:15 AM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

279. Andy Kaufman didn't die, oh no.

He multiplied!

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #279)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:19 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

282. .

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #11)

Post removed

Response to Post removed (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:09 AM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

30. that doesn't even deserve a response.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:28 AM

Capt. Obvious (9,002 posts)

51. Deserves a hide

Reply to this post

Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 09:43 PM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

118. Why? Even Bernie's spox said his essay "looks as stupid today as it was then."

Why can't we talk about it or discuss why it was so stupid? These are Bernie's OWN WORDS written when he was in his 30s. Bernie supporters love to talk about Hillary being a "Goldwater Girl" when she was a teenager. Why can't we talk about what Bernie did in his 30s?

It's not like it was dug up by some right winger and copied on DU like so many anti-Hillary posts here. Bernie's "Man - and Woman" essay was dug up and displayed by Mother Jones magazine:

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/young-bernie-sanders-liberty-union-vermont

Again, why the censership?

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #118)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 04:06 AM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

268. like Skinner sez, "you take your chances".

Gee, whiz, I have no idea why a jury decided to hide that post.

It's not for calling the essay stupid and badly written, though, after all many people including myself do that in this thread.

And it's not, er, censorship of the essay itself... again, despite claims that "no one will talk about it", again, many people discuss the context of the thing and why the egregious attempts at misrepresenting what it supposedly implies about Sen. Sanders' character are so wildly off-base. And it was discussed endlessly when the mojo article first came out.

So, again, why was that post hidden?

Hmmm, verily, 'tis a mystery.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #118)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 04:32 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

270. It was "censored" for accusing a DUer of condoning rape.

This essay has been discussed to death here, no one had their posts hidden for posting facts, but when you smear Senator Sanders by claiming he thinks women enjoy being raped or accuse another member of condoning it that deserves more than a hide, imo.

And the post you're claiming was unfairly hidden wasn't even about Bernie, it was about ANOTHER member.

The jury got it right.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:07 AM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

12. You're a hoot.

Ever noticed that you talk waaay more about Sanders than you do clinton?

is it looooooooooove?

Reply to this post

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:12 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

15. Just following the Bernie supporter trend here

You all spend 24/7 smearing Clinton. Don't like it when the tables are turned? Why is that?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:19 AM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

21. I think it's silly that you keep doing what you insist you have a problem with

Like here... you're complaining about people complaining, while also complaining about something else.

And the irony is how much outrage you have expressed towards people simply citing Martin Luther King, Jr., much less commandeering him and stapling him to an official campaign logo.

Reply to this post

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:30 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

23. Hey, I will quit the moment the Hillary smear brigade does

No problem.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:18 AM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

35. No, by all means, continue.

Have you ever heard of "pharaoh's serpent"? It's a chemistry stunt of a sort, where mercury thiocyanate is ignited.

The result is a slow-burning self-destruct that produces copious amounts of very toxic ash that looks like shit and falls apart under the lightest touch.

No particular reason for bringing it up, I just think chemistry is cool.

Reply to this post

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #35)

Name removed Message auto-removed

Response to Name removed (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:04 PM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

76. I do

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:12 AM

cherokeeprogressive (24,853 posts)

207. So, no original thoughts from you then?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:56 AM

Kalidurga (14,177 posts)

27. What do you think of someone who would say this to BLM activists.

“Respectfully, if that is your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with the very real problems,”

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:10 AM

Bonobo (29,257 posts)

31. Cool. White lady thinks it's okay. Got it.

Maybe you should complain to the black people that didn't care for it. I'm sure they will all agree that you are in a much better position to make that decision than they are.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:11 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

32. Oh please, I don't know any intelligent adult woman who is upset by that essay.

This sudden outrage is fake and the drama is laughable

Even if the act was more convincing it's much too late to be believable, we heard all about this months ago and we're still rolling our eyes.

Oh and your post was hidden because of this:

Enjoy your fantasies.

Speaking of fantasies, Bernie thinks women enjoy being raped. I simply cannot understand how a real liberal would vote for a pro gunner that thinks women enjoy being raped. Can you explain that to me? I just can't wrap my head around that. Especially when I think about how many women have been raped at the point of a knife or gun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868622

So you can quit pretending Duers are trying to censor this non-story about an essay on gender stereotypes.

They just don't like it when people lie about Dem candidates.

See, real liberals are like that, 40-year old essays don't bother them but lying does.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:20 AM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

36. "There's gotta be a pony under here somewhere!"

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:32 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

37. QUIT MANSPLAINING, I'M TRYING TO FAINT OVER HERE!

Where's my couch, somebody fetch the smelling salts!

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:13 AM

Divernan (15,480 posts)

41. And the pearls! What the hell happened to my pearls?

Reply to this post

Response to Divernan (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:17 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

43. Right?

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:47 AM

winter is coming (11,785 posts)

61. ...

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #32)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:13 AM

840high (17,196 posts)

208. ...+1

Reply to this post

Response to 840high (Reply #208)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:15 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

211. Another recycled meme, what a shock, eh?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Post removed

Response to Post removed (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:46 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

38. Intelligent adults understand it was an essay about gender stereotypes.

The only people who think Bernie has sick sexual fantasies are projecting, imo.

And the only ones I've seen getting the vapours over the essay are uptight right wing conservative types who are too stupid to understand it.

Like the ones at youngcons.

But then reading comprehension was never their strong suit.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #38)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:56 AM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

39. I'm starting to think some people only understand information in sound-bite sized chunks.

"Wall St."? "9-11"?

Sure, seems legit!

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #39)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:00 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

40. Must be all those years reading the tabloids and watching the boob tube.

Makes some folks absolutely incapable of critical thought.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Post removed

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:30 AM

bowens43 (16,064 posts)

44. if you cant see that hillary would do ot say anything at anytime to anyone

to get the power she believes she is entitled to then you already lost........the woman is morally and ethically unfit to be president.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 07:09 AM

NCTraveler (30,481 posts)

46. It has been made clear to me....

Even by Clinton supporters, Sanders fantasies can't be discussed here. I have no clue why considering we know his fantasies will be used.

Reply to this post

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #46)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:50 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

62. I've seen posts that are nothing more than Bernie quotes hidden

Apparently it is not permitted if it presents Bernie in a bad light.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #62)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 03:16 AM

Change has come (2,372 posts)

256. How concerning!

I'm starting to feel upset too!

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 07:24 AM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

48. A disjointed and unfocused Flame bait OP.

I've seen you do better, but I guess you're losing steam. It's tough to stir shit day in day out and present coherent thoughts.

The article had been discussed here as nauseum. Posting about the article does not get a hide.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 07:28 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

49. But now it's a CONSPIRASEE!!! Don't you understand? DU won't let anyone talk about it!

Even though the articles have been posted here countless times, Maggie had a post hidden for saying Bernie thinks women enjoy being raped so suddenly that means Hillary supporters are being SILENCED for daring to speak the truthiness!

Such brave and noble martyrs, sacrificing themselves for the cause, just breaks my heart.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:31 AM

Capt. Obvious (9,002 posts)

52. The fact that HRC supporters are on time out

at a much higher rate than Bernie supporters is proof that they are being silenced by the 85%.

Reply to this post

Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:35 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

53. It's only a matter of time before they get you too, Capt. Obvious.

Reply to this post

Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 01:41 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

72. It's proof that some Clinton supporters can't post within the TOS.

Reply to this post

Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:45 PM

artislife (9,497 posts)

81. This again

Maybe they should post better posts?

Reply to this post

Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 03:22 AM

Change has come (2,372 posts)

257. Is that a problem?

Maybe HRC supporters should lay off the personal attacks? Or not.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:12 AM

merrily (45,251 posts)

50. Hello.

morningfog, you are one of the bravest posters on this board. Huge

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 12:07 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

68. Uh huh

In Bernie land a tribute in a logo is a big deal, but Bernie's ridiculous views on women is no big deal. Just don't mention, please. LOL!

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 01:33 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

70. Mention the article all you want, it won't get a hide.

It is your disruptiveness that earns you each and every hide.

Your OP still lacks focus. The two feeble points are unrelated.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 01:39 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

71. I don't think the facts bear out your claims

And I really don't care if you insult me as a means to ignore the issue. It's perfectly obvious that is what you are doing.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #71)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 01:42 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

73. The fact is that the article you referenced has been discussed in hundreds of posts without hides.

That's a tough fact for your paranoid OP.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 02:07 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

74. Oh get real

Every non-Bernie supporter here knows damn well they have to tip toe around evidence like this or they will be hidden. Just like I was because I REFUSE to tip toe around disgusting stuff like this.

Meanwhile Hillary is called a whore and a shill daily with ZERO evidence and it is allowed to stand. If you are trying to convince me or any other non-Bernie supporter here that the jury system is not FOS you are wasting your time.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:43 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

77. You are not a victim on this board.

Yours was not hidden for posting the content of the article or a link to it. It was hidden for violating the TOS.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:45 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

80. I'm not, huh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110728800

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #80)

Post removed

Response to Post removed (Reply #82)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:49 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

85. A disruptor? Let me translate that for you

What you really mean is I don't act like a puppy dog while you all smear good Dems 24/7. And you know what? Too bad if you don't like that I don't.

I think you all forgot that this is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #85)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:51 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

86. That was a piss poor translation.

Want to see someone who smears Democrats and lefties day in and day out? Look at you "My Posts" tabs. Just one flame bait fly paper post after another. You get hides and vacations because you are rude and insulting. It has nothing to do with your claimed "support" of Hillary. Nothing.

So, buck up and drop the faux victim act.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:55 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

88. Are we still pretending Bernie is a Democrat?

I thought we settled that one. He isn't.

I have never had a hide for insulting ANYONE here. My hides come from telling the truth about Bernie. And you know it. Just like the hide last night, for TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT BERNIE.

That, apparently, is not allowed here because the jury system has been taken over in a coup.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #88)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:59 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

91. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA That is the funniest fucking thing I've read all week!!!

You have a long history of hidden posts for personal attacks. That is too fucking funny.

Oh my GOD< I'm dying. TOO MUCH!!!LOLOLOLOLO

JURY COUP!!!! LOLOLOOLOOOL

P.S.

We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

Oh, my side is hurting from the laughter.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #91)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:00 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

92. Keep laughing

You're making a fool of yourself with your attempts to personally insult and bully a person who is immune to your attempts. Sadly, you can't seem to grasp that, but it matters not to me.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #92)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:06 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

94. Bully!

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #94)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:50 PM

Juicy_Bellows (2,427 posts)

160. In case you were curious

Mail Message
On Thu Dec 3, 2015, 09:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

No, you are not. You are a disruptor and a stirrer of shit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=870843

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Rude and over the top. Enough with the name calling.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 3, 2015, 09:54 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As objective as I can possibly be - if the shoe fits.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:44 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

79. Your post was hidden because you said Bernie "thinks women enjoy being raped".

So claiming that the jurors (who ALL voted to hide your disgusting post) are in on some huge conspiracy is not only paranoid it's obviously false.

And please link to where Hillary is called a "whore" daily or are you just making that up too?

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #79)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:46 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

83. Did you read the essay?

That is exactly what he says. You have a problem with the truth being posted, apparently.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #83)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:48 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

84. Yes I read it and thats a lie. Link to Hillary being called a "whore" daily?

Or is that a lie too?

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #84)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:52 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

87. Here's a nice quote from it

"A woman enjoys intercourse with her man, and she fantasizes about being raped by three men simultaneously."

And it just gets worse from there. Now what part am I lying about? Please be specific.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/young-bernie-sanders-liberty-union-vermont

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #87)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:57 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

89. Link to Hillary being called a"whore" daily? Do you want everyone to think you're lying?

And if you have trouble with reading comprehension I can't help you, perhaps youngcons is a better website for you, they had extreme difficulty understanding that the essay was about gender stereotypes too.

Small minded uptight Republicans thought it was quite the scandal as well, liberals are usually more intelligent.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #89)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 03:46 AM

Live and Learn (12,769 posts)

263. Jury Results

On Fri Dec 4, 2015, 02:26 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Link to Hillary being called a"whore" daily? Do you want everyone to think you're lying?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=870888

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

use of the word w****

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Dec 4, 2015, 02:38 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Telling a member here to go post at a conservative site is rude
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ridiculous alert.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post is part of a heated conversation. I don't see any personal insults.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: use of the word is in form of a quotation - quoting someone else's phrase and use of the word.

I am sure you know how I voted.

Reply to this post

Response to Live and Learn (Reply #263)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 03:50 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

265. "use of the word w**** "? Seriously? That's the 4th failed alert on my posts tonight.

- that I know of.

I think the Cave is getting desperate.

There's alert stalking going on, alright, it's just all coming from that place.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #265)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 03:51 AM

Live and Learn (12,769 posts)

266. Yep. I'd take that as a sign that you are doing something right. lol

Reply to this post

Response to Live and Learn (Reply #266)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 03:54 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

267. No doubt!

Everyone knows if the bigots and assholes at the conservative/other cave hate ya, you're doing something right!

It's a badge of honour!

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #87)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:59 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

90. Do you really not understand the difference between consensual sex/fantasies and rape?

My god no wonder you're shocked.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #90)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:02 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

93. My hidden post had nothing to do with that

Bernie thinks women fantasize about being raped. That's what I said, and the essay proves it. Do you admire him for that view? I sure don't. And I sure as hell don't want someone who is so clueless to be president.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:07 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

95. No that's NOT what you said, here is your post again:

First you claimed Bernie "thinks women enjoy being raped".

Now you're saying "Bernie thinks women fantasize about being raped".

You can't weasel your way out of this one, Maggie.

Either you don't understand the difference between consensual sex/fantasies and rape or you were lying about Bernie in that post.

Which is it?

Oh and keep pretending to be outraged and/or fantacizing about being persecuted, this is hillaryous.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #95)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:29 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

96. The plain meaning is clear - crystal clear

"A woman enjoys intercourse with her man, and she fantasizes about being raped by three men simultaneously."

Do you really think most women fantasize about being raped? Do you approve of a man making that claim? You don't want to address what he said, apparently.

Believe me, that Neanderthal essay WILL come up in the election, and the majority of women will see it just as myself and lots of others do. You cannot hide it or wish it away in this campaign. And your attempts to do so are foolish.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #96)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:32 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

97. Which one of your posts was a lie?

The one where you claimed he said women fantasize about being raped or the one where you claimed he "thinks women enjoy being raped"?

And congrats, you're just as despicable as the Republicans who already tried to call Bernie a misogynist and turn this into a scandal.

There's a difference between acknowledging the other side will use sleazy smear tactics against our candidates and doing the work for them on DU.

Stay classy, Maggie.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #97)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:37 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

98. "A woman enjoys intercourse with her man, and she fantasizes about being raped

by three men simultaneously"

Let's break it down "enjoys".... "fantasizes about being raped"

And that is EXACTLY what I said he said.

Are you saying he wrote that, but doesn't think it? How do you come to that conclusion? It's a fucking essay, not a short story. He believes that. Or he has "evolved." Which?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #98)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:39 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

99. So you lied when you said Bernie "thinks women enjoy being raped"?

Either that or you don't understand the difference between consensual sex/fantasies and rape.

Which is it?

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #99)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:43 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

100. He does think that - plain as day

He wrote it.

Are you calling me a liar?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #100)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:44 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

101. So you don't understand the difference between consensual sex/fantasies and rape?

Or you lied in your hidden post, it's your choice, pick one.

Either way Bernie's not the one who ended up looking clueless or vile in this thread.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #101)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:55 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

102. Rape is NOT consensual and a MAN pretending

.... he knows what WOMEN fantasize about and PUBLISHING it is disgusting. It is an insult to every woman. There is nothing CONSENSUAL about what he did.

Now enough pretending and twisting yourself in a pretzel knot to excuse it. I'm done with you.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #102)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:59 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

103. Pick one, either you lied about the essay or you don't know the difference.

The only one twisting themselves into a pretzel is you, I'm just quoting your own words back to you and asking for clarification.

I love the capital letters, very dramatic! And completely convincing.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #103)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 07:16 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

104. RAPE is not CONSENSUAL

rapes; raped; raping

: to force (someone) to have sex with you by using violence or the threat of violence

NOT CONSENSUAL. Got it yet?

So do you really not know what the definition of rape is? Hope I was able to help.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #104)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 07:33 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

105. Very good, now why did you confuse rape and fantasy when you posted this?:

Enjoy your fantasies.

Speaking of fantasies, Bernie thinks women enjoy being raped. I simply cannot understand how a real liberal would vote for a pro gunner that thinks women enjoy being raped. Can you explain that to me? I just can't wrap my head around that. Especially when I think about how many women have been raped at the point of a knife or gun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868622

First you claimed Bernie "thinks women enjoy being raped".

Then you said "Bernie thinks women fantasize about being raped".

Since you appear to understand the difference between consensual sex/fantasies and rape doesn't that mean you lied about his essay in your hidden post?

Or did you just figure it out?

Which is it?

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #105)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:14 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

106. Why do you keep pretending rape is consensual?

Please explain.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #106)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:17 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

107. Why are you lying about my posts? And why did you say "Bernie thinks women enjoy being raped"?

Please explain why it looks like you lied about his essay in your hidden post before moving on to lie about my posts.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #105)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 10:42 PM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

121. Women don't "enjoy" fantasizing about rape. Bernie's essay suggests they do. That is OFFENSIVE.

Women fantasize about sex with men they want to have sex with. Some women may fantasize about men they find sexually attractive and who they WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH taking a dominant role in sex play. BUT that is NOT fantasizing about "rape."

RAPE IS RAPE. It is not pleasurable. It is not consensual. The victim does not want to have sex with that person, nor does she "fantasize" about having sex with that person. It has nothing to do with sex. It is a violent, often deadly, horrible attack and humiliation of its victim. No sane person fantasizes about being such a victim.

Bernie's "Man - and Woman" essay suggests that women routinely fantasize about being raped ("A women enjoys sex with her man - as she fantasizes about being raped by 3 men simultaneously."

. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/young-bernie-sanders-liberty-union-vermont That is offensive. Worse, it glamorizes rape. As Bernie's spokesman said, that essay "looks as stupid today as it was then." Calling Bernie's essay "stupid" is putting it mildly.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #121)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 10:51 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

123. Are you really that naive? Women do fantacize about it, and they write about it too.

Read some erotica, it'll blow your mind.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #123)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:02 PM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

124. OMG. I can't believe I am having this conversation on a progessive board...with an adult.

Here, let me try to make it simple for you. Women's erotica involves acts women WANT. Rape involves acts women DON'T WANT.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #124)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:07 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

126. ZOMG! I can't believe you haven't read erotica before.

I won't go into the stories here but give it a google.

It's quite common, I assure you. No need to freak out about other peoples' fantasies - they're quite healthy.

Unless you think women who like 50 Shades of Grey and fantasy fiction are sick and not "adult" enough for you.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #126)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:13 PM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

129. Those fantasies involve men those women WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH.

Rape is NOT consensual. It is NOT what women want or fantasize about.

Wow. Just wow.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #129)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:20 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

136. Well, duh. Who do you think Bernie was writing about?

The women who have those fantasies aren't victims, stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Like I said, thousands of intelligent adult women read that essay and aren't having the vapours over it.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #136)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:42 PM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

151. Women who have fantasies are not victims. I am not "pretending."

I am saying that suggesting women fantasize about being victims of rape is offensive. What you call "rape fantasies" are not fantasies about rape. They are fantasies about being dominated by a person the woman WANTS TO HAVE SEX WITH. Being dominated by a person you want to have sex with is not rape. Hence it is not a rape fantasy.

Just because a woman does not agree with you does not mean she is not an "intelligent adult" or that she is "having the vapors." You are making a really sexist, stupid argument.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #151)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:39 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

196. I'm not suggesting it, I'm stating it as a fact, women do fantasize about it.

You don't get to define what other women do and don't think about and you sure as hell don't get to judge them.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #196)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:09 AM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

202. It is not a fact. You don't get to define rape. nt

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #202)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:11 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

206. You're trying to tell me that you know what other women fantasize about?

Please get over yourself, do some homework, get an education.

Stop judging other women.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #206)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:19 AM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

215. Women do not fantasize about actual rape.

I am quite educated, I assure you.

I am not judging women. I am defending women from the horrifically wrong and dangerous assertion that women fantasize about actual rape. Words matter.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #215)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:22 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

221. You have no idea what other women fantasize about.

How about this, prove your claim.

I want evidence that women don't fantasize about rape.

Go get some and present it.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #221)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:27 AM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

229. Rape is not about sex. Rape is an assault.

You do not appear to understand what rape is.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #229)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:28 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

230. Since I was attacked I'm well aware of what rape is. But thanks.

And you don't get to decide what women do and don't fantasize about.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #230)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:34 AM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

236. Do you think women fantasize about being attacked, against their will...

...by men they do not find attractive or want to have sex with?

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #236)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:37 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

239. How do you know what women do and don't fantasize about?

Women have rape fantasies, it's a fact.

The details of the fantasies are irrelevant, you're not in their heads, get over it and move on.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #239)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:40 AM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

241. I figured you wouldn't answer my question.

You've wasted enough of my time. Good night.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #241)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:46 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

244. First you claimed that women don't fantasize about rape.

Then you found out that was wrong.

So you tried to redefine what rape is and is not in other women's fantasies.

And that was a fail.

Then you implied I didn't know what rape was.

And found out I've been attacked.

So then you went back to trying to tell me what other women do and don't fantasize about.

And I asked you to prove it.

Now you decide to leave.

In short, you've got nothing so you're running away, quelle surprise!

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #215)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 04:55 AM

LostOne4Ever (8,854 posts)

272. According to Psychology today you are mistaken.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/womens-rape-fantasies-how-common-what-do-they-mean

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201508/why-do-women-have-rape-fantasies

Reply to this post

Response to LostOne4Ever (Reply #272)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:31 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

275. Well there you go, thank you.

I guess all of those women are "sick" according to the posters in this thread.

Reply to this post

Response to LostOne4Ever (Reply #272)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:03 AM

treestar (81,220 posts)

285. it is more the bodice ripper thing

and the explanation is that women are conditioned to avoid admitting they really want sex,so they fantasize they were forced, so "it's not my fault."

Funny the writer of both articles is a man.

it's not a good subject for a man to get into, and Bernie would have been unwise to do so. His only excuse would be it was back in the 70s when there was considerably less awareness.

Reply to this post

Response to treestar (Reply #285)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 04:19 PM

LostOne4Ever (8,854 posts)

308. They definitely need more articles on this from other women

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]But the results are still derived from women themselves so should be paid attention to even if the messenger is a man.

That said, one of the articles specifically says that fault avoidance is the reason given the least.[/font]

Which Explanation Is Most Compelling?

Contrary to the conventional wisdom that rape fantasies are based on blame avoidance (I was coerced. It wasn’t my fault.), the researchers found this the least supported explanation. The most sexually anxious, guilty, and repressed women had the fewest rape fantasies.

The data provided the most support for sexual openness (I’m free to fantasize anything.) followed by sexual desirability (I’m so hot. I drive men crazy.)

The most sexually open and self-accepting women had the most rape fantasies. They also had the most fantasies of consensual sex. And they reported the most arousal from their erotic fantasies.

Reply to this post

Response to LostOne4Ever (Reply #308)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 04:53 PM

treestar (81,220 posts)

310. Kind of goes against the idea we often say

that rape has nothing to do with sex. Creates cognitive cloudiness there. Nobody fantasizes about being assaulted otherwise.

Who was judging which women were the most "open and self-accepting?" Also I would question whether there is some attempt at gaining approval of being "open." Nowadays there are women who would not want to be described as "uptight."

If it happens it is still probably bodice ripper stuff at the concept "I am so attractive, men lose control." If these fantasies were described, it is unlikely they are of actually being assaulted.

Reply to this post

Response to LostOne4Ever (Reply #272)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:55 PM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

305. No, "bodice rpper" fantasies are not rape fantasies.

Mr. Castleman is talking about scenarios where the woman chooses who "ravishes" her, and he is invariably someone she wants to "force" himself on her. That is not rape. The woman created that whole scenario in her mind. She chose the man. She chose the acts. That makes it consensual.

That is not Psychology Today using the unfortunate terminology "rape fantasy." That it is Mr. Michael Castleman, M.A.

To suggest that women fantasize about actual rape is wrong and glamorizes rape.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #305)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 03:59 PM

LostOne4Ever (8,854 posts)

307. It cites specifically and solely mentioning rape to women. Read both articles in full

Last edited Fri Dec 4, 2015, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Neither one of them is very long. Quoting from the articles:[/font]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201508/why-do-women-have-rape-fantasies

Researchers at Notre Dame and the University of North Texas gave standard psychological tests to 355 women undergraduates, who formed a reasonable demographic cross-section of young Americans. Then the researchers surveyed the women’s sexual fantasies. And finally the women were asked if they’d ever fantasized:

1. Being forced by a man to surrender sexually against my will.

2. Being forced by a woman to surrender sexually against my will.

3. Being forced into a sex against my will because I was incapacitated by drugs, alcohol, or being unconscious.

4. Being forced by a man to give him oral sex.

5. Being forced by a woman to give her oral sex.

6. Being forced to have anal sex.

7. Being raped by a man.

8. Being raped by a woman.

Note: The researchers did not define “forced” or “rape,” leaving participants to use their own understanding of these terms, “forced” having somewhat less negative connotations than “rape.”

The Results

Confirming earlier studies on the prevalence of rape fantasies, 62 percent of participants admitted fantasizing at least one of the eight scenarios:

Forced by a man: 52%.

Raped by a man: 32%.

Forced oral by a man: 28%.

Forced while incapacitated: 24%.

Forced by a woman: 17%.

Forced anal: 16%.

Raped by a woman: 9%.

Forced oral by a woman: 9%.

Note: The participants were considerably more likely to fantasize being “forced” than “raped,” presumably because “rape” carries more connotations of violence and harm.

The high prevalence of rape fantasies—almost two-thirds of the women—suggest that they play a significant role in the fantasy lives of college-age women ... and presumably many older women as well.

Meanwhile, in line with other assessments, 15 percent of study participants reported being survivors of sexual assault. The researchers found no relationship, either direct or inverse, between real-life rape and whether participants had any type of rape fantasy.

Decades ago, psychologists believed that dreams and fantasies (daydreams) were subconscious wishes, therefore, women who had rape fantasies actually wanted to be coerced into sex. That view has been thoroughly debunked. Fantasies don’t necessarily reflect wishes. Among those in long-term relationships, one of the most common fantasies is sex with someone else, even when the daydreamer is happy in the relationship and has no real desire to jump into another bed. Plenty of men fantasize saving damsels in distress without the slightest real wish to face a raging fire on the 23rd floor. Wishing plays a role in some fantasies, notably dreams of striking it rich or losing weight, but having an erotic fantasy in no way means you want it to come true.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/womens-rape-fantasies-how-common-what-do-they-mean

Sixty-two percent said they'd had at least one such fantasy. But responses varied depending on the terminology used. When asked about being "overpowered by a man," 52 percent said they'd had that fantasy, the situation most typically depicted in women's romance fiction. But when the term was "rape," only 32 percent said they'd had the fantasy. These findings are in the same ballpark as previous reports.

Rape fantasies can be either erotic or aversive. In erotic fantasies, the woman thinks: "I'm being forced and I enjoy it." In aversive fantasies, she thinks: "I'm being forced and I hate it." Forty-five-percent of the women in the recent survey had fantasies that were entirely erotic. Nine percent were entirely aversive. And 46 percent were mixed.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Further, rape is not about want, but consent. If a woman wants to have sex but chooses not to for any reason and says "no" or "stop" and the man doesn't...it is still rape.

No means no. Forced sex is always rape because there is no consent.

Nor does it glamorizes anything. Fantasizing about something doesn't mean you want it.

I come from the asexual community and there are many asexuals who fear they may not be asexual because they fantasize about sex. I have to tell them all the time that dreams and fantasies are just that dreams and fantasies. In fact, I have to point out tthat there is a specific term for them, just to show them that they are still asexuals.

As you can see from the quotes above just because one fantasizes about something doesn't mean they want that in real life, the articles specifically mention that.[/font]

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #305)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 04:22 PM

LostOne4Ever (8,854 posts)

309. Again, please read the articles in full

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The specifically mention rape, and solely rape, as well as categorizing them as aversive fantasies.

Quoting:[/font]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201508/why-do-women-have-rape-fantasies

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/womens-rape-fantasies-how-common-what-do-they-mean

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #202)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:15 AM

opiate69 (10,129 posts)

210. Except, it is a fact...

Educate yourself before flapping your gums.

Studies have found rape fantasy is a common sexual fantasy among both men and women. The fantasy may involve the fantasist as either the one being forced into sex or as the perpetrator. Some studies have found that women tend to fantasize about being forced or coerced into sexual activity more commonly than men[citation needed]. A 1974 study by Hariton and Singer[1] found that being "overpowered or forced to surrender" was the second most frequent fantasy in their survey; a 1984 study by Knafo and Jaffe ranked being overpowered as their study's most common fantasy during intercourse. In 1985, Louis H. Janda who is an associate professor of psychology at Old Dominion University[2] said that the sexual fantasy of being raped is the most common sexual fantasy for women.[3] A 1988 study by Pelletier and Herold found that over half of their female respondents had fantasies of forced sex.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_fantasy

Reply to this post

Response to opiate69 (Reply #210)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:24 AM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

224. But the "forced sex" or domination is by a man they want to have sex with.

It is not a fantasy about actual rape. Rape is not about sex.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #224)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:26 AM

opiate69 (10,129 posts)

227. I'm active in the BDSM community...

I could introduce you to no less than a dozen women who can attest that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about with merely one phone call. Of course, this is such a sensitive subject, any more detail would leave me open to hides.

Reply to this post

Response to opiate69 (Reply #227)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:27 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

228. I was just going to warn you that they will alert on your posts.

There were at least three failed attempts on mine tonight.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #228)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:37 AM

opiate69 (10,129 posts)

238. Ah yeah.. I'm at zero as it stands though, so...

Reply to this post

Response to opiate69 (Reply #238)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:40 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

242. Awesome.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #242)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 02:11 AM

opiate69 (10,129 posts)

245. Lil' old me?

Reply to this post

Response to opiate69 (Reply #245)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 02:13 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

246. Yep, thanks for showing the thought police they're out of their league!

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #246)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 02:21 AM

opiate69 (10,129 posts)

247. People just don't seem to be able to think outside their little middle-America box..

I mean, when we go to the house of horror on Halloween, we obviously know there aren't real zombies/monsters/murderers or ghosts there, but we still get the bejeebus scared out of us by the actors playing them... even the mildest "consentual non-consent" play triggers the same psychological phenomenon.

Reply to this post

Response to opiate69 (Reply #247)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 02:26 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

249. We used to be able to talk about stuff like this on DU.

But now they alert on anyone who dares discuss anything even slightly risque.

In this case it wasn't even about rape, it was about fantasy, and trying to tell women what is acceptable and what is "sick" in their own minds is like...well it's like being Catholic and being taught to feel guilty for just being human.

I still can't tell if they're serious or if this is just another poutrage incident designed to make Bernie and his supporters look like misogynists.

Because that would be something new.

Reply to this post

Response to opiate69 (Reply #227)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:30 AM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

232. Women who are voluntarily involved in the BDSM community are engaged in consensual acts.

Consensual acts are not rape.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #232)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:36 AM

opiate69 (10,129 posts)

237. Again.. you are profoundly, laughably ignorant.

go make a free account at fetlife and search for rape/abduction scenes.

Reply to this post

Response to opiate69 (Reply #237)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:38 AM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

240. If you claim those "abductions" are not in fact consensual, then you are describing a crime. nt

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #240)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:45 AM

opiate69 (10,129 posts)

243. Newsflash...

Much of what people regularly engage in consentually in dungeons and play spaces are still considered criminal acts. The legal system has a de facto assumption of non-consent for a wide range of play.

Reply to this post

Response to opiate69 (Reply #227)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:06 PM

treestar (81,220 posts)

311. Do they fantasize about getting shot at?

Or getting stabbed? Rape is an assault. Who fantasizes about being assaulted?

Reply to this post

Response to treestar (Reply #311)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:21 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

318. Could be. Is there something wrong with fantasizing about those things?

Rape fantasies are common, stop judging women who have them.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #318)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:40 PM

treestar (81,220 posts)

354. maybe not, but it would not be sexual

Quit lying about judging. You refuse to acknowledge the difference between a sexual fantasy and a fantasy about being assaulted. Why Bernie is worth this is hard to figure out - he wrote what he wrote long before people in general got the concept that rape is not about sex and was probably oblivious, it was long ago, and he's not going to lose votes over it.

Reply to this post

Response to opiate69 (Reply #227)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:07 PM

treestar (81,220 posts)

347. People in that community say they consent

if they consent, it is not rape. They would be fantasizing about what they would consent to.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #196)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 04:52 AM

LostOne4Ever (8,854 posts)

271. According to the these PsychologyToday Articles you are 100% correct

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/womens-rape-fantasies-how-common-what-do-they-mean

Sixty-two percent said they'd had at least one such fantasy. But responses varied depending on the terminology used. When asked about being "overpowered by a man," 52 percent said they'd had that fantasy, the situation most typically depicted in women's romance fiction. But when the term was "rape," only 32 percent said they'd had the fantasy. These findings are in the same ballpark as previous reports.

Rape fantasies can be either erotic or aversive. In erotic fantasies, the woman thinks: "I'm being forced and I enjoy it." In aversive fantasies, she thinks: "I'm being forced and I hate it." Forty-five-percent of the women in the recent survey had fantasies that were entirely erotic. Nine percent were entirely aversive. And 46 percent were mixed.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]In another PT article:[/font]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201508/why-do-women-have-rape-fantasies

Confirming earlier studies on the prevalence of rape fantasies, 62 percent of participants admitted fantasizing at least one of the eight scenarios:

Forced by a man: 52%.

Raped by a man: 32%.

Forced oral by a man: 28%.

Forced while incapacitated: 24%.

Forced by a woman: 17%.

Forced anal: 16%.

Raped by a woman: 9%.

Forced oral by a woman: 9%.

Women who have rape fantasies don’t want to be sexually assaulted. They feel comfortable with their own sexuality and are happy to embrace their erotic fantasies—wherever they may lead.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]These are simply facts. And as always, facts are on your side BMUS.[/font]

Reply to this post

Response to LostOne4Ever (Reply #271)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:09 PM

treestar (81,220 posts)

312. But I bet the man doing the "raping"

in the fantasy is someone they'd want to have sex with. It all boils down to thinking oneself so attractive that men can't resist.

And that leads into the sexism of how men can't control themselves around attractive women.

Rape is not a form of sex. So a fantasy of really being raped would be a sexual fantasy. It'd be about assault.

Reply to this post

Response to treestar (Reply #312)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:22 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

319. How do you know what other people fantasize about?

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #319)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:05 PM

treestar (81,220 posts)

346. I don't but it is hard to imagine

someone fantasizing about being assaulted. Forced into sex with someone they did not want and did not find attractive. It would be a negative fantasy or fear, like imagining being shot or robbed or something. And as such it would not be a "sexual" fantasy.

Reply to this post

Response to treestar (Reply #346)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:26 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

350. So you admit you don't know but are making the claim anyway.

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

Women have rape fantasies, those fantasies are sexual and you don't get to decide what is acceptable or not.

What you can or cannot imagine is irrelevant.

Stop judging people.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #350)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:38 PM

treestar (81,220 posts)

353. I'm not judging but cannot imagine enjoying

imagining being assaulted. So it is something I do not identify with. And I have the concept that rape is an assault, not sex. To say that women have rape fantasies that are "sexual" is inconsistent with that. If I am fantasizing being raped, I am fantasizing an assault by someone I don't want to have sex with, and that would be about as enjoyable as fantasizing being beaten up. Rape is an assault; not a consensual sexual act.

I don't know why you think it better to go to all this trouble and come close to saying a very anti-feminist thing (that an assault can be sexual) just to defend Bernie from a decades old mishap that won't do him much harm in the primaries.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #123)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 03:32 AM

kath (10,565 posts)

259. Yes. Am I the only Baby Boomer here who's read Nancy Friday's "My Secret Garden", about women's

sexual fantasies??
There's an entire chapter in there about rape fantasies.

Reply to this post

Response to kath (Reply #259)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 03:38 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

261. I haven't read it but come on, who hasn't heard of 50 Shades of Grey?

And that's just the lighter side of the genre, anyone who can Google can find thousands of stories written by women that are much more graphic.

This is just another manufactured scandal, most of us are too intelligent and well adjusted to even raise an eyebrow over this essay.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #121)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:17 PM

Curmudgeoness (18,219 posts)

132. That is not true.

This is probably tmi, but I have often had fantasies about being raped. It does not mean that I have ever wanted to experience rape, since I have had two date rape experiences in my life and I would never want to go through that again. But fantasies are something different. I know that rape is not glamorous, and neither Bernie nor I am saying that it is.

But facts are facts.

And this sounds like the same thing that I have been hearing from right wing friends who are dredging up old essays that Sanders wrote in his youth. You are reaching.

Reply to this post

Response to Curmudgeoness (Reply #132)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:09 AM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

178. I assume you are fantasizing about having sex with someone you want to have sex with.

If you are fantasizing about being overpowered by someone you find attractive or who you want to have sex with, it is not a rape fantasy. It is a domination fantasy. Fantasizing about a hot guy having his way with you is not a rape fantasy.

Neither I, nor any woman I know, fantasizes about being dominated by men they find repulsive, and they certainly don't fantasize about actually being raped. Rape is rape.

I am really sorry to hear about your rapes. I have a close friend who was raped in college years ago and she is still suffering from it emotionally. Nobody fantasizes about that.

This essay wasn't dug up by a right winger. It was brought up in Mother Jones magazine.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #178)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:13 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

182. Where did Bernie write about women "being dominated by men they find repulsive"?

I was attacked - I've posted about it here, and I am not offended in the least by what he wrote about women's fantasies.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #182)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:21 AM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

186. I said Bernie suggests that women "fantasize" about being "raped."

As I have repeatedly tried to explain to you in this thread, fantasies about being dominated by men you want to have sex with is not a "rape fantasy."

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #186)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:23 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

188. They do, so what? It's a whole genre and it's very popular.

Bernie knew that, others here know that, apparently you're the only one who can't figure it out and are still trying to pretend there's something wrong with womens' fantasies.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #188)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:30 AM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

192. There is nothing wrong with women's fantasies.

But women's fantasies are not about actual rape. That is what Bernie's essay and you don't seem to understand.

There's snuff films out there too. That does not mean women fantasize about being murdered.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #192)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:34 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

194. How the hell do you know what other women fantasize about?

Like I said, do some research, those fantasies are common and you're certainly not an authority.

Get over yourself and stop judging other women.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #194)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:10 AM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

204. I am not judging women. I am correcting your mistatements about women. nt

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #204)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:16 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

212. Yes you are, women do fantasize about rape, you seem to be the only one who doesn't know that.

It's a well documented fact, get over it and move on.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #212)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:21 AM

SunSeeker (49,154 posts)

217. Nope, no one has "documented it" as something women generally do.

Bernie's essay does not count as "documentation."

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #217)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:25 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

226. Google it, the internet is full of rape fantasies written by women.

And that particular fantasy has been around a lot longer than you or Bernie, try to keep up.

Reply to this post

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #121)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:09 PM

treestar (81,220 posts)

348. It'd be like imagining being shot

or assaulted in some other way. Not a sexual fantasy but a fearful one, like where a person might imagine being in a terrible car accident or being robbed/mugged. One might momentarily think what it might feel like to be told you have cancer or be in the World Trade Center and deciding whether to jump - it's not a pleasant fantasy but something we may think about when we hear about something awful happening to someone else.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #103)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:33 PM

Cassiopeia (2,603 posts)

108. Jury results

On Thu Dec 3, 2015, 07:29 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Pick one, either you lied about the essay or you don't know the difference.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=871096

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling a poster a liar is uncivil. Hide it. She's done it multiple times in this thread.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 3, 2015, 07:32 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The whole damn thread is a waste of time and should be hidden. Unfortunately, I can only vote on this particular post. Hide it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Reply to this post

Response to Cassiopeia (Reply #108)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:35 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

110. My goodness, now they're lying in alerts? What a shock!

Thanks for posting, this is SOP for certain posters, they try to set Bernie supporters up for hides.

We read about it at their website so it's nothing new.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #103)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:33 PM

yuiyoshida (40,292 posts)

109. and the results are in...

**edited to note, the results are posted above.

Reply to this post

Response to yuiyoshida (Reply #109)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:36 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

111. Thanks! Looks like trying to "prod" me into a hide didn't work.

Someone at the cave has a sad.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #111)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:38 PM

yuiyoshida (40,292 posts)

112. I was going to post it but

Cassiopeia beat me to it...

Reply to this post

Response to yuiyoshida (Reply #112)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:39 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

113. Good jury! Saw right through it.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #111)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:40 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

114. Looks like you think it's okay to call people liars

Why do you think that's okay?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #114)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:43 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

116. Where did I call you a liar? I asked if you were lying when you posted this:

Enjoy your fantasies.

Speaking of fantasies, Bernie thinks women enjoy being raped. I simply cannot understand how a real liberal would vote for a pro gunner that thinks women enjoy being raped. Can you explain that to me? I just can't wrap my head around that. Especially when I think about how many women have been raped at the point of a knife or gun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868622

You still haven't explained, why did you post that about Bernie if you knew he was talking about fantasies?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #114)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:21 PM

Curmudgeoness (18,219 posts)

138. There is no place in this thread where BMUS called you a liar.

The best that I can find is a question giving an either/or situation, and it is not saying that you are a liar. You will have to pay more attention to what is written before you make your accusations. It seems that the jury agreed, so let it go.

Reply to this post

Response to Curmudgeoness (Reply #138)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:25 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

141. Read the thread

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #141)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:28 PM

Curmudgeoness (18,219 posts)

144. Tell me which reply to read.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #103)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:42 PM

LiberalArkie (14,973 posts)

115. And the envelope please:

Reply to this post

Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #115)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:44 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

117. It's true! The jury system is rigged! Bernie Underground DOES exist!

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #102)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 03:28 AM

kath (10,565 posts)

258. Gah, do you not understand the difference between sexual FANTASIES and what someone would actually

want in REALITY???

Reply to this post

Response to kath (Reply #258)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 04:22 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

269. Aggravating, isn't it? Women have fantasies, who knew?

The thought police don't want women to think naughty thoughts!

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:18 PM

zigby (125 posts)

133. Maggie, cmon help me out

I just found this website I'm super impressed with all the thoughtful pro-Hillary posters as I am incredibly excited about her too. But is this the hill you want to die on? I think your passion is great, but with all this stuff about hidden posts and banning I'm just learning about, is it worth it? Surely there's something better we can do =)

Look I just learned about smilies for example

Reply to this post

Response to zigby (Reply #133)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:23 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

140. You'll soon find out that Hillary supporters are stalked here

And if you are outspoken you will be purged. The jury system is a joke. And you don't see more Hillary supporters here for that reason. Either they have been purged, or they are just sick of the stalking. In addition, they personally attack Hillary supporters and their posts are allowed to stand because Bernie supporters control the juries.

Sorry, that's the bald truth.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #140)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:26 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

142. Now, now, no need to devolve into conspiracy theories.

We have a dungeon for those.

People who get timeouts are not victims, they just can't be civil.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #142)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:30 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

145. There is a whole other web site where the stalking is tracked

I heard you guys tried to MIRT me today until Earl stepped in. Even though you clearly know you cannot MIRT someone who has been here since 2001 and has thousands of posts. The rules and TOS are irrelevant, apparently.

So don't try to deny it. There are mountains of evidence about this.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #145)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:31 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

146. You mean the site where you guys alert stalk Bernie supporters?

I have evidence of that:

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #146)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:46 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

155. Here is her transparency page

Which hide wasn't richly deserved?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=152034&sub=trans

And I don't see a thing in your famous screenshots that indicates she was stalked. It is a commentary on her never-ending personal attacks on people. You just think personal insults are okay.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #155)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:50 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

158. As richly deserved as all of yours were. :)

And that screenshot proves that alert stalking did occur and it wasn't Bernie supporters doing it.

Trying to "prod" other members into a hide is the very definition of alert stalking.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #158)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:53 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

163. Again, I don't call anyone names

Everyone of my hides is for telling the inconvenient truth about Bernie. Since when is calling Bernie out with factual info against the TOS? It is not. The jury system here has been bastardized by Bernie supporters. There is not a single question about that.

It's a shame what has been done to what was once a very good site for actual Democrats. Pathetic in fact.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #163)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:54 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

166. "The jury system here has been bastardized by Bernie supporters."

You are always entertaining, Maggie, I'll give you that.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #166)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:01 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

173. You have an amazing capacity to deny reality

But your mistake is in thinking others don't notice.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #145)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:33 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

148. Oh ffs, no one tried to "MIRT" you. Who told you that?

You really should knock off the conspiracy theories and slandering of MIRT members.

We can't even MIRT anyone over a certain amount of posts.

Get a grip.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #148)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:40 PM

TSIAS (14,689 posts)

150. This is where the conspiracy theory orginated

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110728800

They claim to have a mountain of evidence, but nothing has been made public. Considering who is bringing this allegation forward, I'd seriously question its authenticity.

Reply to this post

Response to TSIAS (Reply #150)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:42 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

153. Exactly, he's not even on MIRT.

I hope they provide the "mountain of evidence" so that we can see who is lying.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #153)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:49 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

157. In case you think the smears in MIRT are private

They aren't.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #157)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:53 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

162. No one tried to MIRT you, the claim is ridiculous on its face.

Reply to this post

Response to TSIAS (Reply #150)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:26 AM

kath (10,565 posts)

283. Oh, the founder of that cesspool Hillary Cave site. Yeah, he's a real fine trustworthy, upstanding

sort. I'd certainly believe everything he says...

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #148)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:42 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

152. Oh yes they did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=28800

As a bonus, there goes your theory that my fellow Hillary supporters don't agree with me. They just don't want to be stalked. You folks are way out of control at this point.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #152)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:45 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

154. How would that poster know what goes on? He's not even on MIRT.

No one has the ability to MIRT a long time member except admin, it's not even possible.

So your accusations are ridiculous, please post any actual evidence you have or stop making shit up.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #154)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:48 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

156. Why did Earl lock the MIRT thread then?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #156)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:50 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

161. Ask whoever gave William the information.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #161)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:56 PM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

168. Did you not hear me?

You think the smears in MIRT by Bernie supporters are private? Let me assure you they are not.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #168)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:59 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

172. I heard your conspiracy theory about someone trying to MIRT you.

Nothing that goes on in MIRT is private, everyone knows that.

Whoever told you that someone tried to MIRT you is lying.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #172)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:03 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

174. Do you deny there was a thread by the MIRT team about me

That Earl locked?

I don't know if you realize this, but your continued personal attacks on me only serve to prove my point. And you apparently don't think anyone else notices. I find that odd.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #174)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:06 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

177. I'm telling you that you've been played.

No one posted a thread to try to MIRT you, ask about it in ATA or send Skinner and EarlG a pm if you want the truth.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #177)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:12 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

181. Chickie, I know MIRT started a thread about me that Earl locked

Did you hear me? I KNOW THEY DID. You can deny it until the cows come home, but it is true. You know it and I know it.

Try to tell the truth. You can do it.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #181)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:15 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

183. MIRT followed protocol. No one tried to ban you. Period.

Last edited Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:27 AM - Edit history (12)

Like I said, you've been played.

Ask about it in ATA or by pm instead of smearing MIRT members who are just doing their job.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #183)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:53 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

197. uh huh

So Earl locked the thread for no reason. Is that what you are claiming?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #197)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:59 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

199. Nope, I'm claiming that no one tried to ban you.

If you don't believe me ask someone else about it, perhaps another MIRT member or Admin, because the person who started that thread isn't even on the team.

The rules are pretty simple, no one is allowed to ban a poster who has over a certain amount of posts, only Admin can do that.

MIRT followed protocol and anyone who told you that they were trying to ban you is just stirring the shit.

Or continue with the drama, I really don't care at this point.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #199)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:05 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

200. Why did Earl lock the MIRT thread then?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #200)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:09 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

203. I'm not going to discuss MIRT functions with you.

If your source actually knew what was going on they would explain it to you.

Ask in ATA or send EarlG a pm, it's not my place to discuss what goes on in MIRT.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #203)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:11 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

205. Why did Earl lock the MIRT thread then?

Just for fun? Or because you all were smearing the shit out of me? Because as we all know, it's okay to personally attack people on DU if you are a Bernie supporter. The rules simply do not apply - right?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #205)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:14 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

209. What did I just say? It's not my place to discuss what goes on in MIRT.

I'm tired of your persecuted act, it got old a long time ago.

People who get timeouts aren't victims, they just can't learn how to be civil.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #209)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:17 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

214. Why did Earl lock the MIRT thread then?

Not for no reason, right?

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #214)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:19 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

216. If you have questions about how MIRT functions ask admin in ATA or by pm.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #216)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:22 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

220. I'm asking you - you're on MIRT

First you claimed it never happened, then you couldn't deny it. Now you're pretending that Earl locked the thread for no reason. Or pleading the fifth all of the sudden.

But I know the reason. You're not fooling anyone.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #220)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:23 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

223. See posts #203, 209 and 216.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #223)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:32 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

233. I've seen them - they are your usual deflections when you get busted

I know what you all do. Trust me, we all do. Now go discuss that in MIRT.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #233)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:32 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

234. See posts #203, 209 and 216.

I've seen this play before.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #234)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:34 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

235. I've seen them - they are your usual deflections when you get busted

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #234)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 02:26 AM

R B Garr (16,533 posts)

248. You left out post 183 where you changed your story.

Too late to edit.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #152)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 03:38 AM

Change has come (2,372 posts)

262. OMG the drama!

Thanks for making that dramatic post public. I'd imagine that OP just took himself out of further MIRT responsibilities.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #148)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:36 PM

Capt. Obvious (9,002 posts)

304. "We can't even MIRT anyone over a certain amount of posts."

Is that true? What about self admitted sleeper trolls whose other accounts were banned? MIRT can't do anything about them?

Reply to this post

Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #304)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:12 PM

treestar (81,220 posts)

313. No only admins can

ban those. MIRT only has jurisdiction if there are fewer than 100 posts.

Reply to this post

Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #304)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:30 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

315. Nope! But that doesn't stop people from pretending they're victims of the system.

They get a 7-0 jury hide, they're a victim.

They get sent on a timeout, they're a victim.

They get sent on multiple timeouts, even more a victim!

It's all a conspiracy, and everyone on DU is in on it!

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!

Eta: I had to edit my post for a typo, I hope you don't feel like a victim, I just read that people use the edit function to manipulate people. My apologies if you feel violated in any way.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #315)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:22 PM

opiate69 (10,129 posts)

321. YOU EVIL EDITOR YOU!!!!!

Reply to this post

Response to opiate69 (Reply #321)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:26 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

322. Ima Rick-n-Roller!

Edited.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #140)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:26 AM

zigby (125 posts)

189. =(

Are you saying my time and $5 donation are totally wasted? What keeps you around? Maybe I haven't been personally done dirty but I've mostly seen good lively debate, with some pretty low stuff thrown in. I'm not the type to get personally offended if folks come heavy on Hillary, since I think she's ridden out much worse than anything anyone could write on a discussion board. And that's something I really respect about her. Tough as nails!

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #87)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:56 PM

R B Garr (16,533 posts)

170. Nice quote that proves your point

That one following you edits a lot, so its good to do quotes. Bernie's essay speaks for itself. They just need to make it personal to alert.

Thanks for your great OP's. You are very knowledgeable.

Reply to this post

Response to R B Garr (Reply #170)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:04 AM

MaggieD (7,393 posts)

176. Thank you

She thinks no one else notices. I find that amusing.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #176)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:38 AM

R B Garr (16,533 posts)

195. lol, exactly. I see now to wait between replies and not

answer too quickly so as to let the grace period to edit without a time stamp elapse. Otherwise there's an edit and you're called a liar. Glad to see others get it.

You are a real asset!

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #176)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 12:29 PM

hrmjustin (71,265 posts)

303. Good for you for standing up for yourself.

Reply to this post

Response to hrmjustin (Reply #303)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:46 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

323. What "mirt thing" would that be, justin?

Do tell, what have you heard?

What are those evil MIRTers up to now?

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #323)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:00 PM

opiate69 (10,129 posts)

325. Seems some folk aren't quite as concerned about confidentiality IRT MIRT anymore...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4598543
(Interesting little thread, that)

Reply to this post

Response to opiate69 (Reply #325)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:11 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

328. Oh my! Yes indeed, the hypocrisy is stunning.

So many familiar faces, same people using protected groups to launch attacks on those they don't like.

And since justin obviously knows how MIRT works he must know protocol was followed. So I guess those other folks are just shit stirring for the sake of shit stirring.

Some people just love their persecution fantasies, though.

Maybe it's a religious thing.

Everyone's out to get them, their hides are never their fault, timeouts are proof that juries are in on it.

It MUST be a conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #323)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:33 PM

hrmjustin (71,265 posts)

329. People calling her a troll when she is clearly not.

Reply to this post

Response to hrmjustin (Reply #329)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:37 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

330. And who did that?

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #330)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:38 PM

hrmjustin (71,265 posts)

331. I apologize if I left the impression you did it. Iwill edit.

Reply to this post

Response to hrmjustin (Reply #331)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:40 PM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

332. Thank you, justin. :)

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #332)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:42 PM

hrmjustin (71,265 posts)

333. You're welcome.

Reply to this post

Response to MaggieD (Reply #83)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 03:50 AM

Live and Learn (12,769 posts)

264. I think what is rather obvious is that you didn't understand the essay. nt

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #79)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:56 AM

treestar (81,220 posts)

284. why should that be hidden?

it's about the public figure, Bernie, not insulting to any DUer.

Reply to this post

Response to treestar (Reply #284)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:05 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

286. For the same reason posts calling Hillary a "murderer" are rightfully hidden.

I shouldn't have to spell this our for you, we don't lie about and/or swift boat our candidates here.

Despicable right wing lies and talking points don't belong on DU, 7 jurors agreed.

Reply to this post

Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #286)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:09 AM

treestar (81,220 posts)

287. I doubt the right wing even knows yet

about Bernie's essay.

Plenty of right wing sources are used to slam Hillary here. The right wing talking points are often used, and such posts often not hidden.

People can debate about Bernie's essay, but I see a will here that it simply not be brought up. The Vince Foster stuff is not even comparable, as Bernie has not been subjected to smear on that level.

Certainly anything Hillary ever wrote would be used against her here and not be hidden.

Reply to this post

Response to treestar (Reply #287)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:16 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)

289. Oh please, who do you think started this crap about him advocating rape?

None of it belongs here, and if it gets posted and hidden no one has a right to whine about it after the fact.

Reply to this post

Response to treestar (Reply #287)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:26 AM

NurseJackie (42,862 posts)

291. You can rest assured that the RW and GOP know.

It's just that Bernie doesn't represent a threat, so the RW/GOP is "keeping-their-powder-dry" (just in case). It's likely to be a strategic move on their part. If so, it seems that their likely reasoning is because they don't want to damage his chances NOW, and instead they hope to ruin him later.

Whether such an attack has actual merit or "legs" (whether in the primaries or general election) is something that would be decided by the voters. But based on the defensive posturing I've observed here, it certainly seems to be something that causes consternation.

Note to Jury: You'll note that I've not taken a position one way or the other. I have not made an attack or accusation. I have not repeated anyone's words. I'm acknowledging that this issue is out-there, and offered my opinion on why/when the GOP may use it against him, and what may happen if the GOP decided to present it as an attack.

Reply to this post

Response to treestar (Reply #287)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:41 AM

beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)