I quite understand that it is Primary season and such actions are sadly par for course. I also understand that every Candidate has their obnoxious supporters. It has been my experience for the last few months that a small group of Hillary supporters have been the most prolific and obnoxious. I am sure that others may have had different experiences and it may also have something to do with the diaries I choose to read and comment in.
Yet that does not excuse their behavior. Anymore than it excuses the similar behavior that other Candidate supporters may have exercised. Note, I am not writing about isolated events when someone blows a gasket. This is a general complaint about the pernicious attempts to stifle any discussion that they disagree with.
The least offensive aspect is the drive by snipes. Drive by snipes are not simply titles where you post that you agree/disagree or give a one line bit of information; but where some sort of personal degrading or dismissal occurs with no explanation. I admit to dropping a few myself and feel that there are times when that is all that is called for. However, when that becomes the basis of half or more of all your comments, you are not engaging in a dialog you are attempting to disrupt it.
Next on the list are the strawmen/ad hominem attacks. Again, it is something we have all done before. Every time you say, "consider the source," as part of your statement. You are making an ad hominem attack. Again, however, when such posts begin to turn into more than a quarter of the ones you bother writing a body for and you don't even bother to include substantiation of your disagreement. You are stifling discussion not because you have a reason that people will agree with, but simply because you don't.
One of the most irritating attempts to stifle discussion, for me, is to label the criticism as something we all agree is offensive. Yet when it comes to supporting why it deserves such a label, be it "Right Wing Talking Point", misogynistic, racist or whatever, rarely if ever is anything give that substantiates the charge than other members of the candidate's "posse" chiming in that it is, again with no supportive proof other than the assertion. Such attempts are not just disruptive and insulting, they are borderline trollish in nature.
Finally we have the ultimate in a direct assault not because the post truly was offensive or disruptive in nature but something the candidate and his/her supporters don't want discussed. This is the TR abuse that occurs when the post is to close to an ugly truth about the candidate or ones they can't defend and are sick of hearing about. By far, the worst offenders I have seen in gang TR'ing such comments (like questions about Hillary's role in the Bill Clinton White House, NAFTA, AUMF, Kyl-Lieberman, Welfare Reform, etc.) and uprate when they do it (Edward's haircut, Rezko, Kyl-Lieberman, AUMF, McClurkin, etc.) are a small subset of Hillary's campaign.
Most campaign supporters attempt to be fair and police their own as well as stomping it out when it is against them. Most campaigns supporters at least give lip service to criticizing when the offender is one of their own camp's supporters. Hillary's campaign supporters appear to be doing the opposite. Their justification is always the same. That others do it to them (they must believe two wrongs make a right) and they have to because everyone is against them (always dismissing that their actions may have something to do with it.)