ACRIMONY

As i said, you childish creep, you wouldn't know irony if it bit you in the ass. See Rabel's post above. You have for years taken a puerile delight in trashing threads which i start. It's long past time for you to grow up.

Try to discuss the topic, 'K?

Neither party has had their convention yet, the election isn't until November and everyday the media follows the 5 candidates as if it's a sporting event. The hysteria and wild accusations are wearing me out, minor flubs are suddenly catapulted into major events, everything is announced in either hushed conspiratorial tones or is shouted out like a donkey braying about some new insignificant crap they hope will be accepted as a fresh viewpoint or discovery.

It's been a circus, what really distresses me is that we still have American and allied forces in harms way but that is not what Americans seem to worried about. God knows we have a ton of pressing problems (social, political, financial) but it appears to me this election is just a grudge match that too many Americans are thrilled about. It's become low entertainment like professional wrestling or the Jerry Springer show. Frankly it's an embarrassment, this whole nut bag hoopla suggests we are far too easily divided, are at each other's throats for truly piddly differences. We now describe small differences as huge unnavigatable gulfs. When did we become so helpless and stupid? (For the few who have difficulty with reading comprehension, the last sentence was rhetorical)

Well said.

I have my moments.

The United States is transitioning from the Sixth Party System to the Seventh Party System. Acrimony is to be expected in such a situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:American_political_eras

Speaking of 1980, there is no consensus as to the the dividing line between the Fifth and Sixth Party Systems, but the rise of the Moral Majority and the election of Reagan is one proposed dividing line between the two eras.

As long as you point out this similarity to those that loved Reagan, how about those gays that to this day blame Reagan for supposed benign neglect to the AIDs epidemic? I am not sure what your analogy proves, since Bernie will lose, and Reagan won? Oh, it proves that both politicians had their true believers. What else is new in human nature? Is this a demo of the classic Setanta strawman?

You started a thread on acrimony. In this thread you can't help but take a swipe at Bernie supporters. That is ironic.

I can't deny that I enjoy it when you fly off the handle. When you start making vulgar personal attacks... it does amuse me. But that I have never intentionally trashed any of your threads. Your threads get trashed when you are challenged and you lose your temper rather than either responding rationally or just ignoring it.

You are often so sure of the righteousness of your posts that you can't accept it when someone challenges your opinion. You don't understand that this is a public forum and it people are not only allowed to disagree with you, but that the nature of a discussion forum is that people should disagree with you.

I tend to challenge what I see as political rectitude. I do this by pointing out what I see as contradictions in your positions. I don't think I have ever attacked you personally... I often have attacked your opinions But this is appropriate on this forum.

You have every right to respond to my opinions. You have every right to ignore them.

And I suppose you have every right to fly off the handle and launch these vulgarity laced tirades that someone would dare to challenge you. And I have every right to be amused by this.

But I am not going to be bullied into not expressing my opinions or pointing out what I see as contradictions in your posts.

You made a post decrying acrimony that contains a backhanded swipe at Bernie supporters. I think that is rather humorous.

You might be going a little overboard. Perhaps I've missed posts that trash Bernie supporters, but I do know that even if you say you like Bernie (because you did) that doesn't protect you from rabid Bernie supporters who will insist you must hate Hillary. You might see that as a swipe against Bernie supporters, but that's been my experience so far. I don't think it's acrimonious to complain that some supporters seem to go off the deep end, frankly a lot of the criticisms being levied remind me of that terrible vanity gossip fest called TMZ. we seem to have lost our balance, which is understandable when people are very very young and can only see in absolutes, but most of the members are well in to adulthood. And it is sad that everything is so contentious that you can't even agree to disagree.

((TMZ is a celebrity gossip show where a bunch of twenty-something's discuss the meaning or global significance of every stupid thing people might say on Twitter....it's a glorious celebration of the mundane and useless))

Have you tried being a Bernie supporter and getting trashed by Hillary supporters?

I don't refer to Hillary supporters as "rabid" even though as a Bernie supporter I have been attacked by them. And I don't think it is appropriate to refer to Bernie supporters as "rabid" either. There is acrimony from some people of both sides. That doesn't mean you need to be a part of it. But, once you start attacking one set of supporters as nuttier than the other, you become part of the acrimony.

The more people who abstain from making personal attacks, the less acrimony there will be in the world.

Now come on you all. Who wants a group hug?

Being called an obscure term as "neoliberal" seems a tad hysterical to me, but perhaps I could have used a word like 'meany-pants'.

I think referring to Bernie supporters as "rabid" is a fine way to increase the amount of acrimony around here. It is at least as good as "neoliberal".

Or ... maybe people can just stop calling each other names. Setanta called me a "childish creep" on this very page. Did you see how I didn't respond by calling him a name?

Now come get a hug.

Well you say tomato and I say zealot, hang on to those hugs, somebody else might appreciate one.

Magnificent! I mean, you've got to super have the right frame of mind, but that is one truly magnificent post.

I think it's pathetic that people don't get that the entire point of the discussion is that Sanders' supporters are the acrimonious ones about whom i am talking. In 1980, Reagan's nomination and subsequent election were by no means taken for granted--and he was seen as the outsider challenging the party establishment. Right up to election day, people were saying it was too close to call. No one foresaw the emergence of the Reagan Democrats in the south, who voted an almost straight Democratic ballot, but who voted for the Reagan-Bush ticket. As the tension mounted and the uncertain outcome loomed, the hardcore Reagan supporters became more and more acrimonious--you just couldn't talk to them.

I'm not saying the details of the elections of 1980 and 2016 are the same--they clearly are not. But the acrimony is the same, and it's coming from Sanders' supporters, whether they want to hear it or not.

For those who are a little slow-witted, the reference to acrimony is about how people see the candidates. I've not seen people smearing Sanders the way Sanders' supporters have smeared Clinton. She is accused of every crime and moral failing the Sanders' supporters can dream up. I see criticism of Sanders, but i don't see him being described as evil incarnate, which is how one gentleman of my acquaintance has described Clinton.

Supporters of one candidate or another savaging one another is just an ordinary facet of election campaigns.

So you are acrimoniously accusing Sanders' supporters of being acrimonious? Thanks for the laugh.

Here's a little tale for those Democrats who don't get it this year, which seems to be just about everybody.

In 1992, when Slick Willy was running for president, James Carville had a sign put up on the wall of campaign headquarters which read: "It's the economy, Stupid." It was meant to remind Clinton what his focus must be in all of his campaign appearances. George Bush didn't help his own cause, and in fact, he shot himself in the foot. Bush went to a supermarket for what they call a photo opportunity. When they got to the check-out aisle, the woman began scanning his purchases, and Bush began acting like a rube. (Of course people like Bush never do their own shopping.) He went on and on about how amazing the scanner was. The sales clerk just rolled her eyes and went about her business, and i'm sure Bush's handlers were just filling their pants. He might as well have had "I know nothing about the lives of ordinary Americans" tattooed on his forehead. Journalists knew about the Carville sign, and thereafter, whenever Bush would flub his rhetoric, or just fail to focus on the economy, at least one reporter, and usually more, would trot out the "It's the economy, Stupid" line.

This year, whether Clinton gets the nod or Sanders, they should put up a sign in campaign headquarters which reads: "It's the Senate, Stupid." The most important job of Democrats is to take control of the Senate--no matter who ends up in the Oval Office. With this vitriolic environment, i despair for Democrats running for the Senate. We may be condemned to another 30 years of a conservative Supreme Court, never mind the other appointments. If either Trump or Cruz gets into the White House, and the Republicans control the Senate, they'll likely dig up Genghis Khan and appoint him.

It's not the Congress.

The number one slogan for the Hillary campaign is "I'm with Her". That is this years equivalent of Carville's "It's the Gender Stupid".

When Bernie said that Hillary's ties to Wall Street might "disqualify" her for the nomination... something that was a response to a newspaper headline that interpreted her message as questioning his qualifications... she immediately responded by asking how anyone would dare to question the qualifications of a woman. There was nothing that he said that wouldn't also be said to a man in this campaign.

You will hear this type of counterattack many more times in her campaign.

No it's not. That is like saying "I'm with Bernie" means "It's the name Stupid". "Her" means Clinton just like "Bernie" means Sanders.

That's funny Engineer. (It amuses me that you used "stupid" as the counterpart to the feminine pronoun in your metaphor.)

When she, a former first lady, Senator, Secretary of State who runs $1000 a plate fundraisers attended by the party elite and has a lock on insider party power and support actually said....

"How can I be part of the establishment, I am a woman".

Put away your bias for just second. That's funny.