Post removed

[LAS14]

1. Thanks for this post! nt

[W_HAMILTON]

2. Every minute you spend criticizing good Democrats...

...is a minute you aren't criticizing deplorable Republicans for being the ones that are actually destroying our country.

[H2O Man]

3. Exactly!

We don't want to discuss the failures of Democrats on a democratic discussion forum, much less think of holding any Democrat accountable. Instead, we need to steal one from the republican playbook, and blame the other party for virtually everything. That's the ticket!

[Celerity]

5. Who gets to define 'good Democrats'? The very nature of 'good Democrats' opens the door to defining 'bad ones' as well,

otherwise there is no need to qualitatively label some as 'good'. It sets up a binary comparative apparatus where there will be critiquing.

[Yavin4]

10. Which ones are the good ones and which ones are the bad ones?

Everyone will have their own definition. To me, the bad ones are the ones that enable MAGA and Trump, but others don't share my definition.

[Bettie]

15. To a lot of people

the "bad" ones are the rabble rousers, the ones who speak up with a loud voice. Usually young, liberal women.

[alarimer]

18. But if they aren't "good"?

We have the bandwidth to do both. Politics is not a team sport where "my team good, your team bad". It is more like "are our leaders fit for purpose?" And if they are not, then we pick new ones. None of them are owed our loyalty.

THEY work for US. Not the other way around.

[BattleRow]

41. It's called discernment.

[obamanut2012]

4. That post criticizing Tim Walz was 100% unfounded

And was by a new poster.

[Hekate]

7. I saw that one. They're going after Walz, they're going after Newsom & Pritzker too....

Oh, also Bernie would have won where Kamala lost. We’re not even to the midterms yet!

There’s no “nuance” or any kind of deep thinking that I can see, and I’ve seen way too much of this behavior in my 2+ decades here.

Go on, shoot yourselves in the foot. Too bad this type of campaign just ends up crippling the party.

[Emile]

11. OMG did you see the one where they went after

Bernie? Just horrible.

[Hekate]

14. Not especially

Every time I start liking the old guy again, he forcefully reminds us he’s not a Dem but something more enlightened and complains we Dems never do anything for the workingman (man). Also says we should be sure to vote for non-Dem candidates should they be better (cough cough) than Dem candidates.

Yes, he said this recently.

As regards the workingman, Biden was known as the strongest pro-union president ever, and even walked a picket line.

Also Biden was cognizant that working women’s lives and needs are generally different. Certainly a person may choose to have no kids, but the fact is most of us do have them, and I can tell you from painful experience that juggling childcare, doctors’ visits, after school activities, and a 40 hr/wk job is a constant struggle. On what are still “women’s” wages.

I keep waiting for Bernie to catch up. Personally, there’s no attack from me, just a memory that goes back to the 2016 campaign.

[Emile]

32. It was a centrist hit piece with a twisted heading

that got some people really posting some nasty comments.

[aocommunalpunch]

33. Their minds are made up.

Don’t listen or read. Just react. Well, and feed my ignore list.

[Emile]

42. IMO, it's funny how that NY hit piece came out

after Schumer gave cover for the centrists to vote with the Republicans.

[Hekate]

6. Blaming Biden for the trump presidency really sounded like bashing to me, especially ...

…with the observation that he got little done.

[Mr.WeRP]

8. Biden was not clear on being a two term President when he ran in 2020

He suggested he was a bridge candidate. Like it or not, this became perceived as a “pledge”. And it was too late to do anything about it by the time the debate happened.

So it is not unreasonable that he takes some blame for what happened in the last election.

[Emile]

9. Thank you Mr.WeRP. K & R

[aocommunalpunch]

12. Oli-what-y?

The way I read it, we can’t use big words like that any more. Too many dumb as fuck people will think we’re elitist or something.

[Mr.WeRP]

16. Well, 54% of the adult US population barely reads at 6th grade level or worse

You are correct in your assessment of the national literacy and educational standards. I thoroughly revel in the facial expressions I receive from members of the MAGA cult when I inform them to devour feculence. (To borrow a phrase from my dear friend Mr. Milchick on Severance).

[Ping Tung]

13. I'll bet some Democrat invented the Big Tent to keep the party from collapsing.

It's a damned good thing that nature gave us thumbs and forefingers to hold our noses with. come election day.

[mcar]

17. Of course not

However, saying things like "Dems are spineless," "corporate stooges," "cowards," etc - things we see over and over on DU - is bashing, not criticizing.

It's also tarring every Democrat with the same brush.

For example, I believe Sen. Schumer deserves criticism for his CR vote. I do not believe he deserves to be smeared as corrupt or spineless.

I believe Sen. Sanders deserves criticism for wrongly proclaiming that Democrats do nothing for the working class. He does not deserve to be smeared or bashed.

There is a difference. Constructive criticism is helpful. "Dems suck" runs us all down.

[IrishBubbaLiberal]

30. I strongly disagree

Too many here at DU are super sensitive to ANY criticism or critiques of
Our Own Democratic members of Congress.

It’s rather ridiculous how thin skinned people can be.

I LIKE TO RAISE HELL !

As Molly Ivins stated numerous times.

“Good TROUBLE” is what John Lewis taught me, and should have taught
everyone else here at DU.

John Lewis would be right here saying the same thing when our “leaders”
fail us, by failing to act forcefully as THE OPPOSITION PARTY.

[mcar]

35. K

[LW1977]

36. When they cave like a melting snow fort it's very called for!

[mcar]

43. As I said, criticizing is fine, IMO

Bashing and name calling is another thing. "Spineless," "cowards," "corrupt," are all part of an overall "Dems suck" theme that repeats itself here on a regular basis.

Me, I think Trumpers suck. Republicans in Congress are spineless, cowards, and corrupt. They are the ones who are destroying this country, thanks to the sexist, racist voters - and those who didn't bother to vote.

But that's just me.

[IrishBubbaLiberal]

50. BartCop was always using that term Spineless' too

So is that not allowed here when it’s backed up with examples
And video(s), and quotes, and examples.

BartCop was indeed a progressive liberal raising hell
With what he called his attempts at humor

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. Most of "criticisms" that I see (when on jury) are nothing but bashing; no analysis, no practical remedies, just rant.nt

[IrishBubbaLiberal]

34. You better READ MLK Jr Letter From The Birmingham Jail !!

https://www.rsn.org/001/martin-luther-king-jrs-letter-from-birmingham-jail-from-1963.html

[Bernardo de La Paz]

39. That is the complete opposite of the malcontents bashing Democratic figures on DU!

That is calm, fact-based, analytical, proposes remedies.

[NotHardly]

20. BS...remember 'freedom of speech'?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Not BS. Read DU terms of service and look at the "Don't bash Democratic figures" point when you alert next. . . . nt

[stoned]

44. Exactly

Free speech cannot exist here under the TOS

[Bernardo de La Paz]

52. Not quite right. If you are free-speech absolutist, you can say that

But speech is always tempered by societal, or in the case private server, choices.

It would be "free speech" to post child porn. But we don't have absolutist free speech here, so you can't post that here. Not even the free speech guaranteed by the Constitution admits child porn.

Beware of all-or-nothing thinking. It is a false dichotomy to say there is "free speech" or "not free speech". The reality is that speech is always more or less free. There are some examples of pieces of completely non-free speech, such a prison statements extracted under torture.

So yeah, absolutely purely free speech does not exist here, or on X, or on the FReak site. Absolutely free speech exists on a lonely mountain top where a solitary hermit speaks to themself.

[IrishBubbaLiberal]

46. You too NEED TO READ ...MLKJr's LETTER FROM THE BIRMINGHAM JAIL

Go read John Lewis’ words too.
My suggestion to you….You should go reflect a bit more too.

You are maybe too thin-skinned

Read MLK JR’s words again..
I believe you are missing a LOT of what Martin wrote.

Please READ at least once, IF A DOZEN TIMES,
MAYBE THAT WILL INSPIRE YOUR ABILITY TO SEE HOW PEOPLE
DO IN FACT HAVE A LEGITIMATE GRIPE..

https://www.rsn.org/001/martin-luther-king-jrs-letter-from-birmingham-jail-from-1963.html

[Bernardo de La Paz]

49. That is the opposite of the Dem-bashing posts!

1. It doesn't bash Democratic politicians.

2. It is based on facts.

3. It is analytical.

4. It includes remedies.

Legitimate gripes can be discussed. Bashing Democrats in rants is not discussion or constructive criticism.

[Be Leave On]

21. self-reflection

Failure to engage in self-reflection causes failure in every way.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. There is a big difference between thoughtful analytical self-reflection and the raw bashing that gets alerted on. . . nt

[OldBaldy1701E]

24. I don't suppose you can mount this over the door, can you?

If we can’t debate that direction here, as a grass roots safe haven for the left, then we are truly lost.

https://i.postimg.cc/B6qG85x9/temp-Imagesa0wga.avif

[SSJVegeta]

25. Unpopular opinion: loyalty to a political party is stupid.

The parties should be loyal to their voters. Not the other way around.

[Mysterian]

26. Lincoln had to change generals a few times before he found Grant

Finding the right leadership is imperative, so allowing open and honest criticism of our leaders is imperative, as well.

[stoned]

27. Interesting.

I didn't even "bash" them but I almost got banned last night.

Good times.

[Kaleva]

28. Criticism and bashing can be synonyms

Strong criticism and bashing are interchangeable.

[SocialDemocrat61]

29. Really depends

Constructive criticism that leads to thoughtful discussion is always welcome. But sometimes there is just bashing. It’s the difference between saying to someone ‘Here’s a suggestion on how you can do better in the future’ versus saying ‘You suck’.

[hunter]

31. There's a forum for that, not General Discussion.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1324

I think this thread should be locked.

[MrChuck]

37. The party is only the party until they're not.

I'm in my 50's. I've been a Democrat for over thirty years. I have seen greatness and I have seen massive disappointment.

We all need to be honest with ourselves and stop paying homage to a word that not only headlines this group but covers a shifting political paradigm in the mainstream consciousness.

I have no loyalty to any party. My loyalty is to principles that, historically, have been better represented by the Democratic party than others. While it's not ONLY the Democratic party that has changed over that time, the party HAS changed and not always for the better.

We have fielded candidates that were simply not positioned to win. I've watched good candidates get torpedoed by the opposition who almost always seem poised to win and will go to whatever lengths to do so. I've been proud in defeat a number of times as a result of that, knowing that my party didn't resort to "dirty pool" to achieve political victories. The question in my mind now is how we have continued to allow the opposition to get away with their chicanery and duplicitous practice.

When Bernie Sanders reminds us that he's not a Democrat and tells us that Democrats didn't accomplish much I interpret that as meaning that we don't achieve AS A PARTY the goals that are paramount in this country. I don't interpret it as an attack on individual Democrats but as a valid criticism of the effectiveness of our party's tactical execution.

Interested to hear feedback.

[LisaM]

48. Then don't be on "Democratic" Underground.

You don't have to love Democrats or support us or follow our party platforms (which are strong), but it's extremely demoralizing to me to see Democrats being systematically attacked here, on what is supposed to be a friendly and safe place.

[Bread and Circuses]

38. I ageee!

I’ve had two posts deleted. So, I always have to be Careful

[LisaM]

40. Please stop this.

I don't patronize Republican or right-wing sites. But if I did, I am fairly certain that I wouldn't open them to see relentless criticism of their own message.

This is Psy-ops, and I am sick of it.

[Uncle Joe]

47. Any political party that believes its' leaders are infallible become extremely vulnerable to morphing into a cult.

The Republican Party's total acquiescence too and rise of *rump to power when they knew/know that he's incompetent for the most powerful job in the land is exhibit A.

I don't believe it started with *rump, this mentality has been in the works since the days of Reagan and "no speaking ill of fellow Republicans."

I believe one of if not the greatest strengths that the United States has is our 1st Amendment because it allows us as a nation to be flexible and self-correct when we go off course, but it has been under major assault for years.

Thanks for the thread Mr.WeRPb

[AZLD4Candidate]

51. I've always been principle over party. When the Democrats are wrong, they are wrong.

But I'd rather have a Democrat I agree with 40% of the time than a Republican I agree with 0% of the time.

[spooky3]

53. IMHO, A key difference between bashing and criticizing fairly

Is a basic one used in performance reviews.

Fair reviews focus on observable behavior: “X rarely speaks out”; “Y voted for a certain bill” etc.

When you speak negatively about something you can’t see happen, but are inferring it, such as a trait or personality characteristic, you may be bashing: “A is untrustworthy (annoying, lazy, dense, etc.)”; “B is a DINO”, etc.

[William769]

54. You had me till you said "oligarchy".