This is the kind of shit you get when every kid gets a trophey in junior soccer...
KittyWampus (48,257 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026473561
Calling Hillary Clinton Supporters On DU "Operatives" Is Ugly
Insinuating that her current or future supporters are paid shills is divisive.
Doing so helps create an overall atmosphere of distrust. It breeds a sort of McCarthyism.
IMO, it shouldn't be encouraged because it ends up being a form of personal attack in a flimsy attempt at concealment.
There are a few Hillary supporters posting here whom I respect highly. Differ with primary choice of candidate, but that's normal.
Going forward I am going to make an effort to focus my commentary on the actual politicians and their history/positions and try to stay away from talking about supporters of any candidate. Unless some advocates for a candidate really cross a line.
I may not always live up to that goal. But it's a goal worth trying for.
my feelings were hurt. Stop making me feel bad!
djean111 (6,307 posts)
3. So is calling those who do not care for Hillary rat-****ers, right-wingers, trolls, etc.
Those words are not insinuated, they are the words used.
So pot, kettle, etc
djean111 (6,307 posts)
8. Oh, yes, I forgot - anyone who disagrees with what we can make out of Hillary's policies is automatically a hater.
We on the right are about to be flodded by Ranulans. It's going to be the same shit the Paultards did last time. Meanwhile, on the island of misfit toys:
KittyWampus (48,257 posts)
12. how is calling someone who supports Hillary an operative talking about her policies?
I don't like some of her policies.
Don't like what Bill Clinton did to weaken Democratic infrastructure across the entire country.
There probably are a few thin-skinned Hillary supporters who call everyone who point out their problems w/her record "haters".
But that clearly isn't prevalent in GD
djean111 (6,307 posts)
16. What I am pointing out is how some HRC supporters call anyone who does not support her a right wing operative or troll. Already happened in this thread.
11 Bravo (18,118 posts)
21. Then perhaps you should start a thread about it, rather than attempting to hi-jack this one. The OP made a point. Instead of responding to it, you went for the deflection via the "Oh yeah? But other people do THIS!" route.
Shit, for a moment I thought I was at Discussionist.
KittyWampus (48,257 posts)
6. When DU'ers post right wing garbage against her- they very well might. You don't see the difference? Says more about your own inability to distinguish between cookware.
VanillaRhapsody (16,707 posts)
52. Haven't seen much of this "disagreeing on policy" you speak of.... because Her POLICIES (and she has quite a public record for all to fact check against) are being mischaracterized and exaggerated beyond recognition! Its unbelievable how many downright myths and distortions are allowed to stand when they are so easily proven false with FACTS! I read a lot of rhetoric and read a lot of bullshit that is allowed to stand...but do not see a lot of backing that shit up with EVIDENCE! We are all just supposed to ACCEPT it because they say so! As if repetition is how you create perception...if people just get worn down..having to prove things a myth or urban legend often enough and over and over and over over "it do get tiresome after a while". So when people just stop opposing that because they are just bored with doing so ...it means that now everyone just accepts it as reality! Afterall "no one's complaining anymore" so it must be true! The old George Bush "we have to catapult the propaganda" technique of "politickin'"
mylye2222 (2,035 posts)
89. Oh and let's no forget "Rand Paul clowns"
Really some HRV supporters (not all) cant stand any dissent
emulatorloo (25,078 posts)
75. If someone is breathlessly quoting the Benghazi committee and/or right wing sources like Washington Examiner, Fox News, The Daily Tucker Carlson etc it is right wing garbage. It isn't that hard to understand.
joshcryer (50,747 posts)
59. If it rat ****s like a rat ****er it's a rat****er.
Rat****ing is using dirty tricks, right wing sources, to spread hate and lies. If you search "FOX News" and "news story" and there is a crossover, it's likely rat****ing or someone being mislead (perhaps posting something from FB over here without knowing that they're being manipulated by some media PR astroturfer somewhere).
Here's a good definition of what it looks like: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rat****ing
It is a very real phenomena and it is almost always targeted at the left. The reason it is still used is it is very very effective. The Democratic Party is not a unity party, it is a very diverse and big tent party. The best way to **** the Democratic Party over is to divide and conquer. Set it against itself. That's what the PUMA's attempted to do. And we're seeing that sort of shit with pledges to not vote for Clinton if she's the nominee. It's the same damn thing.
Don't post stories here that come from the Moonie Times, Fox News, Breitbart, Drudge Report, or any other open editorial site like OpEdNews (and present it as news). Doing that constitutes carrying water for the right wing and is indeed rat****ing.
More on rat****ing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat****ing
someone is off their medication.
Scootaloo (16,589 posts)
54. Well, having been told that my lack of desire for a Clinton presidency makes me a Paulbot...
And that a desire to see Sanders run makes me an "idiot leftist..."
I'm not really worried about the feelings of Clinton supporters.
