I'd love it if the JPR returnees...

[Dream Girl]

Would go back from whence they came. Things were fine without you.

[Squinch]

1. Absolutely! It's a large and noticeable change for the worse.

[sfwriter]

4. How about me?

I stayed away from DU during the primaries because of the constant derision for the liberal faction here. Should I go as well? What about people who oppose NAFTA, the TPP?

Pretty soon, DU would be reduced to three people and one would be on the way out.

When this board started, there was a lot more tolerance for a diversity of opinion, at least that's the way I remember it.

My hope is that it will be so again when Trump is in office. George W. Bush did wonders for our sense of cohesion.

If you are making an enemies list. Add me now please because that entire concept is wrong.

[Squinch]

6. Are you fervently refighting the primary when we have much bigger fish to fry? If so then yes.

And, oh, dear, the drama. Enemies list? Really?

Is the OP not allowed to acknowledge that there was a lot more productive discussion and a lot less bullshit for a good while here? Are you oppressed by the OP acknowledging that?

[sfwriter]

9. The op is clearly divisive.

and I am pointing out that some of us that stayed find this sort of divisiveness counterproductive.

Why are you still fighting the primary? Is this thread an example of "a lot more productive discussion?" I think not.

The op is encouraging a purge.

I oppose that. Thinks got a lot less interesting around here after the last one.

[Cary]

40. Oh Lord

[Gothmog]

128. The OP is great

I agree with the OP

[Squinch]

156. Dear me! I picture you swooning with the back of your hand pressed to your forehead as

you talk about purges!

Which, by the way, the OP was not encouraging at all.

[musicblind]

249. I agree with the original post.

Anyone who abandoned DU and the Democratic party for JPR are not welcome back.

Skinner himself stated that a vote for Hillary in the General election was a REQUIREMENT, a price of admission, to be allowed to post on DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=7542


Therefore, by Skinner's own words, the people who went to JPR and refused to support Hillary are not welcome back.

[Begabig]

129. It seems some are determined to believe...

... Nothing was wrong on the Democratic side and the only possible reason for such a loss could be Putin or Bernie.

They are set to make the same mistakes and end up with the same losses in 2 and 4 years.

[Squinch]

159. Thank you for illustrating what I was talking about.

[Cary]

162. Amazing

Isn't it?

[musicblind]

250. Welcome to DU n/t

[HassleCat]

170. Productive discussion?

Blaming Bernie. Telling Trump voters they are all racists. Proposing we jettison the White working class. Not sure I would call it productive. It does allow people to vent, so maybe that's productive.

[Crunchy Frog]

218. It only allows some people to vent, is the problem.

People whose views diverge from the dominant narrative here get dumped on and attacked.

I'm glad that some semblance of diversity is returning, as it felt very monolithic here for some time after the site reopened.

[jack_krass]

277. Its a good plan...

To ruin the Democratic party for at least a generation (if that already hasnt been accomplished). Makes you wonder.

[Cary]

27. If DU were more Democrat friendly I bet it would prosper

There are a lot more than 3 of us who would love to be united against our real enemies.

[LonePirate]

110. DU welcomes all Democrats and all left-leaning people and issues. It's foolish to think otherwise.

The votes of far-left Dems count the same as centrist Dems and the vast majority of Dems who comprise the range between the two extremes. A pragmatic Dem who wants an increase in the minimum wage to $12 is as much a Dem as one who wants to raise it to $15. These two people are allies, not enemies, as the far-left seems to think with their demands for purity. Anyone who does not want to raise the minimum wage or worse, wants to eliminate it, is not a Dem and they are the true enemy. I'm not sure the JPR crew understands that distinction.

[Cary]

144. DU "welcomes" whatever and whomever the admins tolerate

There are too many categories to consider so I would not necessarily lump people into "far-left" or other. Nor would I categorize things according to who favors what policy, if I were to spend the time, because of course you are correct. The ideological purity is nonsense.

What we are discussing, and I sense we understand each other, isn't about policy as much as it is an attitude illustrated by "the JPR crew." "The JPR crew" has a chip on their shoulder, individually and collectively. They probably do not understand the distinction, as you say. Or maybe they do and they just want conflict? I don't know, but again we are lumping a fair number of people so it is probably both. Some don't understand the value of a coalition, or how to make a coalition. Some are malicious, no doubt, and even moles. Some are somewhere in between.

All I know is that I want a place where I can a peaceful discussion, like the one we are having now, and not have someone playing some insipid game with me trying to change the subject to "Cary sucks." I don't understand why that's too much to ask.

[pangaia]

203. Uh, Cary...

Last week in an OP you complained that people said or would say "Cary sucks."
Nobody said that.

I remember it because I replied to you.

Now her you are again, imagining that you are being persecuted.

Why do you keep thinking people are saying "Cary sucks?"

[Cary]

207. Because that's what happens here

They don't say "Cary sucks," literally, but they effectively try to change the subject and divert it with ad hominem.

Ad hominem is a species of red herring. It's a classic logical fallacy. It's a cheap tactic to interject irrelevant matters into the discussion. In this instance the discussion is diverted to something about me, personally.

Now why are you so concerned about me, personally?

[LP2K12]

206. Agreed!

[Lil Missy]

268. DU already prospers ...

[Cary]

285. No one said it doesn't

Do you have an income statement and a balance sheet?

[Cary]

286. Interesting that you neglect the Democrat friendly part

[still_one]

55. Excuse me, are you even aware what happened during the primaries here. The vast majority who

were throwing out the derision were directed at Hillary and Obama supporters.

How offended they were that they couldn't use the "c" word and other vulgar comments against Hillary. How overjoyed they were when someone referred to President Obama as a POS. The person who called President Obama every name in the book was upset about the ACA, and because he didn't get the correct information about it he blamed President Obama in extremely vulgar terms. We will see how that will work out for him if the regimen in control is able to repeal the ACA, and he loses the coverage that he needs.

Oh they were quite a bunch, that made this place a living hell for anyone that supported Hillary.

but the unforgivable thing is that they refused to vote for Hillary in the general election.

[sfwriter]

106. Those things always happened ...

They were usually handled on an individual basis in past primaries.

I remember one poster being shut down for questioning her weaknesses after she was nominated. How else do you plan to overcome them?

He was told he was sexist.

I'm betting some of the JPRs are not and will never be democrats. I agree with you on that point. But some of them just found the vilification of Bernie's supporters, which continues still, to be counterproductive and offensive. We need those people back, especially in the states we lost.

[LonePirate]

115. And the vilification of Hillary's supporters by Bernie's supporters isn't a problem?

DU is largely trying to focus on the future with some introspection on the general. JPR is still largely a bash Hillary site with large doses of complaints about the primaries, election rigging by the DNC and other topics. How is that not counterproductive and offensive as well?

[Cary]

147. And if you ask this what do you get?

Responses like this:

"LonePirate you suck and you do it too so fuck you."

AmIrite?

[LonePirate]

172. Agreed. The shouting, finger-pointing and name calling gets us nowhere. We need to unite.

We face a very powerful enemy who is determined to destroy the America those of us on the left love and have worked for decades to build. The sooner all Dems and left-minded people realize that, the better we can fight against the coming destruction.

[Cary]

174. I gave up hope on uniting with the radical left

[zonkers]

226. Yes. Yes and Yes. it's very Trumpian behavior. But you r too polite. Fuck them. It's my DU too.

[The Blue Flower]

2. Do you really want to split us up even further?

Many of us were DUers for over a decade and had good reasons to disagree with how undemocratic DU became during the primaries. Is there some upside to banning people who disagree out of principle?

[JTFrog]

138. Lol...

You always see just what you want to see and ignore the rest.

There certainly has been an uptick in divisiveness in the last week or so. After the flood gates re-opened that is.

[Cary]

151. I don't think you're being honest

You are suggesting that you want us to not be "divisive." From my understanding of your posts that isn't accurate. As I interpret your point of view, you want to assert an aggressive agenda of getting rid of a certain kind of Democrat that you deem to be "too corporate."

I think you use this sad song of "attacks like the OP makes" as a ruse. You are making an emotional play to cover your real message. You don't really care, in my opinion, whether we are divided.

If you cared about a coalition you would find the common ground and build on that, instead of criticizing "attacks like the OP makes."

So I'm calling bullshit here.

[stonecutter357]

184. .

[sfwriter]

7. I've been silenced whenever I bring it up.

This is the first election in my adult life that I didn't campaign for the democratic candidate, and I blame that on my reaction to my experiences on DU during the primaries. I did not feel welcome in Hillary's campaign on DU so I decided to sit one out.

I voted for HER happily, but I didn't want to hang around people who behaved like this.

[Squinch]

205. Oh, FFS! If you don't want to hang around people who behave like this, then DON'T!

The put-upon drama is TOO much!

[Joe941]

314. I've had my threads deleted for being pro Bernie...

pretty sad.

[leftofcool]

12. DU does what it always does during the primaries.

Support the Dem nominee or leave. If you have been around for 10 years you would know this. You chose to leave. Why come back now?

[sfwriter]

49. I didn't leave. I supported Hillary.

When we silence alternate views, we diminish our options. If we don't find a way to process the loss and listen to people we will continue to lose.

Your view would result on the loss of some portion of the community at every primary.

I don't remember a purge like this in 2008 and 2004.

[leftofcool]

82. I personally don't care who posts where.

There is no more Democratic Party. It is now the Progressive Party who got what they wanted.

[sfwriter]

87. What do you think the Democrats lost this year?

I feel like the hacked emails fueled a small exodus, but we got the most votes nationwide. It can't be that destructive.

[leftofcool]

127. I agree with the HuffPo article on why Hillary lost.

[Eliot Rosewater]

155. I didnt read it, but then I dont think she lost, and I mean not only popular vote

which is known as simply the "vote" everywhere else, but because Russians hacked voting machines along with the usual cheating the GOP does, voter suppression, etc.

There was no great turnout of people worrying about jobs, there was a great turnout of racists and assholes, but not even enough of them to elect this madman.


We can always do better getting more votes, but we did pretty good this last time and I wont ever believe we lost MI, WI and PA.

[sfwriter]

309. Well, we did lose those states....

I'm just not sure of the vote counts. That goes for everywhere. I think manual recounts and spot audits should be the norm everywhere. what are we in such a rush for?

Also, your position is boosted by the fact that Hillary got the most votes. period.

[DanTex]

141. The reason there was no "purge" before is because there weren't

a bunch of DUers advocating for voting against the Democratic nominee.

The Bernie or Bust people were tools of the GOP and should have been banned much sooner.

[mopinko]

166. yeah, but it happened.

actually, iirc, it was in '08 that seventh son unveiled. that was a sight to see.

i was a mod back in the day, and can tell you that it has always been just as ugly as it was these last few months. it's just that the old system took down those posts, and no one was the wiser. or at least, not most of us.

and other forums have been spawned after every primary. and a few in between. i can count 5 off the top of my head. they usually fade within a year or so.

the guys hate to ban people. they have no real immediate incentive, because wars are clicks. but they do it anyway. that is why we are still here and others have evaporated.

[Crunchy Frog]

292. I remember it well. It was in 2004.

I believe it was as soon as the election was called against Kerry. Then he went off to one of the spinoff sites claiming that his account had been hacked and he was innocent and persecuted, and they lapped it up, of course.

The supporters of my preferred candidate were the biggest targets of his harrassment, which is why I recall it so vividly.

Ah, the good old days...

[mopinko]

294. seventh son had a rap sheet as long as your arm, which

considering it is made of electrons, is pretty bad.

seems to me some of us oldies are bubbling up now. maybe it's just me. been bumping into old friends who had sworn off.

good to see you cf.

[Crunchy Frog]

295. Nice to see you around too.

It looks like the two of us joined DU within 2 days of each other. I guess that sort of makes us like twins.

[mopinko]

296. that's hilarious.

i guess you are right.

[DFW]

302. DU didn't silence alternate views

At times, it silences views that were couched in extremely aggressive and offensive personal attacks by those expressing them. For a good while, it didn't even do that--in my opinion, to its detriment. I left for six months because I had had my fill from one faction of very un-Democratic posters. I waited for the pH level to rise back above 1, which it eventually did after the convention.

[BainsBane]

108. What's the "us"?

Why should I feel any greater affinity toward those Trump voters than others? The one thing that united the Jackholes is their refusal to vote for Clinton. That makes them responsible for the fascist government coming into power. Just because they claim to be "progressive" means nothing. Actions count, and they worked diligently to ensure the country would be taken over by the right. Now that they've succeeded, they can take their shit where it's appreciated. There are many options for them to join with their alt-right brethren in expressing their hatred for Democrats.

[Lil Missy]

124. "Do you really want to split us up even further?"

From the ilk of JPR's?? YES!!

[KittyWampus]

143. "Undemocratic". Yeah, Berniebros shut up everyone who disagreed with them

by gaming the jury system and the Admins wouldn't step in until after the primaries.

The bullies always blame their victims.

[Adrahil]

259. What did you think of the JPR cesspool?

I mean, sure, political disagreement is one thing. That place was, and is, a toilet of right wing conspiracy theories and hate. I can't see how anyone who thought that wad okay can be a positive contributor here.

[baldguy]

5. Yes, please.

They don't support Democrats or the Democratic Party; they can stay away.

[sfwriter]

8. This site didn't see the party so narrowly at the start...

When did the change occur? Bernie?

I was a Howard Dean supporter and campaigned for Kerry. I didn't feel ANY bad blood when Kerry lost. I don't remember DU silencing enough people to start their own site.

I haven't been there, btw. I consider DU my home. Am I wrong about that?

[baldguy]

18. When we were faced with an unapologetic fascist backed by the Nazis and the KKK.

They brought the bad blood with themselves when they cheered at Clinton's loss.

If the phony liberals & phony progressives can't see the difference between a candidate who shares 90-99% of their supposed liberal/progressive values on the one hand vs. a candidate who shares literally none of those values - and then proceed to either not vote, or actively support the latter - then they can go fuck themselves.

The TOS of DU says that participants should generally support Democrats and the Democratic Party. These disrupters do neither.

[sfwriter]

60. Please show me an example.

I'm serious. I haven't seen it. I've seen "Bernie would have won." I've seen "the Democratic leadership sided with Hillary." I've seen "the democratic leadership is misguided." None of those are the opinions of "phony liberals & phony progressives."

What do you see that meets your criteria? Where is an example of the liberal Trump supporter on these forums? I would certainly consider individual action. Some people just want t troll. But if you are saying everyone who did not support Hillary is unwelcome here, then I don't follow. There are people every cycle who cannot support the candidate for one reason or another but remain loyal democrats.

We have a dangerous situation right now, and the people that voted for Trump are far more responsible. Now the people who didn't vote for Hillary in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Michigan, and Pennsylvania deserve a closer look. But not to purge them.

We need to perk up when we here them, listen to them, and thoughtfully challenge them, not dismiss them. Every one of those people is an opportunity to win in 2020. Find a thoughtful argument that brings them over, and we win them back. Clarify their position to the point that it becomes part of our platform, and we win them back.

Don't throw away our shot.

[Justice]

99. WI, NC, MI, and PA Duers who didn't vote for Hillary don't deserve anything.

They didn't pay attention when people yelled FIRE, FIRE which is what we were doing.

[baldguy]

122. "Don't throw away our shot." - You don't get it: **2016 WAS OUR SHOT!!!**

The people that still cling to the fantasy of a Sanders Presidency tossed it away for us into the abyss of Trumpist Dumbfuckistan. I don't expect to see a Presidential campaign mounted by the Democrats in 2020 - because the sexist, racist, narrow-minded bigots who claim to be progressives yet couldn't bring themselves to support the most progressive candidate we've had in several generations have got their wish - to destroy the Democratic Party.

Trump didn't beat Clinton. There were too many "progressive Democrats" around pining for Bernie who did it for him.

[Kathy M]

301. I do believe Sanders and Warren are stronger in the senate

with their voices heard . We need to go find the people that did not vote / would not vote . More than one office needs work to turn ........

[dionysus]

311. Lolol, what a load of crap. This is ridiculous by this point. It would be funny if we didn't end

Up with a tremendous evil douchebag as president.

I have never seen such a level of finger pointing and shifting/avoiding blame as this election.

[vi5]

139. JPR has a lot of people...

..who cheered the Trump win. Many former DUers.

I didn't want Hillary as our nominee (not that I thought Bernie would fare much better), but I voted for her and supported her despite my many reservations and misgivings.

After election night, when DU was down I was angry. So I registered at JPR to see what was up. I thought it would simply be a place for honest opposition to the gamble that the Democratic party had just taken and lost. But the minute I saw people cheering the Trump win and celebrating the Hillary loss I knew I couldn't stay there.

[Begabig]

130. Maybe this is the bad tasting medicine...

... That is necessary to get over the ills we face.

I suspect we didn't get the full dose and the same problems will return.

[baldguy]

135. The last time they installed a know-nothing fascist loser in the Oval Office

We got 3000 Americans dead, two unnecessary wars and a global economic collapse. That will look like a boring middle school dance once Trump gets done.

Upsetting the apple cart doesn't fix anything when the apples are destroyed in the process. (& FYI: the "apples" in this scenario are people)

[Begabig]

150. That's the point...

It's going to happen again and instead of one Trump we will get a long line of them because folks refuse to learn from their mistakes.

Nothing they did was wrong. They had the perfect candidate and campaign and decision making process but it was foiled by everybody else. If all of those 'others' would just stay home and not involve themselves, everything would have been great.

Not a sustainable or winning plan.

[baldguy]

243. So, what does the 2.5 million majority of people who voted for Clinton need to learn?

What do the 10s or 100s of thousands of people with votes that weren't counted in PA, MI, & WI need to leard? What do the millions of disenfranchised voters around the country need to learn?

The Democratic candidate for President in 2016 WON THE GODDAMN ELECTION!! What the hell do you think the Democrats have to learn after winning?

[baldguy]

257. You can't have it both ways.

Either the campaign did everything right and the election was stolen

or

The party leadership had the wrong tactics, the candidate had the wrong message & the party needs to be destroyed & rebuilt.

I'll go with the former, thank you.

[baldguy]

261. Some didn't read the OP, and has no idea who & what JPR is.

[liberal N proud]

10. It will all work itself out

As they expose their radical side, they will be managed.

[ismnotwasm]

14. Ever since they started sliming back in

Couldn't agree more

[Bob41213]

92. Sliming? Great attitude you have there.

Not that this whole thread has a great attitude..

[ismnotwasm]

118. Jesus have you SEEN JPR?

I have a fabulous additude.

[betsuni]

17. Yes, since JPRers started slithering back here.

That's what you mean, right?

[betsuni]

28. What hate? Show and tell. Prove it.

Got it now?

[R B Garr]

39. Like everything else he did, his endorsement was strictly on his terms.

He doesn't care about the party or the long term effects of his divisiveness because he is in the twilight of his career and comes from a very small, safe state for him. He is not accountable for anything. His ego is not my concern.

[betsuni]

46. Yes you are right, I do not read every single post in this forum.

My self-esteem has plummeted. I feel bad and threatened as a person. I need some "me time" now to recover. *sob*

[lunasun]

48. Why not put that exact post at JPR, where you do or previously did post? No hate there right?

[TwilightZone]

54. "I remember ONE post there critical of Hillary."

lol, you obviously haven't spent more than five minutes on JPR if you think it isn't steeped in Hillary hate.

It's why the site exists, Steve. Do you think you're fooling anyone?

If you're completely unaware of what's actually on the site, I suggest you refrain from chastising others about it. It just makes your assertions look ridiculous.

[lunasun]

69. You post outside your room @jpr and state it here while being critical of Hillary campaign

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/latest-guccifer-2-0-leak-reaffirms-primaries-were-rigged-for-clinton/
Enough time wasted now

[SidDithers]

89. You'll note the link provided in that post is to observer.com...

which is the media outlet owned and operated by Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Not surprised the Jackass Deplorables are pushing that source.

Sid

[lunasun]

103. I know that thanks and if they all @jpr don't know I can't waste my time if they want to support it

The history of JPR shows what it shows

[SidDithers]

126. Yup...

Sid

[ismnotwasm]

119. They like that shit

[SidDithers]

132. observer.com was pushed here a lot during the primaries...

Particularly by Jackasses banned from DU.

I tried to call it out when I saw it.



Sid

[RonniePudding]

113. Have always felt that one was a complete and total fraud

Anti Clinton down to their marrow. Probably anti Obama too. Never bought the backstory either.

[Cary]

31. So tired of this schtick

Please get a grip

[fleur-de-lisa]

32. +! . . . n/t

[ismnotwasm]

38. I don't hate anyone

How *is* JPR doing these days? Seems to be losing traffic given the number coming back here. A shame. A damn shame

[lunasun]

42. Then why not go back to J PR where you have been posting? Why come back to DU?

[Omaha Steve]

56. I never left here

Account status: Active
Member since: Tue Nov 9, 2004, 04:03 PM
Number of posts, all time: 64,964
Number of posts, last 90 days: 401
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 151 posts in the last 90 days (38% of total posts)

[ucrdem]

51. He wasn't part of the solution. nt

[betsuni]

13. Idiotic accusations of Democrats I've seen here today:

Establishment
Oligarchy
Wall Street
Third Way
Neoliberal
Corporatist
Status quo
DNC bad
Identity politics bad
Lesser of two evils
Hippie-bashing
Not Real Democrats
HRC is belligerent/consorting with neocons

Such good soldiers, always sticking to the talking points.

Idiots.

[ismnotwasm]

16. Right?

I was just ask to provide "examples" of how the Democratic Party is "progressive" Jesus Christ.

[betsuni]

19. I know.

Arggggghhhhhhbbbb. I don't know.

[R B Garr]

23. And now Hillary can't even go away correctly for them. Some are musing

about what she is going to do with her free time now so that it satisfies their lofty fantasies sufficiently. Seriously, one was saying they don't see her being concerned about African guinea worms, so she's not a worthy humanitarian.

[mcar]

50. I saw that one

[GoCubsGo]

181. Wait. What?

She is being bashed for being insufficiently concerned about a parasite that the Carter Center has all but eradicated? Did I get that right? If so, that has got to be the stupidest thing I have read today.

[Cary]

34. I'm right there with you

Thanks for expressing it in a functional way.

[Tanuki]

20. What...nobody said "authoritarian" yet? I guess

it's still early in the day for that particular "rhetoric"!

[betsuni]

24. Well, I'm sure they did, but I can't read everything!

In my time zone there's still 45 minutes to go before the day is over, so maybe if I hurry I can find more.

[sfwriter]

65. your post is unclear

I doubt those are talking points. They sound too disconnected to be part of a cohesive movement. They do reflect a pervasive attitude. You don't convince anyone otherwise this way.

[betsuni]

74. Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.

[sfwriter]

97. Again, I do not follow...

Your post is confusing. If there is any wisdom there, it is escaping me.

[KittyWampus]

148. You forgot oligarchs.

[Squinch]

161. Same old same old gumming up the discussion. For a while, we actually got to talk about real things

but I guess those days are over.

[Crunchy Frog]

291. I've seen those accusations of Democrats since I discovered DU in early 2003.

"Pink tutu" Democrats was a favorite epithet during DUs first election cycle, and the recriminations after that loss were long and horrible.

It was widely believed by a number of DUers that there had been a massive purge here following the primaries, mostly of Dean supporters. There were at least a couple of large and active forums of banned or disgruntled DUers in the aftermath of that election cycle, though none as bad as jpr-there was no active support for GWB on those forums.

In 2008 there were a HELLUVA lot of angry Hillary supporters, some calling themselves PUMAs, and going off to other, friendlier places. Many PUMAs refused to support or vote for Obama in the general election. I wonder how many of them are currently posting on DU about how terrible other Democrats are.

This state of affairs is hardly unprecedented or new for DU. In fact, it's been the norm here, almost since the beginning. Massive recriminations following a catastrophic election loss are normal. Why would anyone expect otherwise?

[mnhtnbb]

15. Wow. I've been around DU for over 10 years

on and off over the years.

Yes, I was a Bernie supporter. Yes, I tried out JPR. Didn't fit there and apparently I no longer fit here, either.
Voted for Hillary.

Currently have a thread at the top of trending now http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028338504

so apparently at least a few DU'ers find what I have to say--or recommend--of interest.

I don't think these kind of threads calling out segments of DU are productive.

I think we ALL need to turn our attention to figuring out effective ways to minimize the damage a Trump regime is going
to do to this country. We need each other.

How about, in the spirit of the season, we start supporting each other?

[Paladin]

22. The sooner the 2016 Postmortem forum is shut down, the sooner that support will begin. (nt)

[mnhtnbb]

61. Well, there's an ignore button for that.

[mnhtnbb]

85. In all the time I've been on DU

I've never used the ignore list.

I read a lot of threads, comment on a few. I hang out mostly in the Photography group
where we try not to let our personal views interfere with our common interest.

[DFW]

303. I've never ignored anyone either

I've been on the receiving end of it, but that left no scars I'm aware of.

[Kentonio]

63. So deal with it on a case by case basis with the sites Alert tools

And stop with this attacking of a large group of people purely because they disagreed with you in the primaries. There is a real attitude from some here as if only the people who were Clinton supporters in the primaries are real Dems and the rest of us should act like prodigal sons begging for forgiveness.

I don't regret my primary choice (or indeed supporting the eventual nominee), I don't regret taking a hiatus from here in the face of some deeply unpleasant behavior from Hillary fans, and I don't feel the slightest need to run my ideology through some purity test governed by the people who just helped lose us an election.

[sfwriter]

68. please share an example.

I've only noticed the outrage of people who were welcome here. I've missed the ugliness. Please share one if you've got one handy.

[sfwriter]

93. That post is a good post-election discussion.

It is even a response to a post-election meme that Bernie supporters cost Hillary the election. That is hardly destructive. It's a response to an argument explaining the loss.

You know she got the most votes, right? Bernie campaigned for her and the overwhelming majority of his supporters voted for her.

[sfwriter]

120. He was super dismissive of your post...

But he was civil throughout that thread.

I actually found it enlightening. I'd like to see more posts like that.

[GummyBearz]

94. As if that poster's premise is incorrect?

The whole point of the primary is to put our best against our best. Any flaws that come out will be noted, and theoretically the best candidate will become the nominee.

[GummyBearz]

105. You dragged over here for what?

To use it as an incorrect example to make a point?

[GummyBearz]

125. yawn

"Try to avoid making childish comments.

Okay?

Now, go have a cookie and run along to play with your friends. "

[potone]

37. Agreed!

The myopia here is astounding. Whatever happened to the "big tent" idea of the party? Also I, like you, was a member of DU for over a decade when I felt driven away by the incessant Bernie-bashing and calls for him to drop out long before the primaries were over.

Like you, I voted for Hillary even though I was a Bernie supporter and was angry at the way that the DNC treated him and his supporters. There is no evidence that I am aware of that the majority of Bernie supporters voted for Trump. The number of those who chose to vote for Stein instead were negligible to the final result, in which Hillary (must I remind people?) won the popular vote.

We are facing the prospect of a truly dangerous and unhinged man being inaugurated as president. He is already causing havoc and it will only get worse. Please people, let us unite and fight Trump. The stakes couldn't be higher: the future of our country and our planet are at risk.

[mnhtnbb]

121. Too many folks

here are determined to blame Bernie supporters for Hillary's defeat in the Electoral College.

There's plenty of blame to go around and I don't think it's productive to spend so much time pointing fingers.

I agree with you that "we are facing the prospect of a tryly dangerous and unhinged man being inaugurated as president".
THAT should be our focus. We need to all come together.

Stop with the blaming. There's more than enough to go around, INCLUDING all the registered Dems who stayed home and
didn't vote at all.

I VOTED FOR HILLARY. Please, DU, STOP insulting me because I preferred Bernie in the primaries and I explored
JPR until it became apparent that it evolved in another direction. It originally started as a site to promote and support Bernie.
Bernie supported Hillary. I supported Hillary.

How about we all move on to the real fight now?

[Lifelong Protester]

179. I agree with you ,mnhtnbb!

[redwitch]

193. Yes!

Thank you!

[JTFrog]

199. No. It originally started as a site to bash Hillary. To call her names they couldn't get away with

here.

DU has a Bernie Sanders forum so that argument doesn't hold water one bit.

The folks running that place were the worst trolls here.

[seaglass]

202. That's right JT. I remember from the very beginning that there were 100s more posts in

the hate Hillary forum than there were in the promote Bernie forum. Selective memory is happening here.

[mnhtnbb]

216. That is absolutely wrong and you can look at the original website

I have posted the original intent in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2647637

AND in their rules

Our forums are for constructive discussion on moving this country back to the Left. Be yourself, but please use this general rule of thumb: if you wouldn’t say it at the dinner table, don’t say it here. Put another way: the golden rule applies here.

3. No personal attacks. None.
Attacking people instead of ideas leads to defensiveness and fighting rather than discussion and achievement, and turns discussion boards into @#$%. There are various ways to handle strong disagreements::

- "You're an idiot" - this is clearly a personal attack, and is not allowed
- "That's just stupid" - Slightly better, but still needlessly confrontational
- "That's a bit silly, because..." - OK
- "I disagree with you because..." - Best


4. Abstain from using obscene content and discriminatory language.
Consider this a necessary extension to our general guidelines.

http://jackpineradicals.org/about_us.php (original website, not the current forum)


Dinner table language varies from house to house. In my house, we use 4 letter words. I always had to stress to my boys when growing up that language they heard at our dinner table would not necessarily be acceptable at other dinner tables, or in the workplace, or in social settings. We spoke truth and taught nuance and recommended judgment be used for different settings.

My husband and I and our adult sons all supported Bernie in the primaries; we all voted for Hillary in the election.

[zipplewrath]

246. Keep with that attitude

It's populated with people who were driven away from the democratic candidate by the BOG kind of perspesctive. Which is why we saw the "we don't need you" kind of post prior to the election.

[JTFrog]

247. BOG kind of perspective?

I am so sick of "Bernie supporters good" "Hillary and Obama supporters bad".

People supporting Democrats on a Democratic website. Oh, the horror.

[stevenleser]

271. Yes, obnoxious and divisive terminology regarding those who support Democrats is their thing.

I am glad the TOS now specifically prohibits that kind of behavior.

[zipplewrath]

317. Which is different than the BOG approach

The BOG was a "the skies are not cloudy all day" approach to "support", and it lost us an election.

People have to be able to hear that they are wrong, even if they don't like to hear it.

[R B Garr]

318. No, what lost the election was the Bernie or Busters and the Bern it Downers

who latched on to his grandstanding about Hillary and Wall Street when the Wall Street meltdown occurred 8 years ago and was a distant event. Attributing malice to everything Hillary did was what caused the election loss. That is proven by looking at the results of the margins in the contested states. Stein/Sanders voters account for those margins, and that was a direct result of a concerted effort to convince people to throw away their votes on protest votes against Clinton for your own vacuous vanity reasons.

You should take your own advice and listen.

[zipplewrath]

321. And all the other races we lost

Hillary wasn't the only race we lost. And this wasn't the only election where we lost. But I'm sure Bernie is to somehow to blame for all of that.

Again, we keep making the same mistakes over and over and pretending that we aren't isn't helping. Hillary was the "wrong" candidate because she was part and partial of the larger problem. And many people are trying to explain this. People like Biden and Obama among many others. DWS was the wrong chair. Kaine was the wrong VP. The TPP was the wrong agreement. The mandates were the wrong solution. The bonuses were the wrong strategy. NAFTA addressed the wrong problems. Deregulation of the derivatives was the wrong choice.

And as has been demonstrated over and over, picking candidates like Specter was a losing proposition.

[R B Garr]

323. I notice you say nothing about gerrymandering or voter supression

Your only focus is on hating Democrats and bending reality to fit that narrative. This isn't the first time this has happened, either. Gore was the recipient of this type of all-or-nothing mentality and was discarded for your self-important vanity votes to show that he wasn't perfect. Look what that got you. And it's never ending.

You've actually confirmed how disastrous it was to have someone like Bernie spouting unattainable nonsense and poisoning people's minds into thinking he could deliver on his promises. He couldn't even get single-payer passed in his own tiny state of Vermont! He was never accountable for anything he said, and that was the true losing proposition.

[JTFrog]

319. Ok, you won't like it, but you are wrong.

First, what lost us an election was decades of gerrymandering, voter suppression, Comey, Russia, and a spoiler creating a division within the party. That's right, division. Not some fucking "the skies are not cloudy all day" approach, but a nasty divisive bern it down approach with the perfect being the enemy of the great.

The stupid idea that we needed a revolution to defeat ourselves was just so fucking brilliant. NOT.

[zipplewrath]

320. Proof

Do you have any evidence of any of your assertions? Because there are a lot of people looking for it and can't find it. But I see you have found every reason you can think of EXCEPT that maybe the candidate was flawed.

We lost because of the same reasons we've been losing several election cycles. Candidates that were ignoring significant portions of the electorate. And it doesn't help when we start calling people "deplorables". I knew who she meant, but a lot of voters thought she was talking about them (even though she wasn't). Michigan was begging her to come visit and she blew them off. But, no, it was the Russians, not her.

And Gerrymandering can't swing presidential elections. It can't swing Senate ones either. It does influence state level offices.

And where is all the "pragmatism" that the Clinton supporters are supposed to be so interested? All the things you discuss are basically "political realities". We're going to have to learn to work within that reality, not just complain about it. Talk about your "pink unicorns". GOTV efforts are there specifically to address suppression/obstruction issues. Weren't we supposed to have some huge advantage with our GOTV structure? Think maybe the outcome indicates a problem a bit larger than this?

Look, I'm the first one to tell folks that she won the popular vote. I've taken to referring to Trump as the "minority president". (Although I'm starting to like "The ambassador from Russia".). And since she only "lost" by about 85,000 well distributed votes, just about anything you want to point to will be "big" enough to be blamed. But we lost ALOT of elections, and not just the election cycle. It might be time to realize that there is something wrong and start putting up candidates that address those problems. Candidates with insanely high negatives probably isn't the place to start.

[JTFrog]

322. Her favorability ratings were higher until she started getting attacked from both sides for ffs.

How do you argue she was a bad candidate when her net favorable was higher than his until he joined in with the nasty bullshit attacks against her. But hey, that revolution worked wonders didn't it?

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188957/voting-begins-sanders-popular-clinton-dems.aspx?g_source=bernie%20sanders&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles



http://www.gallup.com/poll/193913/clinton-image-lowest-point-two-decades.aspx?g_source=Hillary%20Clinton&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

And notice when her approval ratings actually take a dump. The manufactured bullshit from the right wouldn't carry so much weight if we didn't have a split party willing to use any negative (including right wing) sources out there to bash our own just because they weren't winning the primary.

[zipplewrath]

324. Those were pretty dismal numbers

You usually want to start out much better than that. Heck, it's usually thought you can't win with much more than 40% unfavorable. And that's at the END of the process. Of course Trump started out way worse so go figure.

[JTFrog]

325. So who did we have with better numbers? Her numbers were better than Bernie's.

Kind of kills all kinds of arguments.

You recently made the claim that DWS was in the bag for Hillary and that they conspired to create a debate schedule that would keep the public from hearing the message. Those were the kinds of messages that I am talking about that helped create a division that the repukes used as cover for stealing the election. Eichenwald addressed these myths that got spread over and over again during the election by our own side for crying out loud.

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

The first big criticism this year was that the DNC had sponsored “only” six debates between Clinton and Bernie Sanders in some sort of conspiracy to impede the Vermont senator. This rage was built on ignorance: The DNC at first announced it would sponsor six debates in 2016, just as it had in 2008 and 2004. (In 2012, Barack Obama was running for re-election. Plus, while the DNC announced it would sponsor six debates in 2008, only five took place.) Debates cost money, and the more spent on debates, the less available for the nominee in the general election. Plus, there is a reasonable belief among political experts that allowing the nominees to tear each other down over and over undermines their chances in the general election, which is exactly what happened with the Republicans in 2012.

Still, in the face of rage by Sanders supporters, the number of DNC-sponsored debates went up to nine—more than have been held in almost 30 years. Plans for a 10th one, scheduled for May 24, were abandoned after it became mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the nomination.

Notice that these were only DNC-sponsored debates. There were also 13 forums, sponsored by other organizations. So that’s 22 debates and forums, of which 14 were only for two candidates, Clinton and Sanders. Compare that with 2008: there were 17 debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016. This was a big deal why?

The next conspiracy theory embraced by Bernie-or-Busters was that the DNC-sponsored debates were all held on nights no one would watch. Two took place on a Saturday, two on Sunday, three on a Thursday, one on a Tuesday and one on a Wednesday. In 2008, the DNC scheduled two on a Monday (one was canceled), and one each on a Sunday, Wednesday, Tuesday and Thursday. Not including any of the 2016 forums, there were 72 million viewers for the DNC-sponsored debates, almost the same amount—75 million viewers—as there were for every debate in 2008, including those sponsored by other organizations. And those Saturday debates, which Sanders fans howled no one would watch, were the third- and fifth-most watched debates (one of them was 3 percent away from being the fourth-most watched).In other words, the argument that the DNC rigged the debates is, by any rational analysis, garbage. For those who still believe it, hats made of tin foil are available on Amazon.

[zipplewrath]

327. Proof

Again, do you have anything to support your assertions. I'm really not seeing it. We've been losing elections for the past few cycles and more that Hillary lost that night.

And I don't remember discussing debates since the spring.

[shireen]

251. +1

DU has been a depressing place since the primaries. I dont recall ever criticizing Hillary here but I was vocal in my support for Bernie. When she got the nomination, i supported her. Yet, some really loud opinionated people feel compelled to make me feel like I dont belong here because I supported Bernie during the primaries.

I need DU right now to help me get through the next 4 years, like I needed DU for the 8 years of W Bush. But divisive posts make it really hard to want to be here, even tho' I know it's coming from just a few loud people. Unfortunately, they set the atmosphere, and right now it feels hostile.

How about less bitterness and more empathy?

[jack_krass]

280. Ive had the same experience here. If you dont follow the group-think in lockstep, prepare to be

Treated like an outcast.

[Crunchy Frog]

293. I was completely neutral during the primaries, but still feel like it's a hostile environment.

I feel like it's hostile towards anyone who doesn't buy into the dominant narrative here. Basically the narrative that blames everyone else for the election results, and rejects any sort of introspection or the suggestion that the party, candidate, or campaign should bear any responsibility or critical examination.

I'm on the wrong end of the narrative here. I've never believed in uncritical, or unqualified support for anyone or anything.

[NRaleighLiberal]

81. + infinity

[mnhtnbb]

86. ...

back!

[Kali]

160. good post

[johnp3907]

21. They go onto my ignore list.

[Cary]

35. Me too

[grossproffit]

45. Me too. The go to source the latest Hillary "news" on JPR was a known white supremacist on Twitter

[mnhtnbb]

67. It was alerted. I did it before there was a single response.

I do not think it's productive.

I think if people have come back here from JPR they should abide by the rules.
If what they say is within the rules and others don't like it, then argue your side or put 'em on ignore.

We do not need to be trashing each other--and that goes both ways.

[CTyankee]

91. 'Yes, I was on that jury but I had to opt out because I didn't know what JPR was...

[grossproffit]

41. Yep. We're posting w/ "Progressives" who voted for Trump to spite Hillary. The receipts are on JPR

for all to see.

[RazBerryBeret]

43. we don't need a big tent at all

continue with this rhetoric please, it is so very helpful.
and then complain about the results, please.

[seaglass]

79. Why would counting on unreliable allies be in any way worthwhile? Idiots who were so bitter Bernie

lost that they could not bring themselves to vote for Hillary against a dangerous man-baby?

They were so intent on Hillary hate and Hillary CT that they ignored Trump and after he was elected have made every excuse imaginable that he wouldn't be so bad.

Nope, makes more sense to cultivate new members and leave the ignorant ones to their own demise.

[RazBerryBeret]

95. Great Theory

how exactly do you plan to weed out?
Maybe this attitude will piss off more "new members" that you hope to "cultivate" then what do you do?

ps.
not everyone who disliked Hillary voted for Trump
not everyone who disliked Hillary refused to vote
not everyone who supported Bernie hated Hillary
not everyone who has a different viewpoint from yours in unreliable

those are a lot of assumptions.
my previous post was simply pointing out that we need a larger coalition than we have, we obviously disagree on how to get there.
and I'm ok with that.

[seaglass]

111. #notallJPRs n/t

[el_bryanto]

53. So who should go.

I mean there are clearly a lot of people here who would like to see all criticism of Hillary Clinton cease - people who blame her lose on Democrats considering other candidates in the primary. Should we all go somewhere else as well? Who exactly do you want to kick off the board? Or what criteria do you want to use to determine who deserves to be here?

Bryant

[seaglass]

83. I'd just like to see the ones who didn't vote for Hillary go and the ones who called her a c*nt.

Does that work for you?

Bryant - Skinner did say that only Hillary voters are welcome on this board or Hillary supporters if ineligible to vote.

[el_bryanto]

90. i voted for Hillary

I never called her a c*nt.

I think she was a weak candidate, a center of the roader, and we would be better getting someone more liberal to run for president in the election, but still much better than Trump or even a Romney.

Bryant

[seaglass]

133. So then my comment wouldn't apply to you. I guess we are even, I found Bernie

to be lacking in both accomplishments and depth - but I would have voted for him if he won the primary. Those who did not vote for the Democrat are the ones who don't belong here.

[BainsBane]

114. The TOS makes clear the terms of membership

It's clear that some signed it despite the fact they know they did not vote for Clinton in the GE, and too many make clear they see their enemy as the Democratic Party rather than the GOP or the Trump administration. The name of the site is Democratic Underground, not I'm so "progressive" no one is good enough for me underground or fascists aren't really so bad underground.

I suppose people can't spend their lives attacking Clinton, but I fail to see the point. She's no longer a political candidate or leading figure in the party. To focus on her says far more about them than anything else. The only thing I can figure is some have invested so much energy in their hatred for Clinton that they don't know what to do now that she's gone.

[CTyankee]

57. what is JPR?

[betsuni]

66. It's the picture of Dorian Gray in the attick. Ugly.

[CTyankee]

71. sorry, I still don't understand...

[MelissaB]

77. I'll help you with a link.

I have to assume the poster is talking about Jackpine Radicals:

http://jackpineradicals.com/

[CTyankee]

80. Ah, off course...I was never tempted to try it...

[DFW]

304. I did. Heard too much about it not to.

But it was enough. I felt obligated to see for myself before making a judgment.

It didn't take long to figure out it was not for me, so I kept my distance.

[sfwriter]

76. I think it is a site started by alienated progressives and bernie supporters...

http://www.jackpineradicals.com/

I haven't looked around there very much. Judging from the posts I've seen on DU, it is crawling with Trump supporters.

Somebody on here with stronger feelings about it may know the history.

[musicblind]

252. After the primaries were over, Skinner stated that anyone who was not planning to vote for Hillary

or anyone who was planning to suggest supporting a third party candidate instead of Hillary was not welcome here and should leave.

So, like the PUMA's in 2008, a sub-set of DUers did leave and formed JPR.

The dislike of JPR is a dislike of people who refused to vote for Hillary. It isn't a dislike of people who were lukewarm on Hillary but still fought for her and against Trump. It's a dislike of the people who voted Stein, Trump, wrote in Bernie, or some other self-serving nonsense.

I voted for Sanders in the primary, but I have no stomach for the JPR folks and I hope they don't come back.

[LexVegas]

59. Yeah...the anti-Clinton bullshit has reached Primary levels. nt

[el_bryanto]

62. Yes wouldn't it be great if you could get rid of all those people who had an opinion different than

your own. What a blow for democracy that would be! I mean if we all think the same and have the same opinion that'll solve all our problems.

Bryant

[NanceGreggs]

229. Not wanting certain JPR posters ...

... back on DU has nothing to do with "differing opinions".

It has to do with the fact that once they left here to post exclusively on JPR, this site became way more civil - and people noticed the difference.

You'll note that I said "certain JPR posters" - they would be the ones who expressed their "opinions" on JPR which included some of the nastiest things ever written about HRC, Obama, and the Dem Party, "opinions" which included outright lies about them, "opinions" that were straight-up RW talking points (they often helpfully provided links to RW sources to show where their "opinions" originated), "opinions" based on Alex Jones-style conspiracy theories, "opinions" that targeted people like John Lewis and Liz Warren as being sell-outs because they didn't endorse Bernie, and "opinions" that expressed hatred for anyone who supported HRC.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I personally am not interested in engaging with anyone who insisted for months that Hillary was lying to the public by denying she was dying of at least a dozen diseases, who jumped on the pizzagate story and insisted it was true, who insisted that Obama was the worst president evah! and had sold-out the poor, the working-class, minorities, and the Party for his own glory, and who proudly declared they would vote third party or not vote at all because Trump being elected would be better than allowing Hillary/Dems to win.

Those who posted on JPR but did not engage in any of the above Reindeer Games are welcome here. Those who regurgitated RW talking points, or actually praised people like Gowdy, Pence, and Comey because they were anti-HRC/anti-Dem shouldn't be.

DU is supposed to be a Democratic-supporting site. Those who have already expressed their "opinion" that Democrats are corrupt evil-doers intent on destroying democracy have no place here - and their only reason for wanting to come back to DU is to be disruptive while spreading their "opinions" among people who obviously don't share them.

[el_bryanto]

230. Hillary Clinton was the candidate in 2016. She lost.

We should have nominated someone else. If you are happy with how Hillary performed in the election that's fine -but she lost and now we have to pay the price for that.

Bryant

[NanceGreggs]

231. And that has fuck all to do with ...

... whether those from JPR, who actively supported Trump or voting third party (same dif) should be welcomed back to DU or not.

Yes, we all have to "pay the price" for Hillary's loss (despite the fact that the MAJORITY of voters voted for her), so that some people can say "I TOLD you she was the wrong candidate, and you should have listened to ME!"

Apparently the MAJORITY of voters thought she was the right candidate, and voted accordingly - but that doesn't play well with the people who choose to ignore that fact, does it?

[BainsBane]

64. Big rec to that!

[LonePirate]

73. Anybody who dislikes Clinton more than Trump should not post here. That's 95% of JPR.

That site is nothing more than people still pissed about Bernie losing, which they blame on the DNC and election rigging. They fail to address the reality that states (not Clinton or the DNC) control primary elections. They also fail to address Bernie's inability to win the support of primary voters from Virginia to Texas where he lost almost 2:1. Then there is the matter of JPR turning a blind eye to Trump, even on matters in which they despise Clinton. Between the hate, the hypocrisy and the sheer ignorance, JPR is the left's version of the internet sewer that is 4chan or FR.

The only positive thing I can say about JPR is their intense support for the DAPL protesters is commendable. The rights of Native (and all) Americans to protect their land and water is a worthy cause we all should support.

[sfwriter]

84. I read FreeRepublic from time to time..

You talk about JPR the way DUers used to talk about the Freepers. I read Free Republic when a story (usually fake news) pops up that I do NOT understand. It's my go-to source fore the crazy. You have to have a way to understand the other.

Would JPR be a way to understand more liberal and progressive views? I use Alternet and Common Dreams for that. Along with Democracy Now, they form the basis for my views on extreme alternatives.

[LonePirate]

96. The problem with JPR is that it's still mostly a Clinton hate site and not a progressive views site.

If the so-called progressives there would let go of their hatred for Democrats and their ridiculous DNC conspiracies and instead focused more on actual progressive viewpoints and opposition to the massively regressive Republican takeover of Washington coming in a few weeks, then maybe it could be a worthwhile site. I have little confidence that will happen as plenty of people there seem to be closet Trump supporters. They are in for a rude awakening if they are actually progressives as they claim.

[BainsBane]

137. +1

[lins the liberal]

88. OMG reminding me of why

I quit coming here as often as I normally did. No I never quit coming, but I was upset about the loyalty oath. I supported Hillary in the General. And as the time of the election drew near, I felt I needed to come home, to DU.

I have been a member here since June 2001. I have never posted much. This OP feels like a slap in the face to me. Since I don't post often, no one really knows me or cares if I am upset. But hell yes, this makes me want to find another home.

[mnhtnbb]

100. You are not alone.

I alerted this thread before there was a single response and look what happened.

It's not productive. It's insulting. And the fact that it doesn't get hidden says we really aren't wanted here.
What's wrong with us that we want to be members of a club that doesn't want us?

[stonecutter357]

183. thank god there are Enough sane people on the jury to keep it up!

[Raster]

116. YOU. ARE. NOT. ALONE.

I also alerted on this OP. What a divisive piece of crap. I am sick and tired of the Cult of Bernie and sick and tired of the Cult of Hillary.

My allegiance is to my country first. And I am terrified we are about to inaugurate a madman. Get over your butt-hurt, we have danger and peril at our door, and they mean TO DO US ALL HARM.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

[mnhtnbb]

123. ...

Yes.

[MADem]

176. CULT of Hillary? What a perverse comment.

She won the primary AND the general election by MILLIONS of votes.

That's not a "cult." That's a winning candidate.

Feh. The House of Democrats is not divided.

[Cary]

239. And you're all about scorched earth

[Arazi]

168. Yup agree with this completely

And you're not alone. DU's Alexa numbers show that

[stevenleser]

265. No, they don't. DU numbers this election season are similar to the graph of participation throughout

every election season.

[Raine]

300. I have the same feeling...

I was for Bernie but did my part for Hillary. Seems like since the election loss even Berners who did what they could to try and get Hillary elected are not wanted here at all.

[Dem2]

107. I don't get the guilty conscience thing

Why do some people feel paranoid about this thread if you're not harboring feelings of being an outsider/disruptor?

[Dream Girl]

136. Exactly. Why the defensiveness?

[NCTraveler]

109. Liberal Isolationists suck. nt.

[BainsBane]

112. I don't see anything liberal in Trump apology

or progressive.

[NCTraveler]

134. There is very very little that is progressive about a liberal isolationist.

JPR is full of liberal isolationists.

[MADem]

177. They aren't liberals--they're "progressive." But hell, the jerks that

put Hitler in charge were "progressive." Progressive, in the wrong head, can be an ugly thing. I'd say "There is very very little that is LIBERAL about a PROGRESSIVE isolationist."

Progressive does not equal Liberal. There are progressives who would happily throw black people, brown people and gay people under that famous bus to advance the goals of the "white working man." They posted here during the primary season, and most of them decamped to that Hate Site named after a DUer who wouldn't endorse their world-view.


I have absolutely no patience of tolerance for left-wing fascists -- and they most certainly exist.

[The Blue Flower]

131. This post is deliberately provoking discord among us

I have seen nothing on this board to suggest the premise is true. I'm calling foul on the poster. Go ahead and attack me. It will only prove my point.

[Dream Girl]

140. Calling foul? Why? I visited JPR and it turned my stomache. Why would anyone feel

It's okay to bring that shit back here? If you are a JPR returnee ask yourself why you went there and what your purpose is for coming back to DU. And for the record, I was never in the cult of Hillary. I voted for Obama in 2008 and I was undecided in the 2016 primary but ended up voting for Hillary. She had her flaws as would anyone wh has been in public life and under the harsh glare of severe scrutiny for 30 years. She would have made a great president. I'm sick as shit of the Hillary bad/Bernie good bullshit. The primary is over.

[BainsBane]

142. But we're corporatist, Third Way

Last edited Wed Dec 7, 2016, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Hillbots. Why would you want to associate with us?

This sudden concern about division is rich considering the constant string of insults that they have hurled against Democrats, all while working to pump up Trump.

There is a TOS for this site. Anyone who made a false declaration in signing it--because they didn't vote Democrat in the GE, for example--doesn't belong here. This is a site for Democrats, which means people who vote for Democrats. It specifically excludes Greens and others who seek to bring down the Democratic Party, which is exactly what the Jackholes have named as a key objective.

[mcar]

204. You forgot DLC and oligarchs

No bingo for you!

[BainsBane]

208. and neoliberal

My shill skills are slipping.

[mcar]

233. ...

[seaglass]

234. And Vagina Voters - how could you forget that one? n/t

[Cary]

152. Actually a rapprochement would be nice

How do you work such things out without discussing them?

That is, if you actually want to work things out.

Do actually want to work things out?

[stevenleser]

275. I disagree. If it were only a primary issue that would be one thing. Many of us have watched their

behavior the last 8 years and we are sick of the unwavering antagonism towards Democrats.

Lets let them keep that garbage on JPR.

[Cary]

283. You know you and I agree

But hey, I could be persuaded otherwise. I.soncerely doubt I'll get persuaded because they don't really want a rapprochement. As you said they have convinced us beyond a doubt that they hate Democrats so as long as that is the case there is no common ground.

There is as much chance of a rapprochement with radical leftists who hate Democrats as there is of a rapprochement with "conservatives" who hate liberals.

Hate is hate.

[CajunBlazer]

153. Hummm..... "deliberately provoking discord among us"?????

"deliberately provoking discord among us"? I thought that the OP was about those who were non Democrats who joined DU to promote Bernie's candidacy. I always thought they were among those who actively stalked Hillary supporters in the primary season, even in the Hillary Group, trying to silence them by abusing DU rules.

Regardless of where they did or not, I do know they were among those who abandoned DU after the primaries and have been hanging out on the JPR site, at least until recently.

If they are back, and this OP is calling them out, how can you say the OP is "deliberately provoking discord among us"? They were never with us. They are not Democrats. If they ever were Democrats they left because they consider the party "contaminated" with those like me who "not progressive enough". They were only using DU to achieve their own goal, that is of securing the nomination for an outsider like themselves, the first person in their memory that they considered worth of sitting in the oval office.

With all of that in mind, please reconsider who is causing the disruption.

[mnhtnbb]

167. A lot of assumptions in your post.

I can't speak for everyone who went to JPR--there were a lot of us--but the OP doesn't call out " those who were non Democrats who joined DU to promote Bernie's candidacy.". The OP does not make any distinction between Bernie supporters--and why or how or when they came to support Bernie or how long they had been members or when they joined DU-- and that is a HUGE mistake.

I've been around for more than 10 years on DU.

Account status: Active
Member since: Sat May 7, 2005, 10:13 PM
Number of posts, all time: 20,147
Number of posts, last 90 days: 797


The OP takes a broad brush and says anyone who came back from JPR is not welcome here. That is insulting. I voted for Hillary. And it won't help to fight Trump and that is where we need to focus.

Maybe it would be better to forget about insulting Bernie supporters--and for Bernie supporters to get over the Monday morning quarterbacking--and come together to fight Trump.

We need each other.

[CajunBlazer]

182. I find absolutely nothing to complain about with your point of view

Perhaps the OP does "paint with too broad a bush" as there are always exceptions to any statement that can be made. However, I have visited JPR a couple times out of curiosity after the primary season just to see what was going on there.

I did recognize the board name of some of the most jealous Bernie supporters. What I found there wasn't pretty. There were far more attacks on Democrats than Republicans and I have never seen so many conspiracy theories bandied about.

It kind of makes me wonder why someone of your views found it necessary to hang out on that site.

[mnhtnbb]

213. Check your assumptions again.

Look at my post count here (and you can look at my post count there since I used the same name). I never hung out much at JPR on the new
website because by that time it was clear Hillary was going to be the Dem nominee and I intended to support the Dem nominee.

There's a lot of misinformation on DU about how and why and when JPR was founded. It was founded during the primary season and its mission
was to support Bernie Sanders for President.

From the original forum, which is http://jackpineradicals.org (not the current .com)

Jackpine Radicals is dedicated to promoting ideas and actions that will improve economic and social fairness in our country, and our world. That includes discussion and implementation of policies that work for all of us, and candidates for political office who favor these good policies. Broadly speaking, these are the types of policies implemented by 'Traditional' Democrats from the early 1930s until the mid 1970s, a period where the typical American's prosperity grew year after year.

AND

6. Most Importantly, this website supports Bernie Sanders for President.

When Bernie didn't get the nomination, many Bernie supporters on JPR were left without a home. We weren't respected at JPR if we intended to vote for the Dem nominee (Hillary) and we weren't wanted at DU because we had been trashed for having supported someone other than Hillary. Apparently even now, though many of us followed Bernie's lead and voted for Hillary, we aren't wanted here according to this OP.

Big mistake. BIG Mistake. It's going to take ALL of us to fight Trump.

[CajunBlazer]

248. Sorry, that is not correct

Those Bernie supporters who publicly switched their support to Hillary and quit trying to re-fight the primaries were warmly accepted by Hillary supporters on DU, especially by those the Hillary Clinton Group. I don't know why you felt that was not true in your case. Were you one of the Bernie supporters who insisted on pushing your support for Bernie after it was clear to everyone after the last primary that he had lost? If so, I can see why you might feel you weren't warmly received.

I can't judge a site on why it was founded; I can only judge based on what I have witnessed myself. On my few visits to JPR after the primaries it appeared to be a hell hole filled with never Hillary zealots who spent much of their time displaying their anger and tearing into the Democratic nominee. If my impressions were incorrect, I apologize, but that is what I witnessed.

[musicblind]

253. Exactly! I was a Bernie supporter, and still am. I bought his book. And I felt welcome during the GE

I voted Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general. Heck, I even like Hillary and am greatly disappointed that such a wonderful woman was robbed of the presidency... especially given how WIDE her popular vote margin is.

The people who are not welcome here are the people who refused to support the Democratic nominee after the primaries.

Nobody made me feel unwelcome because I like Bernie. Had I spouted hate for Hillary, I probably would have been made to feel unwelcome... as I should have been made to feel unwelcome.

[mnhtnbb]

258. Read the OP again here

I'd love it if the JPR returnees...
Would go back from whence they came. Things were fine without you.

The OP makes NO distinction between JPR returnees. It is a broad brush painting all who came back from JPR as not wanted.

It's not a smart tactic.

[CajunBlazer]

266. The OP should have been clear as to intent

Given I am of the same mind I am almost sure he was talking about the never Hillary crowd, not those who supported Hillary in the general election. Like me, he/she probably was unaware that Hillary supporters would consider themselves "JPR returnees".

[stevenleser]

276. Everything you wrote is correct. nt

[NastyRiffraff]

145. Yes, PLEASE go away, Jackasses

You guys have a site where you've presumably been perfectly happy to spread your poisonous shit. We don't need or want you doing the same crap here.

[DFW]

149. I would modify the OP's statement

"I'd love it if they would go back from whence they came"....IF all they have is a rehashing of the "I-HATE-Hillary" meme, and why she was SUCH a terrible candidate.

I wouldn't discount out of hand that some of the people who went there did so for other reasons than just "I-Hate-Hillary," and that they might have something positive to contribute here. I don't know this one way or the other, but I don't think it's a stretch of a speculation.

I took a look at their site a while ago, and like I said back then, "veni, vidi, satis." (I came, I saw, I had enough.) But that doesn't mean that EVERY person who posts there is a hate-filled, angry, lonely paranoid. That's a rather broad brush. If it's someone who only has posts to offer that are filled with hate and scorn, then yes, I, too, wish they would stick to their self-constructed cocoon. But if they have something positive to contribute, who are we to bar the door before even hearing what they have to say?

And to those who protest the OP's supposed call for banning returnees from the other site, I suggest another look at the OP. No one suggested banning anyone, and doing so twists what the OP said into something it did not. If you find it unjustified, then say so. But slamming it for recommending banning returnees is like Foxsuckers saying that Obama wants to come take your guns away. He said no such thing, and has done no such thing. If you feel directly addressed by the OP, I'd just answer with the same thing I answer to those frequent-enough posts that slam all of Texas and all Texans as if we were all Louie Gohmert: "Won't you hear me out first?" If the answer is "no," THEN let'em have it.

[guillaumeb]

154. Divided we are stronger? How did that work in the last election?

Sometimes analysis can be painful. But simply repeating the same electoral strategies over and over while losing more and more seats nationally and on a state level is clearly not a winning strategy.

[Cary]

157. What's your solution?

I can't do much with people who can't respect me. It's like trying to help an addict who doesn't want to be helped. At some point you have to walk away. That's how I see it with the JPR types.

[guillaumeb]

164. I post here, and there, under this name.

And yes, there is a lot of anger and nastiness in both places, but division is not the answer. Some people are committed Green voters, and there is not much anyone can do about convincing people who choose Green that they are making a poor electoral choice.

My personal view is that the Democratic Party must present a consistent alternative politics and vision from that of the GOP. Again, my view is that the DLC wing of the Democratic Party is seen by many as far too similar to the GOP.

If we can combine the economic message of Sanders with the social equality message of the Democratic Party we can convince people that we care about social justice as well as economic justice.

And again, I recognize that many at JPR also exhibit little tolerance for other views.

[Cary]

173. In other words you think the DLC sucks

Good luck with that.

[guillaumeb]

210. Well, the election showed that DLC type policies simply do not resonate with many voters.

So 2018 will be the next test of how the Democratic Party reframes and reorganizes.

[Cary]

212. Hopeless

[guillaumeb]

214. Possibly. But if the Democratic Party can wean itself from the money

politics and focus on actual organization, outreach, and framing a message there is hope.

[Cary]

215. I was.referring to you

The DLC will be just fine. It's a pity you can't find it within yourself to be a part of it.

[guillaumeb]

217. Politicians generally do just fine. Most incumbents in both parties

are generally re-elected.

But if the Democratic Party does not or cannot energize its natural base, the 41% of registered voters who did not bother to vote might grow.

That 41% number should be sounding the alarm for all Democratic strategists, politicians, and voters.

[Cary]

220. Ridiculous

[guillaumeb]

240. Dismissive after a loss?

Even more ridiculous.

[Cary]

241. Wake me up when you accomplish something

Other than stabbing people in the back, that is.

[guillaumeb]

242. You seem to be mistaking an attempted analysis for some sort of betrayal

of what you feel is the ideal. More of the same is not really an answer.

[Cary]

245. It's pretty simple

Either you elect Democrats or you elect Republicans. There is nothing else.

[guillaumeb]

267. It is pretty simple:

either the Democratic Party will find a way to energize the 41% of non-voters or the GOP will continue to consolidate its hold on government.

[Cary]

289. You discount the corrosive effect of the radical left

But for the radical left, once again, the Democratic Party would have won handily. It's a repeat of 2000.

I'm sorry but the radical left is aiding and abetting Republican lies and smears. I have had several former friends who got very aggressive and nasty with me because I couldn't go along with their "Hillary For Prison" "conservative" cribbed mantra. They repeated other "conservative" lies and smears, but that one proved to me beyond any doubt that such people are unreachable.

If the radical left holds the power to coalesce with "conservatives" and elect people like Trump then there's nothing more to say or do. I can only hope and pray that radical leftists burn in Hell, or die and are reborn as skinks and weasels.

[DFW]

305. The DLC disbanded five years ago!

I guess some people are going to attack the Whigs next?

[Cary]

307. I assume he meant DNC

I really don't understand radical leftists so it doesn't matter to me what he is referring to. It may as well be those damn Whigs.

[DFW]

313. I guess!

"Attack at haste, verify target at leisure."

They sound more like Republicans every day.

[Cary]

315. Yep.

The old horseshoe theory.

[Kali]

158. I never joined JPR but I am a Bernie supporter

I find your (and others) broad brush condemnation of a lot of good DUers who happened to post on that site to be offensive and symptomatic of what went wrong with this election.

[Cary]

163. The OP is about JPR posters

If you never joined JPR why on earth would you be offended?

[Kali]

165. because I know and respect some of them

do you understand the concept of broad brush attacks? there are assholes everywhere - in every group. including there and here. condemning everyone who joined that site is arrogant and stupid. we need all the allies we can get. the lack of self awareness that some super-Clinton fans suffer from is part of why we lost.

[Cary]

171. Seems to me that the category of "JPR returnees" is specific

It's not "broad brushed" at all. There are a finite number of people and the reasons behind the opinion expressed by Dream Girl could not be more clear. She has a reasonably objective argument. Even you seem to get it: "there are assholes everywhere." So you know she is referring to specific behavior and you know exactly what that behavior is. Therefore your claim that it is "broad brushed" is not well-taken.

Further your own comment that "the lack of self awareness that some super-Clinton fans suffer from is part of why we lost," is at least as broad and probably far more so. So that too is not well taken.

The honest part of your post is that you know and respect some of them. You're entitled to that, but those of us who don't respect their actions are entitled to not be as tolerant as you are with them.

That said, they have every chance to alter their attitudes.

[Kali]

178. yeah, you have a real nice day...

[sheshe2]

228. I would have a hard time respecting anyone...

that posted on a site where the mods allowed Hillary to be called the C word, the exception to that rule? You call another member that, you will be banned. Yes, I read that there and yes, they were a member here.

That is just me...

[Kali]

236. blame everybody for one or a few?

I have a hard time respecting dead horse-beating, broad brush attackers anywhere I encounter them.

maybe obsessing about other websites is the real problem.

[sheshe2]

237. It was a rule on the site,

sort of like our TOS.

Obsessing? I answered your post on DU. That is obsessing?

[jack_krass]

287. People on this site called Bernie a racist....

Yet we keep posting here.

Is calling Hillary the "c" word any worse than calling Bernie a racist?

I think they are equally bad. Yet i wouldnt stop posting on this site because of it. Id use the opportunity to voice my opposition to using slurs and slanders such as these.

[hrmjustin]

175. I have no love loss for JPR but there are some who are members who rejected the anybody but Hillary

stance they took.

Skinner said the software will eventually get rid of those who can't abide the TOS and once flagged it is up to him. Several members who were flagged after the new to are still flagged.

My point is while I agree this place is not for some of them I don't think it can be said uniformly.

[basselope]

180. It did ultimately work out well.. didn't it?

[stonecutter357]

186. work out well for trump and bernie.

[George II]

198. "Work out well for bernie"? Well, financially at least.

[BainsBane]

187. For them, yeah

The election gave them exactly what they wanted.

[stonecutter357]

185. K&R!

[Dream Girl]

189. Well then.

Who cares what any of us think for that matter?

[closeupready]

190. Yes indeed. I'm nobody important; it doesn't matter what I think.

For that matter, I'm not the type to barge in to a "discussion" forum like 2016 Postmortem and start new threads to do nothing more than make dramatic announcements of my personal antipathy towards resident adversaries.

Peace to you.

[BainsBane]

192. No, you just tell them to keep their mouths shut

because they aren't important enough to express their opinion.

[closeupready]

196. Thank you for your post.

[Cary]

195. You kind of can't have it both ways

Either you oppose "divisiveness" and you have patience and tolerance "towards resident adversaries" or you favor "divisiveness" and you excoriate someone for "barg[ing] in to a 'discussion' forum like 2016 Postmortem and start new threads to do nothing more than make dramatic announcements of my personal antipathy."

I could think of a million ways that I would approach someone with whom I was seeking a rapprochement, and all of them would be an attempt to empathize and to find the common ground. None of them would be like what you posted.

Reactions like yours are why I have lost hope of a rapprochement.

[closeupready]

197. Whatever. She went there. I replied.

We (essentially) agreed to disagree.

This is a message board. Election Day is behind us. The very title of the forum implies it's done. Skinner himself posted he personally feels another Hillary run in 2020 is a bad idea. I've been on DU almost since its inception.

JPR is just another message board. Like Reddit, Topix, Straight Dope, and any one of thousands of other websites.

[Cary]

200. You know what this about

Why deflect?

[seaglass]

235. In reality he doesn't like us

closeupready (133 posts)
November 30, 2016 at 8:47 am

JPR has become my go-to site for news and disc. of current events

All the cool kids are here, and we are more truly democratic than other discussion sites which claim to be so. IMHO, of course.

I see no point in hanging out where 1) I don’t like other members; 2) I am abused; and 3) I’m diminished by the stupid gossip.

[Cary]

238. I'm not the least bit surprised

Scorpions will be scorpions.

[TwilightZone]

244. Hey, at least he's a cool kid.

So, there is that.

[musicblind]

254. Check and mate. n/t

[betsuni]

255. Heh. "I am abused" "I am diminished" (nt)

[BlueProgressive]

194. I would love it if people on DU stop bitching about JPR

If I gave a shit what was on JPR, I could go over there and read it.

[NastyRiffraff]

222. I don't care what they post on JPR

I won't give that hate site any clicks to find out, either. I DO care when they slither back here to spread their venom.

[geek tragedy]

201. we need all hands on deck to resist Trump-Ryan-Pence-Bannon

I don't care if people are JPR or Green or Communist or DLC or Connecticut for Lieberman or DU.

Plenty of time for petty rivalries when the enemy has been driven from power.

[Cary]

221. We. Have Seen This Movie Too Many Times, Geek

The snake agrees to let the scorpion ride on its back, the scorpion stings the snake half way across the river and they both die.

The end.

[Tarheel_Dem]

209. Agreed. When will people figure out that they have absolutely nothing in common with these cretins.

They are NOT democrats, and I suspect most are comfortable financially, so it doesn't matter that DT will be president. Doesn't matter who the president is as long as they have their ideals to see them through the next four years.

[Rex]

211. lulz

[Cha]

219. Mahalo, Dream Girl!

[Blue_In_AK]

223. All righty then.

Adios. Reminding me why I left in the first place.

[SidDithers]

225. ...

Sid

[mnhtnbb]

264. Hey, Blue!

I'm having a tough time, too as you can see by my many posts in this thread (and I alerted on it).

I may have to confine myself to hiding out in the Photog group, which always was the best of DU.

[LostOne4Ever]

224. I agree w/ you for those who voted for anyone but Clinton

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999] But I have no issues with the minority of Clinton supporters from there.[/font]

[.99center]

227. They've endangered peoples lives.

That place is a cesspool of links to sandy hook CT's, pizzagate CT's, and other alt-right CT's. If you allow your site to be flooded with links to fake news sources that are intended to cause violence and hate against people that support the Democratic party, don't be shocked when your site gets labeled as fake news.
It wasn't a case of the moderators not being able to keep up with the links to extremist sites, moderators were involved in fueling these theory's.

I get it though, right wing fake news sells and they're in the biz of getting clicks. They didn't want to appear too progressive to all those nuts on the right flooding the site providing add revenue.

[Gothmog]

232. The number of conspiracy theories that are discussed on that site is amazing

The posters on that site really have issues with reality and will buy any crazy conspiracy theories

[aikoaiko]

262. I'd like to see most return as long as they don't support Trump or...

continue the primary wars or proxy primary wars.

[seaglass]

263. Unfortunately - for you - most of them did not vote for Hillary which is a requirement for posting

here.

[Dream Girl]

269. I don't get why they even want to be here

[mnhtnbb]

270. Wake up and you might figure it out.

[stevenleser]

273. The answer is simple. To disrupt and tell us how bad Democrats are. nt

[JI7]

299. as they have been doing during Obama's presidency

it's not just about bitterness from the primary itself. we have had that before . and it was understandable people left and came back.

but these people are about tearing down the party.

[stevenleser]

274. They are here to tell us how bad Democrats are. nt

[aikoaiko]

298. Is it? I didn't think previous elections were requirements for posting -- only going forward.

[seaglass]

306. Yes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=7542

In case it hasn't been completely obvious to everyone here, I would like to make clear that since the extremely divisive Democratic Primary ended in June, the DU Administrators have been committed to making sure that Democratic Underground is a friendly community where politically liberal people can support Democrats. That commitment will continue after the election season is over. My greatest regret is that over the last eight years I allowed Democratic Underground to become a haven for people who treated Barack Obama and their fellow DU members with contempt. I don't intend to make that mistake again.

The price of admission to DU after this election is your vote for Hillary Clinton (or your support for her if you are not eligible to vote in the United States). If you are able to vote, but you can't bring yourself to vote for Hillary, then I'm not particularly interested in listening to your bullshit for the next four-to-eight years. I don't care if you live in the bluest of blue states or the reddest of red states, if you are looking for excuses to vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or god forbid Donald Fucking Trump, then this isn't the place for you. Fortunately for you, there are plenty of other places on the Internet where you can get your Hillary-hate on, and some of them are even filled with former DU members.

[aikoaiko]

310. Thank you. It is true that if you didn't vote for HRC, you are unwelcome to post on DU

That seems so weird to me -- it's not even about fidelity to party or issues but to HRC.

Hopefully, DU Admins will revisit their HRC above all else stance. The party is bigger than her and she would be the first to say so, I'm sure.

[seaglass]

312. I disagree it is not just about HRC, it is about supporting Democrats. I guess you didn't read the

part about 8 years of abuse against Obama and Obama supporters on DU.

The very LEAST anyone had to do in this election was to vote against Trump. If someone claims to be left of center but could not bring themselves to this most minimum of effort why should they have a voice here? They have no credibility. There are plenty of other places on the internet where they can spread their poison.

[stevenleser]

272. Agreed. nt

[jack_krass]

278. I hope they all come back. At least to visit. Its getting stale here..

[RonniePudding]

281. Oh I bet you do.

Not enough Dem bashing for your taste?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511960873

[jack_krass]

282. Thanks. Yes, I violently opposed HRC in the primary, but

Did support and vote for her in the general.

I make absolutrly no appologies for this and confidently maintain that she was too hawkish, too beholden to corporations, and too elitist for a Dem candidate. I believe with every fiber of my being that Bernie would have CRUSHED trump had he won the primary.

I will do everything in my power to ensure we dont make these mistakes again. The futute of our country depends on it.

[RonniePudding]

288. Still feel that way about Trump?

As to your point on Bernie, I agree. Maybe not crush, but I believe he would have won. And I didn't support him in the primary, to be clear.

[stevenleser]

290. Bernie would not have won and I can walk you through why.

Bernie did not have the support/enthusiasm in the African American community needed to contest Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia, the Carolinas or Florida.

Hillary trounced Bernie in all those states. Bernie loses all of them to Trump big, not even close. That's one more state than Hillary lost. Bernie was generally stronger in Michigan and Wisconsin, sure. But Trump can pour all the resources he used in the above states into those two. I think he wins one or both against Bernie. But Trump wouldnt need to win either Wisconsin or Michigan if he wins Virginia plus the other states he won against Hillary.

[ProgressIsLeft]

308. Let's walk through that

because......



Can you show us please where Hillary's numbers went up? Bernie would have beaten Trump and keep in mind that 50% of Dem voters stayed home. I'm willing to bet that most Hillary supporters would have voted for Bernie though, the same can't be said for a lot of Bernie supporters however. That alone indicates he was a stronger candidate.

[stevenleser]

316. I already walked you through it. Show how Bernie contests any of the states I mentioned.

Bernie does not have the support in the Demographics he needs to contest PA, VA, NC, SC, GA or FL. Hillary trounced him in those states in the primary. Look up the results.

Hillary even with the better support lost all of those states to Trump except VA which she barely won. With that, we can easily conclude Bernie would have also lost VA.

With that being the case, Trump would have 270+ EVs against Bernie and would have beaten him as well.

But its worse than that. If you understand Presidential elections at all, you know that a state that you cannot contest means that your opponent can reallocate resources, time, money, etc. that would have otherwise needed to be spent on that state elsewhere. That means every other swing state. He wouldn't have needed it, but he would likely have won Michigan and Wisconsin against Bernie as well, and possibly other swing states.

[stevenleser]

279. I think Andrew Lloyd Weber in his Evita lyrics said it best.

"So go, if you're able, to somewhere unstable
And stay there
Whip up your hate in some tottering state
But not here, dear
Is that clear, dear?"

[Dream Girl]

284. Thanks for posting...what good is the strongest heart in a body that's falling apart?

Indeed.

[LaydeeBug]

297. K an r. LOTS of it here. nt

[yardwork]

326. They disgust me. They helped Hillary lose and now they're back here.

Sanctimonious assholes harrassing people.