I will no longer call naysayers, naysayers. I will now call them defeatists.

[fightforfreedom]

People who always expect failure no matter what.

[Irish_Dem]

1. We need some people who keep expecting success no matter what.

They are what keep the human race going.

So keep hoping that the right thing will be done.

[anti stupid]

2. given the state of this country

I call them realists.

[fightforfreedom]

14. The point I keep trying to make is being ignored by the defeatists.

I do not know exactly what Garland, Smith, Willis are going to do in the end. I choose to believe they will hold Trump and the coup plotters accountable. Willis has made it clear indictments are coming. We don't know who yet.

I can believe Trump and the coup plotters will be held accountable because all the investigations are moving forward, in some cases expanding. This is a fact.

Defeatists are ignoring this and saying it's over. Garland will indict no one. He will not indict Trump, none of the coup plotters. They are saying it's too late, they should have been indicted day one. They are ignoring the fact all the investigations are moving forward.

I think I will stick with my positive outlook which is much more realistic.

[Bobstandard]

20. You imply that no indictment will be a defeat

I agree with you.

[republianmushroom]

37. In other words if one does not believe as you do

they are defeatist. Is this correct ? And what makes you
so correct, you are just expounding your option.
Here is some facts.
President Trump’s staggering record of uncharged crimes

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trumps-staggering-record-of-uncharged-crimes/#table

As of November 2022, Donald Trump has been credibly accused of committing at least 56 criminal offenses, 47 Federal statute and 9 State statute, since he launched his campaign for president in 2015. That total only reflects allegations relating to his time in or running for office and omits, for instance, Trump’s criminal exposure for fraudulent business dealings.

Merrick Garland Weighed Search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago for Weeks. Notice plural, weeks. He knew they were there.

WASHINGTON—Attorney General Merrick Garland deliberated for weeks over whether to approve the application for a warrant to search former President Donald Trump’s Florida home, people familiar with the matter said, a sign of his cautious approach that will be tested over coming months.

Read More https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142956907

Read more: https://www.wsj.com/articles/merrick-garland-weighed-search-of-trumps-mar-a-lago-for-weeks-11660601292

[Hortensis]

74. Scientists call them negative thinkers, who risk being trapped

by habitual negative thought patterns that become their default neural paths. I suspect some on political social media are, or were, at especially great risk of this.

[BlackSkimmer]

3. What do you call people who can't see the writing on the wall?

Personally, I think name calling is a useless exercise, but a much loved one. Go figure.

[Firestorm49]

4. Optimism has its boundaries.

[Butterflylady]

40. No matter what anyone says "truth always wins"

It might take awhile, but it always wins.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

5. Going on a Democratic board and saying Democrats are doomed isn't just defeatism

It's rat-fucking designed to depress turnout.

[BlackSkimmer]

10. Who says Dems are doomed? I must have missed that.

And I don't know about you, bud, but NOTHING anyone posts on any random message board will EVER stop me from voting.

If there are people on this board so easily discouraged, perhaps this isn't the place for them.

[Emile]

27. +1

[housecat]

49. Agreed for more than one reason

[Kingofalldems]

11. Correct.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

16. +1

[Magoo48]

41. Horseshit

[AZSkiffyGeek]

42. Well I guess you told me!

Such a brilliant, cogent, refutation of my point.

[Magoo48]

58. I feel it's a brief, if pointed, summary of my interlocutory reservations relevant to your point.

But I will expand on my first response: horseshit and gunsmoke.

[BlackSkimmer]

70. Well put.

[betsuni]

85. Yes, never giving Democrats the benefit of the doubt, ever, always assuming nefarious motives,

everything and everyone's corrupt, Democrats are out-of-touch and don't do anything, always negative. Encourages cynicism and disengagement.

Mocking people as cheerleaders, fans, being in an echo chamber, being naive.

[Sympthsical]

6. Whether or not people cheer hard enough

Will have no effect on the course of events.

It's not a sports team, and there are no free jerseys given out for biggest fan.

[CentralMass]

8. +1

[BlackSkimmer]

7. Why did you feel the need to start another thread instead of replying on the one you are so

obviously referring to?

And really, I don't consider the lack of action to be "failure" per se. At best, it's a lack of action, at worst...well I'll keep that to myself.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

43. No, go on, you know you want to say it...

[BlackSkimmer]

47. Huh?

My question wasn't even directed at you.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

48. That never stopped you from responding to my posts

[BlackSkimmer]

50. Dude, no offense, but I have no idea who you are.

I may have interacted with you in the past, but I usually respond directly to a poster.

I have no memory of that. Sorry, but

[AZSkiffyGeek]

52. Dude, no offense but I have no idea who you are

Yet you've responded to at least a 1/2 dozen posts of mine in the past two hours. So

[BlackSkimmer]

69. Lol, what can I say?

But good counting skills!

[Shermann]

9. I'm a naysayer when it comes to Kevin McCarthy's speakership nt

[Kingofalldems]

12. Some are RW disruptors in my opinion.

Last edited Sat Feb 4, 2023, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

[AZSkiffyGeek]

18. Not necessarily right wing

But disruptors nonetheless.

[Emile]

26. I would think just the opposite.

Republicans don't want to see the no good SOB prosecuted!

[Kingofalldems]

28. It's not about that, it's about taunting.

[Emile]

29. Taunting us for wanting justice.

[Kingofalldems]

30. Yes.

[Emile]

33. Taunting is calling a large group of democrats on a democratic message

board RW disruptors.

[Kingofalldems]

34. I said many.

But I'll change it to some.

[Scrivener7]

35. And I'd say that some of the ones who stir up this argument day after day

to no purpose are RW disruptors.

Or if they're not, they're RW useful idiots because they do nothing but gin up division.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

45. Exactly!

All these posts about how Biden's AG isn't doing anything are from RW disruptors! Or useful idiots who are doing nothing but ginning up division.
So glad you finally see our point!

[Scrivener7]

54. No, that other OP you refer to is someone's opinion. That person is simply

stating his opinion.

He's not insulting anyone who disagrees with his opinion.

He's not calling any DUers names.

He doesn't post four times a day demanding people agree with him.

And - though this point may be lost on you - he doesn't make a FREQUENT game of twisting people's words and pretending those people agree with him when he knows they don't. Because that's really juvenile.

He is discussing. Like an adult. Stating an opinion.

In his thread, I disagreed with him. I feel certain he will not get all butt-hurt and immediately start another thread about how he's going to name-call those who disagree with him.

He isn't behaving like a RW disruptor.

Those who DO display the disruptive and childish behaviors I have described are the ones who behave like RW disruptors. The one who posted an opinion piece about why he doesn't have faith in Garland is not behaving like an RW disruptor.

Do you understand the difference now?

[Scrivener7]

63. But you know, if someone decided to blindly trust our elected leaders but DIDN'T

engage in shit-stirring and name-calling, I'd be really happy to have the conversation with them. I am here to read about other people's thoughts, not just to hear echoes of my own.

I'm probably moving to the middle of the actual issue (Jack Smith is giving me hope I never had before) but these schoolyard bully tactics - from ONE SIDE of this issue - are creepy as fuck.

[BlackSkimmer]

103. Well written post.

So much this.

[iemanja]

66. It's normal for people to disagree

To imagine that if they disagree with you they must be RW disruptors reflects poorly on those who make that very sad claim.

[Scrivener7]

67. You are kinder than I am.

I have always known this.

[BlackSkimmer]

38. Thank you Emile.

Well played.

[Sympthsical]

81. That's just internet tactics 101

Paint yourself as the biggest fan, most ideologically pure, most politically loyal, most religiously devout, etc., then spend half your time completely blasting people for insufficient enthusiasm and loyalty to whatever Thing is central. Set yourself up as unimpeachable inquisitor of others.

Then go to absolute town ripping the place apart.

Seen it a billion times (Reddit has mods who do this exquisitely). It's really quite effective.

I honestly don't think there are very many trolls here. Just disagreement and various levels of loyalty, enthusiasm, liberalness, etc. Which you'd expect. But if I were someone who wanted to troll, I would absolutely go the route described above.

[Scrivener7]

83. Wow! What a perfect description. I think I've seen that here. Recently, in fact!

[Sympthsical]

86. I haven't really been active in the Garland threads

But I have seen the almost (several times) daily admonitions and picking at people about who is or is not exhibiting sufficient faith and enthusiasm.

And it's like . . . what country are we in? Should I have a photo of someone over the mantle in my home? Because right now it's Pikachu, but I'm open to options . . .

[Scrivener7]

87. It is quite weird. And so constant. And sometimes presented with

very wonky syntax, though I must say the most frequent poster of wonky syntax has improved over these last months.

We should be proud of our little guy.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

44. No, taunting you for having no idea how the justice system works

[Emile]

46. LOL. All I need is more patience right?

[Scrivener7]

32. Who, in this and most other threads on this, is doing the taunting? And name calling?

These multiple daily threads do nothing but stir the shit.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

55. How dare you call me out on trashing the Biden Administration!

You're taunting me and stirring shit!!!!!

[Scrivener7]

56. Who, in this and most other threads on this, is doing the taunting. And name calling?

You haven't answered the question.

[iemanja]

51. Anyone who disagrees with you must be a RW distruptor

There is no acceptable though that is not your own. Yavolt!

[Kingofalldems]

57. Way to not read what I posted.

And I stand by what I said. Some are RW disruptors.

[iemanja]

61. Provide evidence of that

of assailing the character of fellow DUers. It's a nasty thing to say simply because you cannot cope with disagreement.

What possible good does it do the right to express frustration at the lack of an indictment?

[Kingofalldems]

64. Against the rules to name names.

But incessant posting of the same thing again and again that Trump will skate and will never see justice is not in the least bit productive and tells me the poster has another agenda.

[iemanja]

65. You didn't answer the question

How does it serve the right? You have no answer to that question because it doesn't. What a few people think on this board is of absolutely no consequence outside of DU.

[Kingofalldems]

73. It serves the right by depressing enthusiasm for voting Democratic.

This was done quite a bit during the election cycle along with the incessant red wave polls posted on DU.

And by the way I will continue to post my opinions. Hint: Do a search on me. Whenever I respond with 'Should we give up?' it means I smell something.

[iemanja]

75. It has NOTHING to do with voting Democratic

Your delusion that one can't have criticisms toward an administration official and still vote Democratic is badly off. I smell something too, and it's horse manure.

[Sympthsical]

84. The verbiage is so objectively weird

Like, was an edition of the Malleus Maleficarum passed around at some point?

It's ever been thus that those who seek witches will find them.

[Kingofalldems]

88. I will continue and no amount of insults will stop me.

The ignore function is nice.

[iemanja]

89. You're the one who began this subthread with an insult

and continue to repeat it, despite providing no evidence nor a logical argument to support it.

[Kingofalldems]

91. What insult? Saying there are RW disruptors here? That's just a fact.

I have never seen any post from you until today, and I'll be happy to never click on any thread from you. In fact I won't--so bye now.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

97. Hit dogs bark

[AZSkiffyGeek]

102. It's interesting when you say "some" and don't name names

There’s always someone who chimes in with “how dare you call me a disruptor!”
Kind of like Hillary and her basket of deplorables.
Clever, really.

[yaesu]

13. Not everyone can afford rose colored glasses. Nt

[Just A Box Of Rain]

15. Defeatism is a pernicious tendency.

[Emile]

17. Must be talking about Garland!

[lees1975]

77. That's what I was thinking.

It's not defeatist to point out the obvious. When there's enough evidence in daily media reports to lead a clear majority of the public to believe the former president committed seditious conspiracy, and those whom he talked into coming to DC to help have been solidly convicted, but he's still not indicted, walking around free and raising millions of dollars to run again, and nothing at all has happened, that's not defeatism, that's realism.

[Pete Ross Junior]

19. A lot of right wingers in this country are "revolutionary defeatists"

That is to say the revolution they want requires the USA to be defeated before it can happen.

The historical example is the Bolsheviks coming to power upon the defeat of Russia in the First World War.
Odd that right wingers should employ such a tactic. Or maybe not.

[betsuni]

90. Also populists waiting for the alliance of left and right in a working class revolution.

That was supposed to happen already. Oops, turns out Americans aren't secretly democratic socialists.

[Beastly Boy]

21. I recently came across a term that you might like

Pessimism Porn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimism_porn

Turns out, it's a thing. And not just on DU.

[Bev54]

24. Thank you for this, I will be using it from now on.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

25. Great term - thanks!

[Ferrets are Cool]

22. I've always considered myself a glass half empty because

it's easier to accept defeat.

[fightforfreedom]

23. Lol.

[Scrivener7]

31. Right. Because it's so virtuous to insult allies whose opinions differ from yours.

Or are you going to tell me that those who don't jump up and down about multiple daily cheerleading threads - for two years running now - aren't your allies.

[BlackSkimmer]

39. Boom. nt

[fightforfreedom]

92. People who declare, as a fact, Garland will do nothing, while all the investigations move forward.

Is the definition of a defeatist.

People who believe Garland will hold the coup plotters accountable ( so called cheerleaders, blind optimists) because all the investigations are moving forward are optimists.

Not all people who believe Garland will not indict people declare it as a fact. Some will say, I will believe it when I see it. They will say I have serious doubts, I hope I am wrong, etc. Nothing wrong with that. However, some people say it's done, it's over, nothing will happen, while the investigations continue, they are defeatists.

[Scrivener7]

93. Keep it up. Because that shit isn't going to stir itself.

[fightforfreedom]

94. There is nothing wrong with my post, it's the truth.

People who state as a fact Garland will do nothing, it's over, it's too late, while all the investigations are moving forward is the definition of defeatism.

Now I must be honest. If my optimism about Garland holding the coup plotters accountable because all the investigations are still moving forward upsets people. Oh well, what can I say.

[Scrivener7]

95. Stir, stir, stir..

[fightforfreedom]

98. Fact, fact, fact.

[48656c6c6f20]

36. Have you contacted Websters to inform them you have made the change?

[Emile]

59. +1

[Autumn]

62. Right. Because people have to think like you. I call people who do that authoritarians.

[Cha]

68. Fortunately For America & the Planet

it Doesn't matter what defeatists say.

[old as dirt]

71. To all the naysayers: We got that balloon!

[BannonsLiver]

72. What should I call those consumed by blind optimism?

Because I have a few ideas.

[Hortensis]

78. :) When's the last time you saw one of those, though?

I wouldn't waste my time on that.

Now, people "consumed by blind" pessimism, wired in as psychologists explain, too often trained to that negativism by decades of the pernicious vote-suppressing mindfucking we're awash in, are horribly common.

Just cast an eye up this thread, but remember that those who still retain enough commitment to involve themselves in political forums and voting aren't the big victims. The rather sad collection above represents the beaten but still standing survivors.

[BannonsLiver]

79. When's the last time you saw one of those, though?

Pretty much anytime someone starts a thread about Garland and Trump and indictments. 🤷‍♂️😉

[fightforfreedom]

80. Blind optimism?

Answer these questions. Are all the investigations moving forward? How is that blind optimism?

Did DA Willis just tell us she is going to indict people? How is that blind optimism?

Was an investigation just restarted, grand jury put in place in NY. How is that blind optimism? Prosecutors don't put in place grand juries for show, to pretend, for the hell of it. They do so because they intend to indict people. How is this blind optimism?

All the grand juries in all the investigations are still in place, hearing witnesses, collecting evidence. How is that blind optimism?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

99. In order to believe nothing is happening they have to ignore the news

Or just move the goalposts. That's a pretty common reaction as well. And apparently calling people who disagree fucking assholes is a common reaction as well.

[betsuni]

101. +1

[fightforfreedom]

76. People, this is not rocket science.

People who declare, as a fact, Garland will do nothing. It's too late to do anything, while all the investigations are moving forward is the definition of defeatism.

People who still believe Garland will hold the coup plotters accountable because all the investigations are moving forward are being optimists.

[Hekate]

100. Proof it's not rocket science: we just shot down a spy balloon, after several days at DU...

…of the usual suspects losing their minds because Joe Biden was “doing nothing.”

Rocket science —> Balloon. Just in case it’s not an obvious-enough joke for the chronically disgruntled.

[SYFROYH]

82. Nay.

[demmiblue]

96. I don't care.

[Iggo]

104. Wow.

This thread got a whole lot stupider than I thought it was going to get.

By the way, there is no “choose to believe.” Either you believe it or you don’t. Just be real and say you hope it happens. And in that sense, you’re just like the rest of us, because we ALL hope it happens. So quit it with the name-calling.