The term CORPORATE DEMOCRATS is used by the KGB and GOP on FB

[Eliot Rosewater]

and elsewhere to get people to NOT vote for Democrats.

I sure hope to FUCK I wont have to see it here.

[msongs]

1. it is widely used here nt

[GulfCoast66]

18. Not nearly as much as two years ago.

And depending on the context not without ramifications.

[TheBlackAdder]

56. Back then, a lot of 3rd-Wayers, which started as a RW ploy to swing some Dems to the Right.

.

There was a big push to support the 3rd-Way, which is the pragmatic approach.

The problem is, you can't have one group be pragmatists, when the RWers are extremists who don't budge.
If one negotiates, in good faith from the 50-yard line, the best they can get is half, the worst is lose all.


The history of the 3rd-Way shows it originally a Koch initiative, selling to some Dems, diluting their positions.

.

[ehrnst]

2. It's a smear that no one who uses it seems to be able to define.

Go figure.

And yet they feel entitled to keep posting on Democratic Underground.

[Voltaire2]

3. The term LEFTWING DEMOCRATS is used by

The kgb and the gop on fb and elsewhere to get people to not vote for Democrats.

I sure hope to FUCK I won’t have to see it here.

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. It is? Do you have any examples?

We all know what I said is true because it has been discussed to the point of FB facing legal issues over it.

I dont recall seeing what you are saying at all.

[Voltaire2]

35. Try google.

[beastie boy]

47. Just tried Google. Of 52 million results, couldn't find a single one where a Democrat

used "Left wing Democrat" as a derogatory term against another Democrat.

Perhaps if you google, you will have better luck and post a link.

[Eliot Rosewater]

62. Thanks, NO you will not see that but what does happen is ONE person says this on FB

or at a crowded dinner table and then all of a sudden ten more believe it, which is how we got rump.

[ehrnst]

79. Ah yes, the "Go google it yourself!" response of last resort

when asked for actual backup for their claims.

[Voltaire2]

96. Site:democraticunderground.com left leftwing left-wing

[yardwork]

5. Really? I've never seen that.

[ehrnst]

7. Haven't seen that one here on DU. I've never seen it used as a perjorative anywhere.

I think your fears are unfounded.

[Eliot Rosewater]

8. I have often said that many who claim to be LEFT are NOT AT ALL

left, well not left like me anyway.

You see I put the right of a minority to breathe ahead of my right to have a job, for instance.

[JI7]

10. the ones who most claimed to be the left and attacked Democrats for not being left enough

ended up voting for trump.

they are very similar to right wingers with attacks on things like "elites" "establishment"

[Eliot Rosewater]

11. Some did, and some voted for the democrat but WHINED to holy hell while doing it.

[LongtimeAZDem]

34. I believe their favorite phrase was "hold my nose and vote" /nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

63. If I had a dollar...I know people who STILL say this

[mcar]

45. Or they voted 3Rd party

Which makes me

[Blue_true]

16. Someone this week posted a link on Mussolini to buttress a claim that Trump was more like him than

Hitler. I read the entire contents of the link. The poster was dead on target.

The interesting thing that I found was that Mussolini was a socialist well before he became a facist. He even had prominent roles in the Italuan socialist movement, but got kicked out of that movement.

What it all says to me is that one must look at the consistency of a person's actions. There was an OP tonight on a ranking of democratic Senators on progressive issues. Some people that some on here call corporatist democrats ranked very high when it came to how much they try to help the down and out is society.

[Eliot Rosewater]

61. Rump even does poses like Mussolini, and 45 million of your neighbors love it.

[Blue_true]

69. The scary thing is 45 million of our neighbors.

A person like Trump will be gone soon, but many of that 45 million will still be around and filled with hate.

[George II]

24. You're not the only one. This has been around for decades:

[mcar]

43. Links?

[PETRUS]

6. You have "have to see" anything here. It's your choice to look. nt

[ehrnst]

9. You haven't seen that on DU?

Do you check in very often?

A search for "corporate democrats" on the DU search feature should bring you up to speed.

[EffieBlack]

12. Or its apparent synonym "corporatist Democrats" - whatever that is ...

[Eliot Rosewater]

14. Maybe the poster is saying if I dont want to see that I dont necessarily

need to be here in the first place.

I disagree.

[Cha]

19. What? I see it all the damn time.

[Blue_true]

13. It has shown up numerous times here, at an increasing rate recently. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

15. I have well meaning close friends who I love dearly, progressives, who

use the phrase.

The other day I was describing some of the AMAZING stuff Hillary Clinton has accomplished in her life, more than any 200 of us here combined in our lifetimes, for example , and she gave me this face, the unapproving face.

I just have to shake my head in astonishment. She does NOT know what she doesnt like about her unless it is she gave ONE speech to Wall Street.

Who here would turn it down for half a million dollars? To give a speech to them to tell them what they do WRONG?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

32. +1

Baby steps, and not cannonball run, seems to sometimes be the best approach. Poor HRC. Christ almighty if we all are judged by her standard, we'd stay out of politics all together.

[R B Garr]

22. Yes, it's back, and used regularly. JPR must be slow.

[George II]

26. I hear they just switched software recently, it's cludgier than the previous version.

[Progressive dog]

17. K&R

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. Too late. I've already seen it today. Thread got locked. n/t

[uponit7771]

21. *****THIS SHOULD BE CONFIRMED AND BE PART OF A STICKY 2020 !!! ******

[R B Garr]

23. Exactly, it is a slur and meant to signal an inane purity

contest is forthcoming. It is an intellectually dishonest, self-serving smear.

[SunSeeker]

25. That and "DINO," "Third Way," "establishment" & "neoliberals" - all meant to depress the D vote.

And I see it here all the time.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

30. I use DINO w Joe manchin...pretty sure it fits more times than not.

Can't think of any others off the bat.

[SunSeeker]

48. Manchin is not a Democrat in name only.

He has taken a lot of risks to support gun control with his fellow Dems, considering his blood red district. Sure he takes some infuriating votes. But having him in that seat is a million times better than having a climate change denying, Trump-Russia conspiring Republican sitting in it. And I can't imagine what other Dem could win that seat. But for Joe Manchin, that seat would be held by a Republican.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

50. Imho...it is...he just says hes Dem. If its a good democrat area,

than another dem can get elected and vote w us allll the time and be dependable. Same platform? Sorry, but, Joes let me down wayyyyy too many times. Im sure he's glad you support him though. Just my opinion. Not trying to tick you off. I just disagree.

[SunSeeker]

51. But it's not a "good Democrat area." It's RED.

We're lucky to have a candidate who can win there, even if he lets us down on some votes so he can appease his constituents. He was with us when it counted on the ACA, when we didn't have one vote to spare.

[RandiFan1290]

94. What about this quote:

"death to the dino fascist wing of the Dem "

Saw someone post that here

[SunSeeker]

97. Yup.

I've noticed that the people who rail against "DINOs" the most are not themselves Democrats.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

102. Sure wasn't me but, if the shoe fits, wear it.

I reserve the right to say DINO when folks vote w the GOP. Manchins no saint.

[fascisthunter]

27. You have proof of that? (NT)

[melman]

52. Of course not

[revmclaren]

58. Fascisthunter...

fascisthunter
27. You have proof of that? (NT)

Are you demanding links to prove the OPs claim?

There are a number of links going back to 2014 I can post for you but I have to have your direct request/demand for them as I dont want my post hidden for 're-fighting the primary.

Are you demanding the links showing proof.

Please let me know as I have a sampling of 5 links if you demand proof.

I'll be waiting with anticipation...



ps... Hey Melmen...this goes for you too.

ONLY! 2019 and beyond.

[Eliot Rosewater]

64. Thank you, whoever you are

[melman]

71. Okay

Here is a direct request.

[revmclaren]

73. OK... Here is the direct request for proof and a few past links...

melmen wrote -

71. Okay

Here is a direct request.

........................

Here are some links proving the OP. This is just a sampling.



https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10024828373

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027660608

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512158693

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1280105753

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/12774446

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1280104415

Attention jury... This is posted by direct request by DUer melmen is not a TOS violation but links proving the validity of the OP.

Take a look at the REC lists... Very eye opening!

ONLY! 2019 and beyond.

Please copy this post as I know it will be alerted on.

[Eliot Rosewater]

78. OUTSTANDING RESEARCH! Yes, it is done all the time and for some reason will continue

[revmclaren]

74. And before you say This does not prove the point...

Many of the posters and RECers were PPRed or FFRed for pushing Russian, repub, and anti Clinton talking points.

ONLY! 2019 and beyond.

[melman]

81. Sorry

That doesn't do it.

[revmclaren]

86. Of course it doesn't.... For you...

But I'm not really posting them for you. Thank you for making it possible.



ONLY! 2019 and beyond.

[melman]

87. No

Not just for me. Not at all.

[revmclaren]

90. You're probably referring to people like the ones

who RECed those links. If so, I understand completely.





ONLY! 2019 and beyond.

[melman]

91. I have no idea what that means

But I do know those links do nothing to prove what's in the OP.

[revmclaren]

93. Well, others will disagree... Bye melmen (NT)

Last edited Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:23 AM - Edit history (1)

[johnnyplankton]

28. Sorry, but if the shoe fits....

Remember Joe Lieberman prevented the public option?

[beastie boy]

46. The shoe doesn't fit. That's the whole point of the OP.

This is the case of the shoe that fits 1% of the Democrats being used against 100% of Democrats in favor of 100% of Republicans.

[SunSeeker]

49. Joe Lieberman was an independent when he blocked the public option.

He was designated by the Senate as an indepedent ("ID" ) in his 2009 vote on the ACA, not a Democrat ("D" ). 
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396

[George II]

70. Not only was he an Independent, but if your link is to the vote mentioned, he voted Yea.

That's not blocking (again, if this is the vote under discussion)

[SunSeeker]

83. Right, his yes vote on the ACA was conditioned on removal of the public option.

Which is how how managed to block the public option. We needed his yes vote to pass the ACA, so we dropped the public option.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

29. The logic seems to be...

if you're not all in on every progressively framed issue every time, you are a corporate D, and somehow, the enemy. Beware the ghosts of 2016.

[Hoyt]

31. Wait, you'll see it here too during primaries.

[Caliman73]

33. Is there a link to support your argument?

Labels are often fraught with problems especially when they are not well defined and when they are intentionally misused. The term corporate democrat is such a label.

Some people define a corporate democrat as a democrat that is elected as a Democrat and holds some of the policies views that are promoted by the Democratic Party, but who have accepted and vote often to promote policies favorable to large corporate donors. I will use the example of California. With the basic demise of the Republican Party, there are some Democrats who have begun receiving donations from large sponsors who typically backed Republicans and have started to vote the way the donor needs. Below is an example albeit from 2014 (prior to the KGB infiltration):

https://capitalandmain.com/in-plain-sight-the-rise-of-corporate-democrats-in-california

Here is an example from GQ of more recent corporate friendly activity from a Democratic congress person:

https://www.gq.com/story/corporate-dems-net-neutrality?verso=true

I am not one for labels as they often fall short and can be misused easily. The question is what do we call Democratic politicians who take large donations from say, Comcast or Eli Broad, then vote to give those entities favorable policies?

[beastie boy]

36. I recall "Third Way Democrats" and "Neoliberal Democrats" being widely used on DU

as derogatory terms to get people to not vote for Democrats in '16.

Unfortunately, these terms originated in the so-called "progressive" circles and quickly migrated to Russian-controlled media.

I hope to fuck NO ONE EVER gives the right wing trolls their talking points again, but I sadly suspect we will see more of the same as 2020 approaches.

[betsuni]

59. +1

[DFW]

37. I treat the term"corporatist" like I do dog shit on the sidewalk

I step around it and ignore it.

[ZX86]

38. So what?

KGB propaganda only works on stupid people. Democrats aren't stupid. And if you are stupid you wouldn't be voting Democratic anyway.

[Eliot Rosewater]

65. Your comment flies in the face of what every study shows about how people were influenced to the

point of FB facing legal issues over it.

Maybe you meant to say something else.

[ZX86]

77. So you are saying Democrats are stupid enough to fall for KGB propaganda?

That's a yes or no answer.

[melman]

88. A very simple question

You'd think it would be easy to answer. And yet...no answer. How strange.

[revmclaren]

89. Democrats are not stupid...

But a lot of people pretending to be Democrats and/or progressives are. See post #73 and the links and REC lists.

ONLY! 2019 and beyond.

[Eliot Rosewater]

101. I dont answer certain people on this board, never have, never will.

But what we KNOW is millions were talked OUT of doing a certain thing that resulted in another certain thing.

[revmclaren]

110. Yup...

ONLY! 2019 and beyond.

[melman]

111. Okay

but the poster that asked the question is obviously not one of those people.

I can tell because you responded to another one of their posts. Just not that one for some reason.

[BlueTsunami2018]

39. Hmmm, that's a term that predates Facebook by over a decade.

And it’s folly to think there weren’t or aren’t any just because of that.

[kyburbonkid]

40. Sounds like a Russian influence label to me.

Like something that a Republican troller would try to label somebody with.

[JackInGreen]

41. Newsflash

They also use toilets and some say "bless you" when you sneeze, so maybe we should avoid those too.

[Eliot Rosewater]

66. Go ahead, use the term, convince people who are on the fence NOT to vote for a Democrat.

[mcar]

42. We will be seeing it more here as the primaries commence

Some never learn.

[CentralMass]

44. People get to think what they want to thinkThere is an awfully large amount of of money in politics

Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2019, 05:12 AM - Edit history (1)

From opensecrets.org
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/

In 2017-2018 House Democrats raised over a trillion dollars, : $1,011,343,567
House republicans raised 658,914,252.

Senate Democrats raised $591,062,257 and Senate republicans raised $444,199,970.

It is hard to believe that these huge sums of money don't buy influence.

In 2014 Martin Gilens, of Princeton University, and Benjamin I. Page, of Northwestern University, carried out a study where they determined that in the U.S. we have an ogliarchy not a democracy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

"The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.

So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.

This is not news, you say.

Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.

"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."

On the other hand:

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.

They conclude:

Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened"

[klook]

53. Important information

and a reminder that pushing to get dark money out of politics should be one of our top goals.

[CentralMass]

54. +1

[JudyM]

92. Right on.

[apcalc]

55. When I saw the term "corporatist" I knew it

Was a goddam Russian troll or someone copying that propaganda. Total bullshit. I am sorry others bought into it as if were gospel.
I hope never to see it again here.

[betsuni]

57. Of the many times I've asked for examples of the elusive "corporate Democrat"

only once did I receive a list:

Cory Booker
Kirsten Gillibrand
Barney Frank
Chris Dodd
HILLARY CLINTON

Yes, Hillary's name was in caps. Asking for evidence of why they are corporatists only results in a snarky "Do your own homework."

Oh, that reminds me, yesterday I saw an article posted to supposedly expose Booker, Kamala Harris and Gillibrand of "playing footsie with Wall Street" because they met with executives or something. But the article in fact pointed out that the donors are Democrats, all three potential candidates have histories of voting for tighter regulation of the financial industry, and any candidate for president will need big donors as well as grassroots support to go up against Trump's "massive campaign war chest." Obama benefited from PAC money and didn't hand over the keys to Wall St. and corporations. No evidence that Hillary changed votes because of donors. I don't think the propaganda will work that well next time. Not that they won't try.

[Eliot Rosewater]

67. Dont ask for WHY people dont like them, for the most part they CANT tell you.

Have some taken wall street money, actually most have including very well known progressives.

Is it good, NO it is bad that ANY of them do.

Should we demand a PERFECT CANDIDATE or we withhold our vote? If we want the human race to end, sure.

[allgood33]

60. So are the terms "establishment Democrats" and "elite Democrats." nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

68. Yes, those are also MEANT TO DISRESPECT and cause division of the party.

[TomCADem]

72. Neoliberal, Third Way, DLC, Clintonista,etc.

If you see these terms getting spammed in a thread, you know you might be dealing with a bot.

[revmclaren]

75. I posted past links in post #73

showing that it has happened here and we have to be VERY vigilant to guard against it happening again.

Watch for the return of the usual suspects.

ONLY! 2019 and beyond.

[aikoaiko]

76. They largely took existing divisions and amplified then

They didn’t start the corporate democrat thing.

[Eliot Rosewater]

82. Exactly. Russians use what works.

[democratisphere]

80. It is my understanding that the KGB and the GOP have merged as one.

[ZX86]

84. No sale.

Pretending words like "establishment", "elitist", and "corporate" don't have meaning when associated with any large organization or that the concept of money in politics is a corrupting force is just silly. People in the real world who use these words and concepts know they are very real. The idea that these are erroneous concepts introduced by foreign agents is propaganda in itself.

[Eliot Rosewater]

100. Uh huh...sure..

[Adrahil]

85. Whenever I see that term, or "Establishment Democrats"

I know the poster is a divisive tool.

We should be DONE with that after 2016.

[revmclaren]

95. Just passed 1000 posts... woot woot...

And a special thumbs up to my 'buddy' melmen whose back and forth banter in this OP made this achievement possible today.





ONLY! 2019 and beyond.

[SunSeeker]

98. LOL

[Eliot Rosewater]

99. You funny

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

103. Holy crap.......

Strong feelings. Interesting. Remember folks...we're all Ds here. We kind of agree to that in the rules. BE careful chewing on each other. If your pissed go to a GOP site and throw people around. I shudder to think how many people got flagged on this OP. Strong feelings don't mean we are the enemy. Wow.

[Eliot Rosewater]

104. Are you saying as long as you term them "strong feelings" it is OK to use these KGB

talking points?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

106. No sir. Im with you elliot.

Just saying. Ive been flagged for some ridiculous shit and i can see some folks here who are prone to that stuff. Just saying. Completely agree w you about those terms being thrown around to divide Ds.

[jberryhill]

105. The word "vote" is used by the KGB and GOP too

We should draw up a list of all of the words used by the KGB and the GOP, so that we can make sure they are not used here.

(btw, the 'KGB' hasn't existed since 1991. the Russian state intelligence service is the GRU. although this may be a very clever implementation of the idea by you to ban terms used by them, by using a term which they don't use)

[Eliot Rosewater]

107. The GRU acronmyn and name was created SOLELY to pretend they are different than the KGB

why would you defend their doing that?

I think it is ME, you dont like me, that is it.

Unless you are saying these terms used by both the KGB and GOP like corporate democrat dont bother you?

I said once I would stop responding to you, you are making this personal, you are doing something I dont do as a liberal.

[jberryhill]

108. Wound a little tight today?

I don't even know you.

[Eliot Rosewater]

109. WRONG! You went after me on the other thread about the SC and the bank thing and Mueller

dont pretend you arent purposely doing this, we both know you are.

and the wound a little tight comment is a personal attack, insult...

I wont do it in kind, though, I am a liberal.