General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (paulbibeau) on Fri Dec 11, 2015, 04:00 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
Since 2004 and seeing what they did to Howard Dean -- both during and since.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)
There have been other countries that have placed Party Loyalty above Principle.
They ended badly.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)A Democrat who works against your interests is no different from a Republican that works against your interests. Many of us aren't fooled by the fake "disagreements" Congress has - they'll only be your friend if you have money to give them.
ewagner
(18,967 posts)....ultimately we end up with only two choices on the ballot...our guy or the other party's guy....
Even if our guy is only ideologically "the other guy light"...we have to vote for our guy...because if we don't, the other guy's party gets the majority and they get to set the agenda, stack committees, stack the courts and appointees of the bureauracy, decide who gets to introduce legislation as well as what legislation gets passed and which dies in committee.
Worse yet, if our guy bucks the caucus/party...there isn't any PAC money available to run for re-election in the next year so our guy has to carefully smooze the party to keep from getting hung out to dry every two years.
The campaign money seems to be the weak spot...and the caucus system itself needs major reform.
Until that time we have no choice but to vote for "our" party....even if it's not perfect.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Like you say if our, or their, guy bucks the party there is no support. We need to understand where the support comes from. Ultimately it doesn't come from any elected official, it comes form someone(s) behind the scene. These behind the scene people are the problem. Many of them exert control over both parties, that way they can accelerate their agenda. This has become very noticeable in the last 10 to 20 years as these individuals become so rich they can just throw money away and still increase their net value.
You also mention that we have the "other guy" and the "other guy light", this is by design, see the previous paragraph.
So I use an analogy of going to the grocery store to represent an election; say you go to the store for orange juice. You get to the store and you are offered a choice of whole milk and 2% milk. But you went for orange juice, why would you ever go home with milk? There usually is orange juice there, in an obscure place, you just have to look for it. But you say they have a sale on the milk and everyone else is buying it, why would I ever not buy it? Because if you want orange juice the only way you will ever get it is if you don't buy the milk. There is a reason the store is pushing the milk, and it has nothing to do with what you want. And be careful, some store are selling milk but put it in an opaque bottle and label it as orange juice.
The only way to get the store to promote orange juice is for you to not buy the milk. You may go thirsty for a while, but if enough people don't settle for milk the stores will start promoting orange juice instead, their only other option will be to go out of business.
ewagner
(18,967 posts)it breaks down when you add the factor of policy....in your analogy, the two milks (whole and 2%) will, at least for a while continue to dominate the market...
In the political sense, WHILE one or the other dominate the market, they can do great damage by setting policy that will enshrine one or both of them forever. In terms of you analogy, whole and 2% could ban the sale of orange juice. How long can we live with that damage?
In Wisconsin, that's exactly what Walker and his merry band of jackasses have set out to do. They hold majorities in both houses, the supreme court and hold the governor's office. This is their big chance to destroy the Democratic party and splinter any progressive movement to the point of impotentcy ...and that's exactly what they've done.
You are also right about the money people behind them....and you have made me think about another possible solution...one that might by-pass the money men....
What if....
true progressives took over the party leadership?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)You are right. You may go thirsty for a while but sometimes you need to stop buying the milk.
Of course, as you know, these games rely on human weakness. And there are always a group of whiners crying "but I'm thirherrrrrrsty" right in the milk isle, in front of the management, thereby undermining the efforts of all those who are disciplined. That pisses me off.
I think the store would get the message a lot faster if everybody just did something totally unexpected like taking a shit on the floor in front of the milk display.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)So do I.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Here's another:
Since there is no one else to praise me, I will praise myself -- will say that I have never tampered with a single tooth in my thought machine, such as it is. There are teeth missing, God knows -- some I was born without, teeth that will never grow. And other teeth have been stripped by the clutchless shifts of history -- But never have I willfully destroyed a tooth on a gear of my thinking machine. Never have I said to myself, 'This fact I can do without. - Kurt Vonnegut
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)"I'm the kind of person that believes there's a part of your voting that has to be purely on principle, and there's a part that has to be on strategy."
Michael Moore
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/voting.html
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)FatBuddy
(376 posts)both political parties are impervious to truth.
MineralMan
(151,210 posts)It's an election year. We can make changes this year, but not every choice will be between a Tea Party candidate and a true progressive. Where the choice is more limited, the results of the election still make a difference. Not voting is not a valid option. It never has been, and never will be.
GOTV 2014!
thucythucy
(9,096 posts)but you said it better.
Thanks.
MineralMan
(151,210 posts)as 2014 progresses. I'm not sure of the reasons people have for trying to convince people that this election doesn't matter unless everyone votes for a "true" progressive, whether that candidate has a chance of winning or not. But, I'm sure that I'll be here to talk about why it's so important for Democrats to gain control of the House of Representatives and state legislators.
I'll be posting in every downer election thread I see. That's my resolution for 2014, and I hope others will join me. It's just too important to ignore.
GOTV 2014!
thucythucy
(9,096 posts)Excellent idea, excellent resolution.
I'm in.
Thanks again.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)The two do not necessarily go together. The op states a truth. We have to do better.
MineralMan
(151,210 posts)That's not the issue. The issue is in bringing others to the polls to vote, and convincing those others of the reasons to vote for the Democrat on the ticket. Yes, we have to do better, and that's how we can do better.
PoliticalPothead
(220 posts)When that Democrat isn't representing the interests of the people.
MineralMan
(151,210 posts)Your post is pretty unclear, really, on that.
PoliticalPothead
(220 posts)Don't want the TPP, don't want social security cuts, don't want unemployment benefit cuts, don't want public schools to be privatized, don't want the NSA spying on American citizens, and don't want drones killing innocent people overseas. I'd say most Democrats have been pretty bad at representing these people.
MineralMan
(151,210 posts)Show us your alternative candidates, district by district.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The poster accurately identifies the problem here: a purchased government that *claims* to represent the people but actually works for corporations. You already tried this argument in this subthread, where your posts were justly mocked for your attempt to imply.....*cough*.....that Third Way predation is necessary to win votes: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024259980#post97
97. Can someone win in those districts without
Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 02:45 PM - Edit history (1)
falling into all of the following categories?
1. Tool of the 1%
2. Militarist
3. Does not fight to end the war on drugs
4. Does not fight for fundamental prison and jail reform
5. Believes the President has the authority to put the nation into a state of war
6. Sees no need for better laws criminalizing waterboarding and other forms of prisoner abuse
7. Wants to punish immigrants for entering the USA illegally to feed their families
8. Has little interest in defending habeas corpus, due process, the fourth amendment, etc.
9. Thinks the NSA is doing a great job undermining terrorist plots while respecting privacy.
10. Doesn't take the wellbeing of nonhuman animals seriously.
I would bet that someone could win one of those districts without falling into all of these categories. And any democratic candidate that did not fall into all of these categories would be more progressive than most democratic candidates these days.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The Party has been hijacked and purchased, and no longer works for us.
This is not a matter of politics as usual. This is corruption. It is corporate purchase and subversion of democracy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024222542#post2
who have infiltrated and taken control of both political parties. They have trampled the Constitution, turned the United States of America into a surveillance state, militarized our police forces, and created a nascent police state. They persecute whistleblowers and criminalize dissent. They strangle investigative journalism and create a propaganda machine to take its place. They are subverting our democratic, representative government and our Constitution to serve the interests of the wealthy elite, and they are working to turn the rest of us into wage slaves. They are profiting from bloody, undeclared wars; surveillance systems; private prisons; exploitative control of our health care and education; and privatization of every resource we have.
They are a menace to our representative government, our Constitution, and our freedom. Pretending that they are part of the normal representative governmental process, merely "centrists," is to vastly euphemize the cancer they really are.
PoliticalPothead
(220 posts)Couldn't have said it better myself. 
mountain grammy
(29,013 posts)When I can wave my magic wand and make every election choice include a "real liberal" like me, look out for the waving.
For now I will support and work for liberal candidates and vote for the non Republican. I just have to, it really has come to that. Every single election. I wouldn't vote for a Republican for dog catcher. I love dogs.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. a true progressive under the Democratic banner, cuz' there's a bunch of us that aren't buying your tired song and dance. Period.
Want my support and vote? You (the generic you) have to earn it and Turd Way DINOs don't cut it.
It's called having principles and integrity, and I'll take that over blind sheep "party loyalty" anyday.
WE are monolithic.
WE need to start acting that way.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)MineralMan
(151,210 posts)What Congressional District is yours in Minnesota? Mine is CD-4, where we have Betty McCollum as our Representative. She's great, and I work to help get her elected. How about you. Who's your Congressional Representative, 99Forever?
joeunderdog
(2,563 posts)They want me, they'll have to come get me. I'm not chasing them to the Right.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...where, exactly, the OP said not to vote. Thanks.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)It's an election year. We can fight against any changes this year, but the mood in the country is not good. Wherever the choice can be limited, we must work to ensure it is, else the election might make a difference. Standing on principles is not a valid option, it never has been and it never will be.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Not a single positive appeal to voters, because they have absolutely nothing positive to sell.
All threats and lesser of two evils.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Those who continue to push the false dichotomy of voting right wing or very right wing are part of the problem, not the solution. At some point the voter must stand up and decide to support using drones to kill innocent victims, or not. To support unfettered domestic surveillance or not. To support redistributing our wealth to the 1% or not. To support full equal rights for everyone, or not.
It's not enough for politicians to put a D after their names any longer. If they're not supporting us, we should not be supporting them.
MineralMan
(151,210 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)That is what forums like DU are for.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Shitty candidates.
madokie
(51,076 posts)since our friend ran for country sheriff many, many years ago.
f'm. I'm voting Democratic all the way.
dembotoz
(16,922 posts)i will and do work for the ticket
but is usually because dem x is better than rethug y
it does seem that the closer a dem comes to my dreams and ideals, the more likely he/she will receive no party support--local or state from the dems
i have done and will do the attacking windmill thing but that is hard and gets old.
UTUSN
(77,727 posts)Not to mention more hostility and contempt to fellow Lefties than to the Bad Guys.
MrScorpio
(73,772 posts)Then we can talk.
In the mean time, I'm voting DEMOCRATIC!
treestar
(82,383 posts)So even that system doesn't mean any idealists can prevail.
People who disagree can be just as idealistic in their differing opinions.
treestar
(82,383 posts)as possible who will vote for things somewhat reassembling what the ideals might be.
Nobody agrees with everyone and ultimately we are all just parties of one. Compromise is inevitable if we are to live together.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)How many people are involved. They dream of a state we do not currently live in. A state with fifty different parties on the ballot. With the current two party system, the range of views brought together in each party are huge. It is a slow march to the left, or a slow march to the right. The fight should be for the march to the left. It will not happen quickly. That is why the phrase "fighting for our children" is so important. It highlights the length of the battle. Some just want it now or they won't support the party.
lapfog_1
(31,893 posts)I was a member (contributing member) of the Green Party.
I thought that Democrats were mostly republican lite.
Then came the Gingrich "revolution", the persecution of President Clinton (not a progressive by any stretch, but not a bad person or a bad President), the government shutdown, and the further shift to the right by the repukes.
I started hating republicans... all republicans. I hate them with a burning passion.
The 2000 stealing of the election sealed things. I'm a Democrat now. I support Democrats, with my vote, my money, my time and energy. Nothing in this country will get better until republicans are completely and thoroughly marginalized. By that I mean the US government, the state governments, the city and county governments, the school boards, and, yes, even the dog catcher.
All must be Democrats.
When that happens, I will be interested in supporting more progressive parties or individuals. But not until that day. Today I am a proud Democrat. I joined DU because I'm a Democrat. I hope the rest of you feel the same way.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Usually combination of all three, in my travels among the Naderite shitheads and their compatriots.
There is, of course, a middle way between throwing oneself into the fire for the beauty of your hopeless ideal (and the love, it seems, of the false nobility of losing) and functioning as a blind apparatchik of The Party (tm).
Unfortunately for the Naderites and their ilk, it takes a pragmatist to chart this middle course. Fortunately for the country, most people are pragmatists. It's why the Naderites can barely scratch together 3% of the vote at any one time, pretty much regardless of district.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Your vote is guaranteed. You don't matter.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I mean what else could you be? The blind apparatchik anti pragmatic fools won't accept the inevitable exceptional corporate 3rd way centrist right.
Exultant Democracy
(6,597 posts)Playing the same bull shit "I'm taking my ball and going home" in 2014 that the left pulled in 2010 is a big fuck you to every minority in America. Guess what fuck you right back you sanctimonious assholes. Go ahead and Primary anyone you want, but don't let the republicans take another midterm.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...in the OP anyone said "I'm taking my ball and going home"?????
Of course you can't because no such statement was made. Apparently though, criticism is off limits and party purity trumps all other considerations.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Thank you.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...the Democratic Party and the country continue to veer rightward... are you really okay with this?
The OP said nothing about Nader or the Green Party. You dragged that out in order to discredit the message.
The "pragmatists" are one of the main problems IMO. We need more idealism, not less. And no, that does NOT mean never compromising. It does mean actually having principles, though. Something that seems to happen less and less these days.
I will say, I am a straight Democratic ticket voter. If a third party progressive had a real shot at winning, and if I liked them and their positions, I would definitely consider voting for them. (e.g. a Bernie Sanders, who is an Independent -- I am very happy that Vermonters continue to vote him into the Senate)
The Party Purists seem to want us to never criticize the party, at the same time that the party has stopped supporting unions, and has kowtowed to the corporate $$$ time and time again. We are supposed to pretend that is not happening, just STFU and vote the party line.
I am very thankful there are strong voices who will never STFU when it comes to criticizing the rightward drift of our party and our nation.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)That point has been made so many times around here... and yet the simpletons keep chirping "principles over (third) party!!" It would be funny if it weren't so completely MEANINGLESS and boring as all Hell.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)That speaks volumes about "pragmatists".
Response to paulbibeau (Original post)
paulbibeau This message was self-deleted by its author.
thucythucy
(9,096 posts)who can't get on Medicaid because they have Republican governors.
Yes, we should demand and expect the best.
But when push comes to shove I'd prefer Speaker Pelosi to Speaker Boehner, and Majority Leader Reid to McConnell (not to mention Obama/Biden to McCain/Palin or Romney/Reid) any day of the week.
MADem
(135,425 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)paulbibeau
(743 posts)
dionysus
(26,467 posts)happy new year! 
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)'scuse me.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)Frankly, I am a progressive and a Democratic partisan. There are no practical alternatives for a progressive.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Maybe you should fire up a website of your own, that doesn't have as its purpose electing more Democrats and fewer Republicans to public office?
Try reading the TOS....I mean, JEEZ. Good thing for you it's not "election season" I suppose.
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.
Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
And if you think you're gonna get a "better deal" from the GOP or the Libertarians, go check out their website equivalents--if you can "hack" your way through the hate speech and racism.
I would really like to see these terms more clearly defined:
kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like
Seems we have a rather vocal batshit contingent here. 
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...in the OP he said he thinks we'll get a "better deal" from the GOP or the Libertarians. Thanks.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Also... just for kicks, I'm going to post this link to a man made out of straw. A straw man, if you will.
No reason.
MADem
(135,425 posts)But you already knew that.
Try reading the whole TOS, in context. You sound like you'd benefit from it.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)As a writer, I would write something by "implication." I would imply, and you would infer.
If I did.
But I totally didn't.
You did.
But I did not.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Your subject line "implies" attitudes that do not marry well with the TOS.
Enjoy your stay!
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Diction is word choice.
MADem
(135,425 posts)paulbibeau
(743 posts)But this is nonetheless a real argument. "Loyalty" in politics among non-operatives is the stuff of hacks and fools. It's not about voting, which is always a calculation - a picking of lesser evils. It's about the willingness to say and write the hard truths.
Plenty of people at the beginning wrote, "Yeah, I already know that. Nice try, Bibeau, but that crap is obvious."
But the concept really, really bothers some people. It bothers you.
And you can't just dismiss it.
People getting mad about this stuff means I'm doing my job.
MADem
(135,425 posts)jollies.
That's the definition of disrupting, if not outright trolling.
The TOS is quite clear about expressing dissatisfaction with the "way things are." Anyone can do that without flinging insults. Why you paint yourself as somehow "special" for pretending that you invented the concept of disagreement is beyond me--here's a clue, we've been able to do that all along, without your insults.
What you're doing is saying that people who are loyal to the Democratic party, even as they might criticize it, or not, are hacks, operatives and fools. And you really want to be praised for those jerky comments.
What I can't "dismiss" (another word that starts with a D) is your "too clever by half" snark and insulting language towards people who post here.
If insulting people on the internet is your "job" I have to wonder who is paying you. Maybe you should look for a new line of work. You sure seem to be in need of a life.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Which is quite a feat.
MADem
(135,425 posts)paulbibeau
(743 posts)"What you're doing is saying that people who are loyal to the Democratic party, even as they might criticize it, or not, are hacks, operatives and fools."
1. This is a reformulation of my thesis, minimizing the importance of being willing to criticize our side, which for me is the entire point of the post. Reformulating your opponent's argument to make something easier to attack in a straw man argument.
"You sure seem to be in need of a life."
2. This is an ad hominem attack
"If insulting people on the internet is your "job" I have to wonder who is paying you."
3. This is conspiracy theorizing.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You admit you're trolling for kicks.
These are facts, not attacks, so get over yourself.
You're the one who referenced the "job" there, Einstein--try reading what you write.
Too clever by half, indeed.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)I'm happy if my post is causing a stir, but the stir is not the point. How can I prove this? I wouldn't be causing such drama if there weren't a real argument behind it. Others are really taking this side, because - whether you agree or not - others see the merit in it.
Saying I need to get a life is not a "fact." It is an opinion. And it is, indeed, an ad hominem attack. It's obviously personal, and not directed at the argument. Obviously so. Stop arguing a position that's obviously wrong.
"Job" does not imply "shadowy Republican paymasters." Really it doesn't. It's kind of a leap. For the record, I think of a writer - any writer - as doing his job, or not doing his job. The job here is used in the sense of task, mission, Platonic ideal.
And no, no one can be too clever. You know who thinks like that? Republicans.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The only stirring you're doing is of the fecal variety. You have no argument. You're pretending that we're not allowed to discuss differences, when the TOS explicitly says that this kind of conversation is fine outside of general election season. Then you follow up by calling Democrats fools and hacks.
You aren't presenting anything that is new or revolutionary, never mind an "argument"--you're just being disruptive and insulting.
By your own words we know what you're all about, a "drama" addict with a large "following," who has a "job" to do. If you want to call that a life, you go right ahead!
Now you're trying to walk back all your "big man" comments, but your horse has left the barn. So enjoy your "happiness" now, because it'll all come back to bite you one day.
Really.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)That's first. I haven't taken back a single word I've written. I've had to do that before. I'm always willing to do that. But not today. Not with you.
Also I never wrote I had a large following, or tried to act or say I was a big man. I never bragged. Yes, there are people who agree with me. I did not convert them or anything - we're just all on the same page. Any talk about my job as a writer is really a discussion about what every writer's job is. I'm just one more writer on this site who thinks this way.
And obviously, if I were proud to point out that people on this site agree with me (which I did), that means that I am not calling Democrats fools and hacks. Because the site is full of (wait for it) Democrats.
You continue to make claims that are unsupported by the facts, or are simply incoherent. You've relied on ad hominem attacks and conspiracy-mongering. And now I think you're threatening me.
You have, you've always had, no argument.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You're the one without an "argument." All you've done here is declare that Democrats are hacks and fools, and put up a false assertion that no one is allowed to dissent here, which, if you bothered to read the TOS, you'd discover wasn't true. You've gotten a ton of feedback too, and most of it isn't positive.
And now, you're still trying to walk that "hacks and fools" thing back! I guess you're a heckuva "writer." One that doesn't remember what he has "written." BTW, for someone who likes to snark at others about language, "blogger" is not a synonym for "writer." Just sayin'...
And I'm not "threatening you." Ewww, how dire you sound. You've gone from being a rude name-caller to a whining "victim." If you feel threatened, it's on account of your own sketchy behavior and nothing else.
I can read your twitter comments as well as anyone else can. Your own snarky words and insults towards DUers have dug that hole you're whining now about finding yourself in.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)But you did issue a threat:
"So enjoy your "happiness" now, because it'll all come back to bite you one day. "
What is that if not a threat? I am not saying you are going to take me out with a car bomb or anything. But you're saying that my actions will invite some kind of unspecific retribution. Threats.
Also, in NO WAY am I backing off from the comment that party loyalty is the stuff of fools, hacks, and operatives. I am not. But that does not include all Dems. I never said it did. I figured there would be plenty of people here to agree with the statement. Many others would get all angry. I knew that.
Good. So be it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)At least you're clear on what you're pumping out. We've already established that you are easily amused.
Apparently the "writer" can't distinguish between a prediction and a threat. That says more about your worldview than you perhaps realize. Feeling threatened at every turn? No wonder you're so confused.
For someone who says they aren't backing off, you continue to do it with every response to me. Now you're saying your insults weren't directed at "all" Dems....only the ones His Bloggership the Writer deems wanting, is that it?
You're not getting the ticker-tape parade you likely anticipated with this thread, but you are most certainly becoming a known quantity with every snarky comment you make.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)You can show this in two clips. It would be easy.
Old quote.
New quote.
Do it once. But quote directly, because you like to characterize things in... interesting ways.
Direct quotes, please.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Old Quote:
Last edited Thu Jan 2, 2014, 10:42 AM - Edit history (5)
Only Operatives have an excuse, and theirs is pretty poor.
Why is this important?
Because, my friends and colleagues of the left, 2014 promises to be yet another race to the bottom. The administration and the Democrats are going to continue with their festival of arrogance, incompetence, and obfuscation.
Gee, not "some Democrats," not "a few Democrats" but all of those awful people over there--"the" Democrats.
We'll contrast this nasty, insulting screed with your most recent walk back--the latest "New Quote" if you will:
I didn't see you making any exception, that you meant only "some" when you said "the," in that heavily edited train-wreck of an OP of yours.
Now let's hear the Latest "I didn't mean what I said" Excuse....
You are tiresomely predictable. Enjoy your "direct quotes, please."
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Absolutely. You got me.
In the OP I meant the Dems in government. Not necessarily all Dems, but I take a dim view of politicians, so I probably meant most Democratic politicians. I still believe that.
In the second post, I am talking about everyone in America - and on DU - who votes Democratic.
I should have made that clearer. I don't back off from either notion, but I totally made that clearer.
Is that it?
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Because I didn't actually say the Democrats (meaning the Dems in power) are the fools and hacks. I guess they're operatives. But I make pretty clearly that people who are LOYAL to the party are fools, hacks, or operatives.
I left unclear who that would be. And, in the thread, we clarified that it's not all Dems.
So, I don't even think you win technically. Sorry.
I should have made that clearer though.
Is that it? That's the one? Because you indicated that there would be more than that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)you're probably better off quitting while you're behind.
You can read your own posts as well as the next person. I'm done doing your homework for you. Everytime you've done a "walk back" I've mentioned it. Surely, as the important "writer" that you style yourself, you can find those posts and go back and actually read the words you typed.
If you want/need so badly to be termed a "winner" you can just go on ahead and own the term if you'd like.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"People getting mad about this stuff means I'm doing my job..."
I suppose I'd rationalize it the same way to better validate a very adequate eighth-grade essay.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...which I find to be much worse on a discussion board, than a grammar nazi.
There is NO violation of the TOS in the OP. None, zip, zero, zilch. Your only objection is to the subject line? If so, I have three words for you: Shoe. Fits. Wear.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"party loyalty" was a negative trait.
It isn't. Party loyalty is what got Elizabeth Warren elected.
So take your zero, zip, zilch with you. And your shoes and socks and negative attitudes, too.
No sale.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and certainly not buying what you're trying to peddle.
I guess you're just one of those Party Purists who doesn't want to brook any criticism of the Democratic Party. Which is why the Democratic Party continues to veer right and away from its time-honored principles.
And people like you wonder why people continue to become disenchanted. And then you blame them, rather than engaging in any even rudimentary self examination.
Pathetic, truly.
TTFN
MADem
(135,425 posts)"People like me" get Democrats like Elizabeth Warren elected.
People like you start fights on the internet.
"Pathetic, truly. TTFN."
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)This, from someone who read the OP and chose to excerpt this part:
"Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like."
So please tell us: which of these groups does the OP fall into, in your opinion? Because I'm having trouble seeing it.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)That said, anyone who calls Democrats who are party loyalists "hacks" surely doesn't have the interests of the Democratic Party or the goal to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to public office at heart.
I usually don't call people I like names. Why should I tolerate others who do that sort of thing?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...but it was right there, in the first paragraph of your excerpt. Are you saying it was just random?
In any case, why should I care what you do or do not tolerate? Thankfully, you are not the arbiter of what can be said on DU. You have made your opinion abundantly clear: if it were up to you, DU would be for party loyalists only, and those who criticize the party would be unwelcome.
But it ain't up to you. So tough cookies -- you can take your Party Purity and... the rest of us will continue to discuss the good, the bad and the ugly, within and outside of the party.
TTFN
MADem
(135,425 posts)People can read. They can see what you're doing.
Obviously, someone who thinks loyal Democrats are stupid hacks doesn't care much about "electing more Democrats and fewer Republicans to public office." You, apparently, support the name-calling in the OP.
In fact, someone who would call a Democrat a hack, a fool or an operative doesn't, in my view, like Democrats very much.
And you keep saying "TTFN" but you don't mean it. How can I say goodbye, when you just can't shake yourself loose from me?
You keep jumping on me, in subthread after subthread....something I find very interesting. Maybe telling. So yeah, "TTFN" until you just can't help yourself and come round yet again...
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)XRubicon
(2,241 posts)"No spammers.
Do not spam Democratic Underground with commercial advertising or promotions."
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...no linking to one's own blog, ever? Or one's own radio show or youtube channel? You have an interesting take on what constitutes spamming, or commercial advertising and promotions. In my view, if DUers want to share links to their blogs or radio shows or youtube channels with the rest of us, that's fine. It helps us to expand our circle of information. Lots of DUers do share such links. If that's a breach of the TOS then we've got a lot of cleanup work to do...
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)It looks like advertising to me. This person stands to gain financially from added blog traffic and Twitter followers. If he had linked a specific article he wrote about this subject or any relevant subject to this audience I may have thought different. Not just here's my blog...
I don't run this site, maybe something for ATA.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)and Steve Loesser to his radio show.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)My opinion is this OP appears to be self promotion. His blog has nothing relevant to the OP.
I don't make the rules, just giving you my opinion. We do get to interpret them on juries though.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...who knew?
And why, I wonder, would the site have the word UNDERGROUND in its title?
That would seem to... wait for it... IMPLY something... something other than blind party loyalty.
MADem
(135,425 posts)having a hard time accepting.
We went "Underground" when "party hack" Al Gore got robbed of the Presidency from Dumbya.
That's why this site exists.
I see you! You're pretty, er, transparent!
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that's what alerts and juries are for, to hide posts that do not meet the TOS.
I see the OP has 200+ replies but was never hidden.
But you seem to think there is a TOS violation there, somewhere. So please: show us where it is. Otherwise please stop your silly insinuations that those of us who do not agree with you, are unfamiliar with the TOS. Thanks.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I prefer to speak reasonably to people and tell them how I feel about their attitudes.
I'd say there are more people in this thread who aren't seeing things your way. Spreading FUD and "insinuating" works for a while but not forever.
So one more time, there, sport--no sale.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It's like shaking keys at a baby, I guess!
gulliver
(13,953 posts)Just because something is disloyal and self-defeating that doesn't make it true. The tendency to glorify defeat is something we could all make a New Year's Resolution against. "We lost, but at least we showed them what we are made of" is for losers.
All Republicans in all offices must be fired. 2014 is when it starts.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)If I get a Republican either way, what am I doing?
Vote Democrat in the general, but bust ass to Primary the hell out of our kennel full o blue dog bastards
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I am looking forward to the Democratic Party's efforts to earn mine.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...who is the disloyal one, the party or the voter?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)That is a very strange point of view for a liberal. One might even say, it falls more in line with how conservatives tend to think. Party purity trumps all, apparently.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,539 posts)What we don't all agree on is that most (not all) Washington Democrats and all Republicans are bought off/beholden to Special Interests! My position is pretty well known here, I believe that the number 1 issue we should be demanding/marching for is Complete Campaign Finance Reform (CCFR) and Publicly Funded Elections. For example, we cannot get any form of Gun Control despite overwhelming support from Americans of all stripes. The campaign money prevents it. This is the same issue after issue. We MUST do this and soon if we are to save the environment and prevent our own extinction. Big business will continue to control everything and be above the law.
Insist that you federal, state, local candidates go on record supporting CCFR!
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)alarimer
(17,146 posts)I don't pledge allegiance to anything or anyone.
I am not an automatic vote for Democrats. Not anymore, not after the continuous betrayals of principle.
I vote for who I think will best represent ME. If no one does, I do not vote in that race.
Fuck party loyalty. That's a fool's game and only results in electing useless people.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)creeksneakers2
(8,007 posts)1.3 million people are losing their unemployment benefits, thanks to the Republicans. The Democrats wanted to extend UC. Do those 1.3 million people mean anything to you? This kind of difference takes place often. How can you call Democrats useless?
billh58
(6,655 posts)he is only concerned about what the system can do for him -- fuck everyone else.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)that's been able to direct every national policy their way for the last 35 yrs.
billh58
(6,655 posts)"Party Loyalty" with voting for the country's best interests. Thanks for playing...
Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)or an operative. Actually I'm not because I don't give a shit what you think about me. But I am a Democrat and will remain one until I die. That's why I post so much on a Democratic board composed of other members of the Democratic party who discuss Democratic candidates and, well, you get my drift. I'm a rather proud Democrat.
Am I as proud of my party today as I was in 1973? Hell no. But at least it has the potential to improve. So let me repeat, lest their be any doubt at all I AM A DEMOCRAT. Not much that you can do about it but shower me with your self-righteous scorn which means nothing to me so its really not much of a weapon.
Anyway, enjoy your enlightened purity.
Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)And obviously nearly everyone here is below the op's highly developed consciousness.
I mostly find it amusing, especially when someone who offers nothing but platitudes deigns to condescend to enlighten us commoners.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Enjoy your blissful apathy.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I like bliss.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)is no spring chicken. He is however a very proven "people first" leader.
I cannot think of a better candidate or POTUS to lead us out of this nightmare.
He has spoken about the possibility of a Presidential run.
He is the for the majority and his outspoken Progressive voice resonates strongly.
I honestly believe that if we Democrats work for and vote for him, he is our only chance at a non-violent revolution. There are a few other progressive voices but none have proven themselves like Bernie.
creeksneakers2
(8,007 posts)to work with Democrats most of the time.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)how about we take advantage of primaries to push our agenda onto the party ?
I really thought howard dean was going to break the back of the party insiders and corporatists back in 04 .. but then they turned up his microphone and made him sound irrational... hey, cant beat someone on ideals , make 'em look foolish on a personal level.. eh ? lol
sorry but.. ill never refuse to vote.. and im sure as hell never voting for a republican..
so ill do my part, push my party to the left as much as I can, and hope for the best...
I don't fault nader for doing what he did...and find it silly that others do (yeah, lets forget that he had a legal right to run .. and that the election was decided by A COURT, not a vote count)...
I think anyone can admit its very frustrating working within the party as an actual lefty .. but that doesn't mean you give up..
this idea that a viable third party is just going to spring up over night and give us more options is naïve..
we need republicans to split before we can even dream of doing it.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)I'm pretty clear on saying that our job, as citizens and writers and non-operative-types, is just to always tell it like it is and demand that our party measure up. And that this is a good long-term strategy for Dems, and (not so incidentally) for the country.
I think people immediately go into panic mode, when you start criticizing our side, and they become impervious to ideas they don't want to hear. They don't think clearly. They make arguments that rationalize being hacks.
Not you. Just, many people here.
My theory is that at some point the GOP became filled with people who are in a permanent panic mode, and now they can not adapt to the real world. Let's not go down that road.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)to the real world is something I can not even begin to agree with. I've never, in a life more lived than yet to live, seen a Republican of any sort for whom I would vote. I have seen the Democratic Party lurch and drag it's feet, but it is always coming over my way, slowly, far too slowly, but coming over here, bit by bit. Republicans are and have always been going the opposite direction, away from me, away from progress, away from the new and the bold.
When I started voting, 'gay liberation' was an issue only gay people spoke of, neither Party was in support. But Bill Clinton changed that and was the first national candidate to mention gay people as part of the Democratic family. Over the years Democratic support for equal rights has grown larger and bolder while Republican opposition has only grown more adament, uglier, and louder.
And all of the progress that came came by criticizing our side, which causes some to have tsoris, but which the Party and principles deal with fairly well. So as a lifelong Democrat and constant critic of my own Party, I can not agree that criticism causes any significant 'panic'. Sure a few posters will get all frothy, but they are part of the show, part of what makes the moment that makes the change.
Meanwhile Republicans are refusing the Medicaid expansion and trying to keep minorities from voting, just like they were when I was a small child. They have never adapted to reality. Their ignorance is not a recent event.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)When I was a kid, they were blocking integration for example. Standing in school doorways. They hit rock bottom long, long ago as far as I'm concerned, and putting metrics on the depth they dwell at is pointless.
They've always had Ted Cruz types, called them John Birchers back then. As I said, this theory you have that the Republicans used to be 'better' is not something I agree with unless we are going back way before my time, to TR and Abe. They have no redeeming features in my lifetime. None.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)"Bill Clinton, Gay Rights, And The Parable Of Steve"
http://paulbibeau.blogspot.com/2013/03/bill-clinton-gay-rights-and-parable-of.html#.UsRXERUo4cA
MADem
(135,425 posts)a "concern troll." If this is not your intent, you probably need to work on your delivery.
You are getting pushback here for a reason. Instead of accusing people of being in "panic" mode and not "think(ing) clearly" (like you're the only visionary on the block), perhaps you might try to first, acquaint yourself with the culture here by reading the doggone TOS and the "about" page. You've been here for a year and a half. You post rarely, so it's really unclear how much reading you've done and how well you understand the climate here. If I had to guess, I'd say you don't understand the culture well, because your comments are insulting.
I am not saying this to be mean or unkind, but I don't think you appreciate how you are coming across.
Bottom line--you aren't making a cogent case, even if you manage to avoid championing "...voting third party, or for Republicans." The end result is that if you start snarking at Democrats, what's the implied alternative, even if you avoid coming right out and saying it?
You may have intended your essay to spark discussion, but it's really coming off as a "You dumb rube-jerks, listen to me" lecture. Not a good look.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)we should be screaming about how awful most of those democratic candidates are. Voting democrats into office is important, but moving the democratic party in the right direction (i.e., to the left) is important too. Too often party loyalists conceal the errors of their party's office holders rather than exposing those errors and demanding change.
nightscanner59
(802 posts)Who already know pushing progressive policies against the RW'er tide is futile. For now, only D's appear largely available alternative to the extremely corrupt, lobbiest-bought R's. If we can trust much of U.S. youth to see through the whitewashed rhetoric of RW loudspeakers, I trust that within a couple decades of devastating corporatist policy making, some good third-path journalism on the internet to blow the lid off these faky bills being passed that still only essentially pad the pockets of the mega-corporations.
Our youths need to be encouraged to do this stuff, put that christmas videocam to good use. Go get footage of the Ouachita river devastation caused by the GP plant (Koch owned) pollutants, for instance. Dioxins, anyone? R-style "deregulation" at it worst, in a greyish deathscape! Google those recent bills... especially since the 2010 house takeover, read, analzye just a bit-- it's all in there how hypocritical the titles of some of these are! Great journalistic fodder.
Cenk Uygur got his start just that way, in his livingroom.
Let's help our youths prove that corporate lobbying is largely destructive, polluting, devastating to the middle class and poor. It's their future, and their children's future to protect. I'm very encouraged by some of this I've seen on YouTube, getting to be the real voice of the people and swinging our congressional representation to the progressive side, the democrats only need encouragement from more progressive voices in there.
But it starts with our voices, our encouragement, our providing our youth the tools to help us critically analyze what's hidden from us on the corporate media outlets.
I can see a future congress where Democrats are finally being swung to the left by progressive third party representatives, rather than the right-swing they still being forced to by the neanderthals.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Mitt is so bored he's posting here.
And he has his own blog! Imagine that...
MADem
(135,425 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 05:59 PM - Edit history (2)
You are exactly right. K&R
The DLC, and now the Third Way, was never a populist movement. They are a planned, and deliberate, infiltration of the Democratic Party by the corporate One Percent.
The people have indicated clearly and repeatedly that we don't want a fascist surveillance state, or austerity, or more warmongering at the expense of our schools and our cities and our children. The predation coming out of Washington has not even remotely resembled what the people have asked for, for some time now.
Jimmy Carter: "America no longer has a functioning democracy."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024222542#post2
When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556
When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432
GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116
The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414
Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121
FatBuddy
(376 posts)they get my vote.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)and clear information about precisely who is bankrolling these people.
We are dealing with corporatists who specialize in manipulative advertising and misleading about what is actually inside the box.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)There are two cops, one promises to beat you with a rubber hose, the other wants to shoot you in the head....guess which one you will pick.
nolabear
(43,850 posts)Although I suppose the case could be made for either. I think the OP is absurd, myself. As long as we are human we'll seek like minds for assurance, strength and power. It's the best thing about us when done well and the worst when abused.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But yes there are all kinds of variants on that same theme...provideing a worse choice so that the bad one looks good to you...and I don't ever see it as anything but manipulation.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It's a stale, familiar game at this point.
Candidate Obama debates President Obama on the surveillance state
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017124703
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And it is interesting to notice the tone change between the candidate Obama and the president Obama...the first was positive and sure of himself, the second halting and measured....it says a lot to me.
creeksneakers2
(8,007 posts)You aren't going to drive the party left with disloyalty. You'll drive them further to the right. Look at 2000. The far left shaved off 3% of the vote that made the difference in the presidential election. Did the Democrats go left to try to get back the 3%? Of course not. Going that far left would lose support from moderates and middle voters needed to win. The Democrats responded to Nader with 6 years of caving in to Bush and barely even responding to GOP outrages.
You could also look at Congressional voting records. Representatives from the safest Democratic districts are the most likely to vote liberal. Representatives from swing districts vote more conservatively. When a representative can't count on a strong Democratic vote, he turns to Independents and Republicans to try to make up the difference.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Democrats be damned.
"Going that far left would lose support from moderates and middle voters needed to win." - according to you. Going to the right is no alternative.
creeksneakers2
(8,007 posts)You may think that going left won't lose votes from moderates and middle voters, but the politicians believe it, so subtracting from the base is going to result in further movement to the right.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...and the DLC.
The 'base' no longer has a say in things.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Who is telling you this crap? The DLC is dead as a doornail. It has no offices, no officers, no nothing.
It's Dead, Jim!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)= failure
MADem
(135,425 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)"The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation[1] founded in 1985 that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The DLC hailed President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of Third Way politicians and as a DLC success story."
"The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. This term is also used by other groups who have similar views on where the party should go in the future, like NDN and Third Way."
DLC = Right Wing Democrats
Third Way = Right Wing Democrats
MADem
(135,425 posts)The operative word: was
Also from your link:
Mrs. Fields sells cookies. So do the Girl Scouts. They aren't the same thing. Just because they have "similar goals" doesn't mean they are the same institution because they are not.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)My condolences.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I point out where you screwed up. My condolences to you that you feel a need to behave like that.
The appropriate thing to say is "I stand corrected." Because you have been corrected, and have a nice day, too, while you're at it.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So bent out of shape when I show you that the Third Way = DLC = Failure.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You were factually wrong. I pointed it out. Now you're getting shirty!
But hey, you want to talk about "failures?"
So, I guess you hate Joe Biden, too, then?
Al Franken?
Jenifer Granholm?
Kathleen Sebelieus?
Janet Napolitano?
Andrew Cuomo?
And all those other DLC "failures?" You know, the ones who got elected and were able to move the agenda towards equality and health care and getting out of Iraq and all those "awful" things that never would have happened if we'd been enjoying a McCain or Romney presidency?
It's just so much more important to be "right" (in your head) than win elections, I see! No pragmatism for you! Gets in the way of the moral outrage, every time!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)OK, sorry for the mix up...
Where people get that the electorate will only vote for failed Republican policies from Democrats is beyond me. All that does is drive the independents and moderates away. There is nothing 'pragmatic' about including the problem as part of the solution. How did that 'pragmatism' work out for ya'll in 2010?
Given the choice between a Republican and a politician who acts like a Republican, voters will vote for the real Republican every time. If the Third Way/DLC are so gung ho for Republican policies to be enacted, why do they call themselves Democrats? I don't get it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I have to wonder how "Aging" you are when you use immature words and a confrontational, accusatory tone. Although, if you want a dose of the kind of shit you're dishing out, I could be a jerk and say something like "Gee, your tone could be a result of changes that result in men and women as they age--see your doctor!" But I won't. Instead, I will answer your snarky query frankly.
I think the DLC, which is defunct--and I recognize that it is dead and buried, unlike some people (like the FDL crew) who want to regard it as a zombie entity that lurks around corners and is responsible for every ill in the land-- served a purpose during its time. It pushed back the Republicans, it silenced the Jesus Freak Fundy assholes--or at least lowered the volume of their bullshit down to a dull roar--and it produced a large number of viable elected officials who, despite the carping, whining, and bee-wording of some on this web site, HAVE done good work. Many of them are still in public office; others remain in the public square in other capacities.
However, I also recognize that the organization--which, unlike what some here call "Turd Way"--was not primarily a "think tank" (which TW is), but it was an activist organization that had as a goal electing Democrats to public office...Democrats who could be elected, not sincere people who were bound to lose and be crushed (Ewwww....it's all about the principles!!! Bullshit--you can't eat principles, and they won't keep a roof over your head) . They believed in an incremental approach, because they recognized that bouncing over to the other far-left wall and trying to fight from that angle was fucking futile. We made a lot of gains from 92 to 2000 as a result of them, even if some here want to ignore that and pretend that we got to the first President of Color by frigging osmosis or something.
When Obama was elected, he had no use for them because he had formed his own coalition--with, ironically, the help of a DLCer, Joe Biden (who pulled many away once he was named VP). Many people who worked for DLC left the organization (e.g. Frum and Emmanuel) and they didn't have the money-generating clout to assist candidates as they once did. They went broke, in essence. They had a moment in time, and that moment passed. They closed up shop, they consigned themselves to the history books, and all their records are in boxes in Arkansas at the Trailer Library. They did play a key role in the resurgence of the Democratic Party, but their usefulness expired and they aren't around anymore, and haven't been for three years, now. Three years is a lifetime in politics. Why, I have to ask, do people keep flogging this organization as if it exists? Is there an agenda in so doing? Or unawareness?
This is why I find people who continually say "Ewwwwwwww....DLC!!!" like they're the boogieman, tiresome. I'd use a stronger word but I don't want to sound insulting.
You wouldn't have anything to cry about if it weren't for those people. They served a purpose. They put enough Democrats -- who became incumbent Democrats--in office to give the rest of the party a frigging place at the table, which is something we didn't have before.
I am a pragmatist. I can see the good, and the bad, in people and organizations. I don't go all black-and-white when it comes to advancing an agenda that includes things like a balanced budget, a solid social safety net, better educational opportunities for all, not just at the college level, but from pre-school on up, a living wage for everyone, an end to hunger and homelessness, protection of children and animals, a strong but not insane and wasteful national defense, prioritizing diplomacy and efforts at peaceful conflict resolution around the world, and shit like that. I am not stupid--I am not going to get that from the Greens, the Libertarians, or the Republicans. I am going to get some if not all of that from ANY flavor of Democrat.
Bill Clinton would not have become President if not for the DLC. Al Gore would not have become VP if not for the DLC and he wouldn't have been the Presidential candidate in 2000 were it not for the DLC. And Democratic Underground, by extension, would not have been formed if not for the DLC....and you'd be crabbing about politics at frigging Yahoo Dot Com with a bunch of Republicans, were that the case.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I've read your writing long enough to know you're nowhere near that simple, so what's your motivation here?
MADem
(135,425 posts)So, Al Franken is part of the Evil Empire, then? Joe Biden? Let's burn him at the stake, too, shall we? The DLC was founded upon the political views of RFK, so under the bus with him, too then!
And everyone here just adores Jenifer Granholm...well, get over her! She was in the club as well!
Mark Warner? He was very active in the DLC. Andrew Cuomo? STONE him!!!!
Round them all up--call them to account! Beat them, whip them, Make. Them. PAY~~~~!
If it wasn't for the DLC, we wouldn't have any Democrats in office and we wouldn't have anything "progressive" on the national agenda. GWH Bush would have gotten a 2nd term and who knows what GOP asshole would have followed him. This probably chaps your drawers, this fact, but it's the truth.
But hey, whatever--your mind is made up. You're all about the "J'accuse!" and the purity tests, apparently! Go down in glory, now, it's never about winning and getting some of the pie, it's more about starving and having your last words be "But I was right!"
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)When the law is against you, argue the facts.
When both the facts and the law are against you, cal the other lawyer names.
You can try to evade the truth by throwing as much shit against the wall as you like, but the process of exposing the truth is too far along to stop. That's why they ran away and changed their names.
The DLC was, and its former members remain, a front for corporatists, funded by both Wall Street and the Reich-wing (Heritage, Koch, Coors, a laundry list of so-called defense contractors, and so on), and you and the rest of the gang can scream and cry until the sun flickers out and that still won't change the facts.
MADem
(135,425 posts)is what children with simplistic notions do.
If you have any question as to what I mean, see post 444. Or don't.
But stop acting like a tiresome whiner, babbling about the "truth." It's obvious that you cannot handle the truth, which is not a left/right, black/white thing. It's way more messy than that.
Spare me the people who will scream about their undying principles as the ship sinks.
Half a loaf has always been better than none. And that "gang" you hate would share that loaf with you. Rand Paul and his pals wouldn't give you the spit of the sidewalk.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)from reality. The party is in this fight because of exactly these people and their agenda. Nobody voted for a Goldman-Sachs administration and I'm not aware of a single Democratic office holder that ran on a "fuck Main Street" campaign, although maybe I missed that speech.
You can, and I'm sure will continue to insult and hurl epithets to any that dare point out the comparative failure of this party to work for, and to even work against its constituents for seven straight years. But the script is dogeared and the words have become stale at this point. Too many of the party leaders stink of the corruption they created and they can never wash it off. The Party had the nation, and especially the youth behind them and they chose to sell us out for another house in The Hamptons.
If Democrats had worked half as hard for us as they have to keep themselves and their campaign contributors free from consequences and out of jail, we would all be far better off today. This is the elephant we know crapped in the punch bowl, thus diminishing the demand for another drink. So, if the Democratic Party has an enthusiasm gap, or whatever stock euphemism they choose this cycle, you know who is at fault, though I'm sure the very serious people will try to blame the evil, useless, destructive, though powerless liberals after the fact.
MADem
(135,425 posts)out of a defunct, dead organization that has scattered to the four winds--you are.
And you've got the stones to talk about what being an "adult" is all about?
OK....whatever.
And, FWIW, you need to take that sequoia out of your eye--whining about "epithets" when you basically call me blind and insane because I don't want to flush the progress we've made thus far down the toilet and I don't blame people for advancing the ball down the field any way they can.
That said, I do think we can do better. Of course, that doesn't suit your scenario of teams of "Good Progressives" and "Bad Democrats" who run on hatred and bile. You LIKE the boogie man concept of politics--too bad you can't figure out that the REAL bad guys, the ones that will fuck you six ways to Sunday and laugh like hell while your children starve, living in a burnt out car or an American favela, are not DEMOCRATS--even the "bad" ones wouldn't sanction that. They're Republicans.
I am not surprised when I learn how well Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton get along--but there are people on this board who believe that they'd scratch one another's eyes out if they had the chance.
You can call me all sorts of names, that's on you and names don't hurt me anyway. I'm just not stupid, and that's what truly annoys you--I believe in getting as much as we CAN, and the only way we can do this is if we have Democrats--not Republicans and forget about those fringe parties full of Paulbots and Greens--who are in office, voting on issues, who are PERSUADABLE and can be moved. People screaming "Burn it down! Single Payer! NOW! RAH RAH!!" are NOT gonna get elected. They aren't. Even progressives like Elizabeth Warren are terribly supportive of the workers at our Bay State General Dynamics plant--she even backed (successfully) a battlefield equipment program that the PENTAGON wanted to CANCEL to save money in order to protect Massachusetts jobs. So basically, she told the Pentagon that they couldn't cut an expenditure, and she teamed with Republicans to do it, in order to spare jobs making something we don't want or need. Ain't THAT a bee word?
It's called pragmatism. Go on and get some. Or don't.
Now, you go have a nice, smug day. Go call someone else blind and crazy, why doncha?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Amazing how many posters here seem to equate the two. It is hardly a liberal attitude BTW.
creeksneakers2
(8,007 posts)Its not disloyal to criticize. But some of the exaggeration here, like Obama is a flat out corporatist, serves no useful function either.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."But some of the exaggeration here, like Obama is a flat out corporatist, serves no useful function either."
And yet the OP that you were responding to, said nothing about Obama. Therefore I find your reply disingenuous.
creeksneakers2
(8,007 posts)"Because, my friends and colleagues of the left, 2014 promises to be yet another race to the bottom. The administration and the Democrats are going to continue with their festival of arrogance, incompetence, and obfuscation. They will continue treating the Fourth Amendment like a suggestion and foreign civilians like targets in a hideous videogame"
Anyway, the exaggeration was used as an example of discourse that is not disloyal but not really helpful either. I didn't say the OP said that.
I don't treasure your reply either.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...you are correct about the post referring to the administration which of course, does refer to Obama even if not by name.
So while we will continue to disagree on the basic points, I retract my remark about your reply being disingenuous. I was mistaken.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)No introspect is allowed in this party ...damn it all to hell!
last1standing
(11,709 posts)We vote for representatives who owe their loyalty to those who put them in office. The voter owes no loyalty to a politician who subverts the will of the people.
I was sickened by the "loyalty" meme during the bush years and it hasn't lost its ability to nauseate me since then.
creeksneakers2
(8,007 posts)People with lots of different opinions got together. We can't all get our way all the time, but we stick together to get the best we can get. I'm sorry you find that nauseating. I think its just common sense.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I was talking about the comment that voters must be loyal to politicians instead of them being loyal to us. You decided to twist that into some sort of purity smear because you can't disagree with my original comment as it stands without looking like a complete fool.
By the way, real common sense would have counseled against posting silly strawman arguments. You should try to understand the difference between common sense and nonsense.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)If they stopped using these, all their posts would contain is Mr Roffle Waffles.
FatBuddy
(376 posts)is pretty much misguided at best: worst case - delusional and stupid.
it's a ruse that sets brother against brother, sister against sister, worker against worker.
we should all be working together to hang as many capitalist gangsters as humanly possible. metaphorically speaking, of course.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) 
George II
(67,782 posts)....."Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government"
Autumn
(48,952 posts)My family, my dogs my horses my friends. As a former yellow dog Democrat if the party expects me to be loyal to them they better learn that it's a two way street.
nolabear
(43,850 posts)We are not and can never be a world full of lone individualists unless you like the idea of Every Man for Himself. And that's not only ridiculous, it's impossible. Soon as one "Party" (family, tribe, village, county, nation) ceases, another come in.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)planned, and deliberate infiltration of the Democratic Party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4260674
Jimmy Carter: "America no longer has a functioning democracy."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024222542#post2
When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556
When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432
GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116
The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414
Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)automatically 3rd Way DLCer's?
How unimaginative.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)by accusing progressives of a future "spoiled" election.
Of course, there's no need whatsoever for "spoilage" if Democrats would merely run a candidate FOR the 99 percent rather than one who is predatory toward the masses and fellating the corporate authoritarian rich.
The Corporate Brigade clearly realizes that won't happen. Their entire argument is *always* a tacit acknowledgement that corporatists will offer us shit, along with threats that we'd better accept it as preferable to alternative, slightly more pungent shit.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)MineralMan
(151,210 posts)In 2014, there will be 435 candidates, not one, and that's just in the House of Representatives. Each is running in a local congressional district. How is it that you do not understand how our government is elected? What one candidate are you talking about for 2014? How about the candidate for MN CD-2, where a relatively popular Republican, John Kline, is the incumbent. A Democrat could take that seat, and Minnesota Democrats are going to be choosing someone to run against him. Which candidate should that be? Do you know any of the potential candidates for that individual congressional race?
I will guarantee that a candidate who met with your approval as a progressive cannot possibly win that district, and if one was the Democratic candidate, it is certain that John Kline will continue to hold that seat and to vote with the conservative caucus on every important bill. Now, if we can find a Democratic candidate who is well-known enough, and respected enough in that district to unseat John Kline, which is a definite possibility, that district will have a House member who will vote with the Democratic caucus, rather than the Republican caucus. That is what our Congress is about and that's how it works. You can rail against it all you want, but that is the fact of the matter.
So, what should the voters in MN CD-2 do in the caucuses, primary and general election in 2014? Should they put a candidate with no chance of winning on the ballot? What do you think? I think that they should find a candidate who will vote with the Democratic caucus on every important bill and get him or her elected to replace John Kline. If Minnesotans can do that, it will be one more Democrat in the House, moving toward a majority of Democrats. We have another district, MN CD-6, that is in a similar position. Right now Michele Bachmann is that district's representative. She's not running in 2014, thank goodness, but the district remains a relatively conservative one. Her Democratic opponent, though, in 2012, won by only 1% or so of the vote. We have an excellent chance to put a Democrat into office in that district, but no real progressive could possibly win there. So, what should we do? I say that we should find a popular, well-known Democrat who will vote with the Democratic caucus on every important bill and make that person the candidate in MN CD-6. And that's just what the DFL Party in Minnesota has in mind for both districts. If we work hard and campaign hard for those candidates, we could replace two Republicans in the House. Do you not see the benefit of that?
You can insist on whatever you want for your vote, but I'm pretty sure you're not voting in either of those districts. Those who are will make the choice, not you. Thank goodness.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)falling into all of the following categories?
1. Tool of the 1%
2. Militarist
3. Does not fight to end the war on drugs
4. Does not fight for fundamental prison and jail reform
5. Believes the President has the authority to put the nation into a state of war
6. Sees no need for better laws criminalizing waterboarding and other forms of prisoner abuse
7. Wants to punish immigrants for entering the USA illegally to feed their families
8. Has little interest in defending habeas corpus, due process, the fourth amendment, etc.
9. Thinks the NSA is doing a great job undermining terrorist plots while respecting privacy.
10. Doesn't take the wellbeing of nonhuman animals seriously.
I would bet that someone could win one of those districts without falling into all of these categories. And any democratic candidate that did not fall into all of these categories would be more progressive than most democratic candidates these days.
MineralMan
(151,210 posts)but are merely reciting your own meme.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Just trust me on this...
You weren't really expecting an answer, were you?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)There's a reason the lectures and the threats are always couched in generalities and discussion of actual policies avoided at all costs. You can't get any more absurd than suggesting that the predation corporatists are perpetrating on the electorate is *necessary,* politically, to get them elected.
You can't make this stuff up.
Response to paulbibeau (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)People do what they can against a massive, corporate-bankrolled propaganda machine.
The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting personas is steady and unnatural:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4216987
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367
States that build surveillance machines also build propaganda machines.
Response to woo me with science (Reply #87)
Name removed Message auto-removed
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Hey everyone, the <MixedCasePoster> is back!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Response to bobduca (Reply #92)
Name removed Message auto-removed
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)against poor, well-meaning corporatists in the Democratic Party...
...yet cry "Conspiracy Theories" and post pictures of tin foil at the very *mention* that corporate money is being used to prop up corporate politicians.
You can't parody the desperation (and absurdity) of the propaganda machine
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4156659
Apparently the "propaganda machine" and its targets have been misidentified....In fact, we have had it all BACKWARDS!
....!
Glenn Greenwald is impoverishing me!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4031540
...thank god we have you and your compatriots to identify the REAL propaganda machine...
Thank goodness you are here to defend the beleaguered NSA, the struggling global banks and corporations, the quivering and impoverished government of the United States, and the bedraggled One Percent against the Massive, Orchestrated Juggernaut of Propaganda being wielded against them by....poor Americans and Julian Assange... (cough).
The cadre of pro-corporate, pro-police state, pro-Third Way, pro-everything One Percent brigade at discussion sites across the internet has NOTHING to do with propaganda. It is merely a fluke of nature that they have swarmed into sites across the internet and shifted the political balance of DU and other discussion forums in just a few short months or years. It is merely an accident that they predictably and reliably swarm *every single discussion* that implicates this administration in the persecution of whistleblowers and journalists and assaults on the Constitution for the benefit of the One Percent. It is merely a bizarre accident that they evidence an influx and constant growth in their numbers that is unnatural to the point of being ridiculous**. And it is wholly a coincidence that they share a consistent set of rules and tactics for smearing liberals, disrupting liberal discussion, and fervently defending, minimizing, or denying *every single aspect* of the growing corporate authoritarian state.
How in the world will the voiceless US government, the helpless surveillance and corporate media machine, and the defenseless banks and corporations of the One Percent *ever* hope to overcome the dread power of the vast propaganda machine wielded by the people against them?!
__________________________________________
**
The influx will continue
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367
The goal of the propaganda across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801
paulbibeau
(743 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)and the corporate narrative spinners do not like it one bit.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Hope you keep it!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Corporate/Third Way/Republican collusion is destroying the 99 percent and this country. Your corporate snark doesn't fly anymore.
It's time to be very clear that the Third Way is not "moderate" or "centrist" or even "democratic." It is a predatory, Koch-funded, deliberate infiltration of the Democratic Party by corporate interests.* It is an anti-democratic, corporate-purchased subversion of government representing people into government serving corporations.
[font size=3]When your child or your party has an infiltrating, malignant tumor, you do not pledge loyalty to the tumor because it is now part of your child.
You excise it.[/font size]
We have taught the Third Way that they can perpetrate corporate authoritarian assaults and suffer no consequences whatsoever. It's time to teach them just the opposite, and take our party back.
The Shocking Redistribution of Wealth in the Past Five Years
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024257660
Wealth of world's billionaires has doubled since 2009.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024041209
Top 1% get 121% of income gains since 2009 (100% of new income + 21% from your old income)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022384139
Wages have fallen to a record low as a share of America’s gross domestic product.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022183930
U.S. corporate profits stronger than ever, workers' wages fallen to lowest-ever share of GDP (CNN)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021922334
U.S. Income Inequality Now Worse Than Many Latin American Countries
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022268073
Ranks of working poor increasing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022200197
Inequality Rages as Dwindling Wages Lock Millions in Poverty
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022198286
The Middle Class In America Is Being Wiped Out – Here Are 60 Facts That Prove It
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022144851
Child poverty rates increase unabated
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022268450
40 Percent of Americans Now Make Less than 1968 Minimum Wage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111631016
Corporate Profits Have Grown By 171 Percent Under ‘Anti-Business’ Obama
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014372334
US poverty on track to reach 46-year high; suburbs, underemployed workers, children hit hard
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002998131
Poverty, hunger among retirees increasing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002748342
The Economy is "Recovering" By Creating More Low-Wage Jobs... Increasingly Filled By Graduates
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022602162
"Recovery" in US is lifting profits, but not adding jobs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014414149
Obama to use pension funds of ordinary Americans to pay for bank mortgage settlements
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002205218
What Recovery? Across America, People in Distressed Cities and Small Towns Face Economic Catastrophe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022545596
Real wages decline; literally no one notices
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11172387
Wall Street Soars with Wealth as Wages Stagnate, Jobs Remain in a Slump
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12526154
Wages for bottom 90% declined 1.2% during 2009-2011 recovery, top 1% income grew 8.2%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022271466
Three Minimum Wage Jobs Needed To Afford Two-Bedroom Apartment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022578738
The Real Numbers: Half of America in Poverty -- and It's Creeping toward 75%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002290698
Incomes Flat in Recovery, but Not for the 1%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014400736
THIS is the economy in which our "moderate" President is working to fast-track the TPP, impose more austerity, and cut Social Security and Medicare:
http://m.
Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805
Obama To GOP: I’m Serious About Cutting The Social Safety Net - TPMDC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022507004
President Obama explains the need for a Grand Bargain
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022507426
Obama seeks to fast-track secret Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/23-5
How Wall Street Killed Financial Reform
It's bad enough that the banks strangled the Dodd-Frank law. Even worse is the way they did it - with a big assist from Congress and the White House.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-wall-street-killed-financial-reform-20120510
Obama's Top Economic Adviser Tells Democrats They'll Have to Swallow Entitlement Cuts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023930278
The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022246632
Obama Appoints Bain Capital Consultant Jeff Ziets to Top Post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662209
Obama selects former Monsanto lobbyist to be his TPP chief agriculture negotiator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662210
Wall Street Deregulation Garners Bipartisan Support Despite Devastating JPMorgan Report
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/wall-street-deregulation-_n_2910168.html
This is a complete list of Wall Street CEOs prosecuted for their role in the financial crisis
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3653154
Wall Street will get away with massive wave of criminality of 2008 - Statute of Limitations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022516719Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans (December 2013)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x380450
_________________________________________________
Jimmy Carter: "America no longer has a functioning democracy."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024222542#post2
When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556
When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432
GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116
The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414
Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121
Second that in the literal sense.
Response to woo me with science (Reply #99)
Name removed Message auto-removed
paulbibeau
(743 posts)ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Very businesslike. No frivolous holidays allowed.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)how we not only steer the country but our party.
The "Upcoming election" is a complete copout that can only serve to prop up the status quo. We are supposed to ignore reality out of fear of the insane opposition, fear so overwhelming that one must be willing to even significantly work the opposition agenda for them to supposedly keep them from doing so.
I don't get the supposed point here, the next election is always coming so what the hell does it have to do with anything?
It is stupid anyway, winners must be willing to risk losing. When your prime directive is desperately trying not to lose, striving to win is not even an option and eventually one becomes so risk adverse that the process of negotiating surrender is all that is left, preferring surrender to defeat and eventually what winning is loses all frame of reference and the ends are substituted by what used to be a means to them.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Just a thought.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Teabagger would post, because they call out the Republicans pretty much the same way the OP is doing with Obama and Democrats. No diff - except that the words "Democrat" and "Republican" need to be switched. Try it, and see if that's not so.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)What's important here? The labels or the policy?
I thought being a progressive meant that when someone in a bunker blows a kid's legs off with a Hellfire missile, you get angry about it. I thought when authorities don't take the 4th Amendment seriously, being a progressive means you do not stand for it.
The issue isn't about how weird it is that religious nutjobs are agreeing with me. The issue is that suddenly people like you are acting like Richard Nixon.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)They simply attack the GOP and Republican Party and proclaim not to have Party loyalty, like the OP.
I've seen their posts calling Republicans the same things you're calling the Democratic Party. They're a bunch of idiot Isolationists who don't have an understanding of the real world we live in and, apparently, you don't either.
Good thing you're in the minority. The majority of Americans actually approve of the president's drone program. Shocked?
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Part of the drone program is that we've moved on from targeted killings of al-Qaeda operatives we identify to "signature strikes" of people we don't even know, but we assume from their actions that they are terrorists.
People who operate as analysts or as drone pilots have come forward to say that there have clearly been cases where we don't have a clue who we're killing.
Which means, moral issues aside, there is a real question of whether our counterterrorism program is actually countering terrorism, or inflaming it.
As to whether I'm shocked that an American majority approves of something violent and idiotic done to foreigners, I'll throw a question back at you: Have you actually met an American?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And do those people you speak of have access to all intelligence the president has to make that educated assessment?
You're an isolationist if you believe the world is all kumbaya-hunky-dory and the United States is not the police of the world or a favorite target of Radical Extremists.
My question to you: Are you an Isolationist?
paulbibeau
(743 posts)1. That was rhetorical.
2. That argument has been used to justify many, many bad things. It falls apart on its own, and I do not need to touch it.
3. Your definition of isolationism seems to include three beliefs not definitive of isolationism. (I don't believe the first, do believe the second, and don't believe the third.)
4. No.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)1: In context with my post, it didn't come across as rhetorical. Sarcastic? Denigrating? Cynical? Yes. Rhetorical? No.
2: It's not an argument. It's a statement of fact wrapped in a query, because we both darn well know they don't. And the only reason why you "won't touch it" is because you know it would make you appear gullible - at best - to believe they do.
3: My definition is based on the fact that people who continue to excoriate this president regarding the Drone strikes are simply against any and all attempts by this country's leaders to protect said country. Being a pacifist is a good and noble thing in theory, but since 9/11/2001, it's pretty naive. President Obama has said, as Commander in Chief, that he will do everything and anything to keep this country safe, and keeping al-Qaeda scattered through drone attacks while minimizing civilian and military deaths is one step of the process toward that end.
4: Let's just agree to disagree on that one.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)1 and 4: Fine. Good. Whatever.
2. Really? You really can't think of why this argument falls apart? Even though Dick Cheney spent 8 years making this same exact argument to justify stuffing people into CIA black sites and invading Iraq? The SAME argument. "You don't know what we know, so just go shopping and we'll handle the national security stuff, 'kay?" In a free society, citizens are REQUIRED - not allowed, REQUIRED - to be skeptical of their government's handling of foreign policy and national security.
3. Isolationism does not have a situational definition. It has an ordinary, fixed definition, and it doesn't quite match up to your description. We'd have to deal with that before we dealt with the fact that I am definitely NOT an isolationist, and in fact agree with some of the president's policies. Also, pacifism is not the same as isolationism. So... please pick which straw man argument you want to use against me, and we will start from there.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)when Americans approved of the Iraq War.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)You want me to post a link to everything Ronald Reagan ever did? I mean, that guy was POPULAR.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The system is purchased and corrupt.
Jimmy Carter: "We no longer have a functioning democracy."
The DLC, and now the Third Way, are Koch-bankrolled, deliberate infiltration of the Democratic Party, designed to subvert the party from representing the interests of people to the interests of corporations.
The Third Way is corporate purchase of and subversion of democracy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1002&thread=4259980&pid=4260954
paulbibeau
(743 posts)It's like this.
Let's say Harry Reid went on TV last night and just strangled a bunch of lab puppies.
Why? Who the hell knows why?
I'm logging on the next day, and I'm saying "Hey guys, if Harry Reid is out there killing puppies we need to DO something about it. Can't let that shit happen. At the very least, as a writer and a citizen, and a person on the internet, you have to register your displeasure with it. Put some pressure on our side. Because when we let our side get away with stuff like that, it's bad for us in the long term, you feel me? Plus, killing puppies is a Republican thing. I'm pretty sure it was in the Fountainhead."
Some people are countering with, "Yeah, well... Bernie Freakin' Sanders has never killed a puppy in his life. If you're voting for guys who waffle on this issue, you gotta rethink first principles."
Okay. That's an argument. That's a real issue.
But there are WAY WAY TOO MANY people on this thread who would go online the next day and say the puppies had it coming.
billh58
(6,655 posts)and stop making shit up.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4261057
paulbibeau
(743 posts)I'm not really concerned with whether my tone sounds friendly enough. I honestly worried that there would be so many people who agreed with me about something that seems self-evident, that the piece would have no traction.
I really, really didn't think there would be an army of folks loudly and proudly missing the point and/or arguing that being a hack is a good thing.
I did not expect that at all.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Any questioning of their corporate masters' agenda is seen as a threat and must be silenced.
I'm too damn old, experienced and knowledgeable of the game, to hold my nose sit idly by. If that puts their undies in a knot, so much the better.
billh58
(6,655 posts)you may want to look in the mirror. You keep calling yourself a "writer," but that skill is not evident when you use straw man arguments to bolster a broad brush accusation of corporatism among long time Democrats who voted for JFK.
It's fine to be a Libertarian, or a Greenie, or a Socialist, or a Communist, and post on DU, but please don't use the "I didn't expect this reaction" excuse. Of course you fully expected the reaction you are seeing, and most likely counted on it so you could continue to pontificate on the evils on not being a purist Lefty.
Now carry on Mr. important (I am the light and the way) Blogger...
paulbibeau
(743 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...is because you said party loyalists are either "hacks, fools or operatives".
A lot of posters here saw those descriptive terms and took it personally.
For some reason.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)I'm okay with it though.
I think when one is out there arguing and making a case, one should always worry about hackdom. I'm hoping the drama will make people more aware after they go home, have a drink, and think about things.
If you're not a paid operative, it's never good to ignore facts, spin bad things, or otherwise play around with reality. The strongest case for your side is always the true one. And it always involves admitting stuff you don't like - to yourself, to others, etc.
And that doesn't mean, that never means, that you don't have to go to the polls and vote for the best reasonable option.
I voted for Terry Goddamn McAuliffe this election. That stung me. It hurt. That guy's a tool. But he was the better option.
Thanks for playing in the sandbox! This was totally fun.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)"The DU comment war is 117 posts long. The hatred makes me strong. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024259980"
You're a hoot and three quarters, bud.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)I have no doubt whatsoever.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Put his foot right in his mouth. Good catch....
billh58
(6,655 posts)with every post. Reminds me of another self-appointed "savior" who used to post on DU.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That kind of disruptive FUD effort doesn't work with me; it just makes me want to work twice as hard to "elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans..."
He's obviously proud of his disruptions, judging by his twitter posts. Very odd. A bit sad in a pathetic, no-life kind of way.
billh58
(6,655 posts)because he posts to his own blog, he will be accepted as a bona fide expert on all things political. In reality, he is an attention seeker who uses disruptive nonsense to cause an uproar, and then becomes "outraged" by the negative feedback. He operates on the "any publicity is good publicity" premise of hack writing.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Plus, you are simply wrong.
I am not outraged by the negative feedback at all. This is awesome.
And, why would I think being a blogger makes me an expert? I don't think that. I don't even think that a little bit. Jesus, who would think that?
Plus, plenty of people agree with me. They totally understand that you have to criticize Dems as a way of maintaining your intellectual integrity. My stuff is controversial, but there are always a good chunk of independent-minded readers who find themselves agreeing.
I think that you are sticking to this thread, because my piece hit a real nerve.
billh58
(6,655 posts)that he has a "following." How quaint...
MADem
(135,425 posts)How very .... grandiose! It goes with his belief that he has a "job" to do:
Who would "follow" (never mind give a job to) someone who calls DUers "fools" I wonder...?
No wonder he doesn't like Democrats--they certainly wouldn't want anything to do with him. I don't think he understands that what irritates people is his name-calling, not his POV that political stances should be questioned. He's "deliberately obtuse" for the purpose of creating a stir.
Pathetic.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Throw another log on the fire, why don't you?
paulbibeau
(743 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)You, OTOH, I've never seen before.
My first experience with you, you are calling DEMOCRATS at DEMOCRATIC Underground "hacks" and "fools." You're pretending that you invented the concept of "disagreement" here, which suggests you never bothered to read the TOS before you prepared your childishly self-aggrandizing OP. You're boasting about how much fun it is to goad and bait people, to shit stir, and to cause "drama," and you're so proud of yourself you're urging your pathetic few twitter "followers" to come to DU and see your work, and even linking to this page.
You've been offered guidance by many on this thread that suggests that you're knocking on the wrong damn door, that your behavior is disruptive and uncivil, and you just keep snarking and doubling down.
Keep on keeping on with your little "job" now. I'll bet I'm here long after your pathetic little dust has settled.
billh58
(6,655 posts)is just another Internet disrupter posting flame bait and eliciting the expected negative responses to feed a self-inflated ego. Pathetic indeed...
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 10:34 PM - Edit history (1)
So we're stuck with it. Anyway . . . happy New Year Jamaal510!
p.s. I tried both this morning. Jury: 3-3. Hosts: who knows.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...because the party has become too right wing for me. Does this mean I have to leave DU?
Agony
(2,605 posts)Seize The Moment! Plant Your Flag!
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/2014-seize-the-moment
How will civilized society happen if we Democrats don't speak UP about wrong headedness...
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)All that does is allow the GOP to go even further right and implement even worse policies where they have power.
Not to mention how it discourages people from voting or getting involved if it becomes too patently obvious there is no real substantive difference between the parties. The party has to take a stand against Wall Street and not simply be a slightly more socially liberal version of the GOP.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)No where in DUs TOS does it mention Democratic Party. I believe many of us realize that, in the current political environment, there are many Democratic party members who are not Democrats. What the are are corporatists. Since no "Corporatist" or Fascist party exists in the USA, they attach themselves to the other two parties. When the Republicans had more control over the Government they attached themselves in greater numbers to that party. Now that the Democratic Party is wrestling control away from the Republican party they are attaching themselves to the Democratic party in larger numbers. You must remember that these people are NOT Democrats, they are Fascists. They would not have ANY power in this country if they could not attach themselves to one of the two major parties. I will not vote for a Fascist who has taken shelter within the "big tent" of the Democratic party. That person is no Democrat in my mind.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)In the total absence of OP links I'll draw my own conclusions. Happy MMXIV.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)rusty fender
(3,428 posts)I am not a party loyalist. I am a leftist. I favor socialism and secularism. However, the best we can hope for, for the foreseeable future, is to hold the Repubs back from destroying our country and from killing as many poor people as possible.
At least the Dems will hold the line so that we will not be totally devastated. I would rather be complaining about how Hillary isn't progressive enough than how utterly batshit crazy Prez Crispy Cream is.
If the Repubs gain control of the Senate and the WH, many more, tenfold even, will suffer worse ills than anyone can imagine.
Like I have said, I have never been for the Status Quo, but that is really all we can achieve given the reality of our situation.
billh58
(6,655 posts)that makes you either a hack, a fool, or an operative. According to mainstream Democrats, your realistic assessment of the political climate in this country makes you both knowledgeable and informed.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...in slow motion. It should be pushing the opposite of the Republican agenda, not a watered down version of it. Creeping right wing policies are not the best we can hope for. We can hope for a lot better.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Happy new year msanthrope! 
paulbibeau
(743 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)billh58
(6,655 posts)Important stuff there don't ya know...?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)paulbibeau
(743 posts)Is there nowhere out there on the internet for you to go?
Brightly...
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Jesus, I didn't get that memo.
I'll plug my blog if you wish...
Also, why do you keep reading my stuff? Seriously. You're not a fan. But you can't stay away. You're like SidDithers.
Are you SidDithers?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)it's funny.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Kind of a 90s thing, but I guess we're ready for a revival.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Leonard Pinth Garnell was a "90s thing".
Oh... I see where you're going.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
Number23
(24,544 posts)exercise in dumbfuckery.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)paulbibeau
(743 posts)1. There's a Sotomayor thread?
2. You CAME BACK? You read the guy whose writing you hate for the umpteenth time, and then you actually CAME BACK AND CHECKED THE COMMENTS AND DOVE IN? REALLY? I don't mind or anything. You are far from my only detractor. But it's delightfully, bafflingly creepy.
billh58
(6,655 posts)but not surprising, names from the PUMA wars, which is what this thread mirrors.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Ron Paul again. How predictable...and how sad.
The Third Way is pathetically desperate to focus on fringe, irrelevant Libertarian politicians. Libertarians who never get anywhere *near* the Presidency.... not just because the people detest their cruel views on social programs, but also and especially because the corporate elite would *never* back them financially.
Yet the corporate propaganda is desperately focused on elevating and then trashing them anyway. Why? Because they remind voters of Third Way betrayals on the wasteful, cruel drug wars; the bloody wars of empire; and the neo-fascistic surveillance state.
There's an easy solution to the Third Way obsession with fringe Libertarians:
[font size=3]Become the party that not only restores our Constitution and ends the surveillance state, but also reins in Wall Street, reduces inequality, ends the absurd drug wars, and STRENGTHENS social safety nets.
Third Way Democrats would not have to worry about fringe Libertarians at all if they would crawl out of their corporate Masters' pockets for long enough to own the issues they SHOULD own. [/font size]
.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)You got a problem with that????
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Don't you have cats or something?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)paulbibeau
(743 posts)But seriously, why? WHY?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)demonstration in action of what women can expect from your political philosophy.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Seriously though, why are you still here? You don't like my stuff, correct? You're opposed to me and all my works and all my pomps.
You read many of the things I write, and you always comment. And then come back, repeatedly.
It's not defensiveness. I totally get a kick out of whatever weird thing is driving you to do this.
But why?
You will not answer. You're Bartleby.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)stigmatizing a medical condition. Would you stigmatize diabetes? Then why would you stigmatize mental illness?
It is also a demonstration of what your political philosophy offers women.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)paulbibeau
(743 posts)...to comment on the fact that you dislike my writing, you've said so repeatedly, and yet you come back constantly and fill the thread with comments.
I want to get an answer about why you do this.
Failing that, I want to bring it to your attention, because maybe you don't realize you're doing this. Maybe you're in a fugue state. Are you in a fugue state? Did I just insult people in fugue states?
Also, I want to marvel at it, like you would a pretty waterfall, or a bright, sparkly star. A star of pure crazy.
Sorry. Did it again.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Party quite the favor.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)What is it about my political philosophy that is sexist or misogynistic, or whatever term you want to use?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)paulbibeau
(743 posts)Awesome. What draws them back? Why? This thing is still on the front page of the General Discussion section with a little flamey icon.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)to pollute the thread with distraction. I have written about the apparent "last word" rule:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801
Their purpose is to thoroughly hijack, pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur. Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Dissent and organization online are disrupted with surveillance and propaganda.
It is no accident that propaganda brigades post new threads on discussion boards far out of proportion to their presence in the community, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange.
The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)When has the site ever disallowed Third Way propaganda?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Trust me. It's *much* more effective to let them stand.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)If you can convince yourself that Dems disenchanted with the current state of the Party are really Naderities or Paulites or some other -ite that never votes for Dems anyway, you don't have to change. If, on the other hand, they're people who have consistently supported Dems in the past, that's pretty scary.
It's a variation of the "hater" meme: if you don't support X, you're a hater. The idea that you don't support someone/something for a reason is too scary.
Exultant Democracy
(6,597 posts)and then vote D. Its not rocket science, and it isn't as fucking stupid as letting the republicans win.
sagat
(241 posts)and it's only January.
Response to sagat (Reply #133)
woo me with science This message was self-deleted by its author.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
paulbibeau
(743 posts)I'm getting tried of swatting at these stupid straw man arguments.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...the OP told anyone to "stay home" and not vote in 2014. Thanks.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)No spoil is necessary. No looking for a better candidate is necessary, unless the plan is to run more corporate predators.
That seems to be exactly what the Corporate Brigade is acknowledging about their intent here.
How telling that there's never a credible positive message anymore. Never. Never a post about the uniting positive agenda on behalf of the 99 percent. The message has devolved, consistently, into berating and threats about the lesser of two evils.
That says it all, about what the Third Way really is.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Of course, we have been talking about this for years.
Response to paulbibeau (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)You FAIL.
Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #154)
Name removed Message auto-removed
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Response to paulbibeau (Reply #165)
Name removed Message auto-removed
paulbibeau
(743 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...for letting all us long-time DUers know exactly what is going on. Because those of us who have been here for over 10 years, obviously can't figure that out for ourselves.
Response to ljm2002 (Reply #180)
Name removed Message auto-removed
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Yea those nasty corporations advocating for unions, living wage jobs, SS COL increases, raising the cap, eliminating subsidies, expanding the EPA and FDA, pushing for clean air and reducing global climate change ....on and on etc.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #190)
Name removed Message auto-removed
bobduca
(1,763 posts)where is MIRT when you need it?
49 posts in 2 days... and lecturing everyone here.. like i posted upthread.
WELCOME BACK... whoever you were.
Response to bobduca (Reply #198)
Name removed Message auto-removed
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Response to bobduca (Reply #200)
Name removed Message auto-removed
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
Squinch
(59,462 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)winning I will not vote for them simply because they agree with me on issues. I have lived through all the third party attempts since JFK's election. I refuse to let the rethugs win because I did not vote for the democrats. IF ever a third party that I agree with should show itself strong enough to win - I will then vote for them.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)No thanks.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Next, you may try to tell us that "A government of the people, by the people, and for the people..." means democracy and not party politics.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Thanks so much for commenting!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)by winter is coming.
The whole concept of "loyalty" is corrosive.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4262631
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)I live in where the hell am I, virginny. I am voting dem from sheriff on up,if a dem even tries to run for a small office here. Most times on the state delegate level a dem doesn't even try and when they do, the support is very weak. The teabags have been taking over the small county offices here or if not they have forced the regular gop hack to spin right, it ain't pretty. What I saw in 08 was we didn't even have a dem party on the county level where I live, but with so many voting for Obama even though he didn't carry this county, in 12 we actually got some attention from the national party to be able to do some campaigning, so Obama lost this county in 12 but at least there is some organization which hopefully maybe a dem can win in one of the county seats or boards. Some of you guys are looking at a big picture, I'm looking at very local small issue fights where the teabags are organized and taking over I'm talking about redistricting, vagina probes,voter id and boards of education, this is no joke. So yeah, I'm a leftie, I am voting for any hack that wants to claim they're a dem where I live because the rightwing loons are taking seats like taking candy from a baby here.
I am glad McAuliffe won, no progressive was going to win, I'm hoping he can get mcaid expansion done,of course there is the possibility he may have gotten a watch from ole Johnnie boy too but at least he won't be probing my daughters vagina. I'll vote for Hillary also, but for now I am hoping someone shows up here who can win as my delegate who doesn't want to cut spending for poor folks and prevent old ladies from voting because they never had a drivers license and were born at home.If it where up to me, we would have single payer, get rid of welfare to work which is a big giveaway to corporations to supply them with a steady low wage work force, we would be cutting military spending even thought the economy of Virginia went from growing tobaccy to growing the military, we would be sending every kid to college who wants to go,abortion would be paid for like any other medical procedure covered under mcaid etc. etc etc. Can't get any of that done if the people who do the redistricting also want to teach creationism as science at the local school and believe the citizens of this county should arm themselves in case of a natural disaster in the city. {no kidding our local teabags had a talk on what the county should do if hordes of city folks come over the bridge in a time of disaster, they advertised it by showing a picture of an ar-15}
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)What a perfect bumper sticker for the Third Way:
[font size=5]"I vote corporate Democratic: I don't CARE what they stand for!"[/font size]
[font size=18]EITHER WAY![/font size]
_____________________________________________________________
And the influx continues...
The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting personas is steady and unnatural:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4216987
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367
States that build surveillance machines also build propaganda machines.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Post that on PartyLoyaltyIsForHacksunderground.com
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It is time to be very clear that the Third Way is not "moderate" or "centrist" or even "democratic." It is a predatory, Koch-funded, deliberate infiltration of the Democratic Party by corporate interests.* It is an anti-democratic, corporate-purchased subversion of government representing people into government serving corporations.
[font size=3]When your child or your party has an infiltrating, malignant tumor, you do not pledge loyalty to the tumor because it is now part of your child.
You excise it.[/font size]
We have taught the Third Way that they can perpetrate corporate authoritarian assaults and suffer no consequences whatsoever. It's time to teach them just the opposite, and take our party back.
The Shocking Redistribution of Wealth in the Past Five Years
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024257660
Wealth of world's billionaires has doubled since 2009.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024041209
Top 1% get 121% of income gains since 2009 (100% of new income + 21% from your old income)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022384139
Wages have fallen to a record low as a share of America’s gross domestic product.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022183930
U.S. corporate profits stronger than ever, workers' wages fallen to lowest-ever share of GDP (CNN)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021922334
U.S. Income Inequality Now Worse Than Many Latin American Countries
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022268073
Ranks of working poor increasing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022200197
Inequality Rages as Dwindling Wages Lock Millions in Poverty
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022198286
The Middle Class In America Is Being Wiped Out – Here Are 60 Facts That Prove It
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022144851
Child poverty rates increase unabated
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022268450
40 Percent of Americans Now Make Less than 1968 Minimum Wage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111631016
Corporate Profits Have Grown By 171 Percent Under ‘Anti-Business’ Obama
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014372334
US poverty on track to reach 46-year high; suburbs, underemployed workers, children hit hard
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002998131
Poverty, hunger among retirees increasing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002748342
The Economy is "Recovering" By Creating More Low-Wage Jobs... Increasingly Filled By Graduates
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022602162
"Recovery" in US is lifting profits, but not adding jobs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014414149
Obama to use pension funds of ordinary Americans to pay for bank mortgage settlements
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002205218
What Recovery? Across America, People in Distressed Cities and Small Towns Face Economic Catastrophe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022545596
Real wages decline; literally no one notices
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11172387
Wall Street Soars with Wealth as Wages Stagnate, Jobs Remain in a Slump
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12526154
Wages for bottom 90% declined 1.2% during 2009-2011 recovery, top 1% income grew 8.2%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022271466
Three Minimum Wage Jobs Needed To Afford Two-Bedroom Apartment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022578738
The Real Numbers: Half of America in Poverty -- and It's Creeping toward 75%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002290698
Incomes Flat in Recovery, but Not for the 1%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014400736
THIS is the economy in which our "moderate" President is working to fast-track the TPP, impose more austerity, and cut Social Security and Medicare:
http://m.
Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805
Obama To GOP: I’m Serious About Cutting The Social Safety Net - TPMDC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022507004
President Obama explains the need for a Grand Bargain
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022507426
Obama seeks to fast-track secret Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/23-5
How Wall Street Killed Financial Reform
It's bad enough that the banks strangled the Dodd-Frank law. Even worse is the way they did it - with a big assist from Congress and the White House.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-wall-street-killed-financial-reform-20120510
Obama's Top Economic Adviser Tells Democrats They'll Have to Swallow Entitlement Cuts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023930278
The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022246632
Obama Appoints Bain Capital Consultant Jeff Ziets to Top Post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662209
Obama selects former Monsanto lobbyist to be his TPP chief agriculture negotiator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662210
Wall Street Deregulation Garners Bipartisan Support Despite Devastating JPMorgan Report
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/wall-street-deregulation-_n_2910168.html
This is a complete list of Wall Street CEOs prosecuted for their role in the financial crisis
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3653154
Wall Street will get away with massive wave of criminality of 2008 - Statute of Limitations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022516719Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans (December 2013)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x380450
_________________________________________________
Jimmy Carter: "America no longer has a functioning democracy."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024222542#post2
When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556
When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432
GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116
The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414
Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121
steve2470
(37,481 posts)That way, we can vote Democratic AND vote progressive. Hopefully 2014 will see that groundswell of support starting and lasting for many many years. It's about time after 34 years of Reaganism.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)If progressives want to succeed at the federal level, they must first succeed at the local level. I said this before, but build your bench. Get progressives elected to school board, council, mayor, etc.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)1. Electric Light Orchestra was a criminally underrated band.
2. Florida's only real export is material for true crime shows.
3. The NY Yankees are a sign of the physical reality of the devil.
4. Helen Mirren should be the final arbiter of any important dispute.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)My fantasy of the way this ends is that Helen Mirren actually logs on and writes, "Well, yeah, corporatism and blowing people up with drones is just plain wrong, and anyone should be willing to say that, political loyalty be damned."
But she'd write it better. Because she's Helen Mirren.
Response to woo me with science (Reply #285)
paulbibeau This message was self-deleted by its author.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)If a party represents your interests/beliefs, calling upon "loyalty" isn't necessary to garner support. If a party doesn't represent your interests/beliefs, "loyalty" is undeserved. Any call for "loyalty" should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)What you just wrote cuts through all the bullshit to the heart of the matter.
I would replace "skepticism" with "derision and dismissal," because it is well past time to vehemently reject and denounce such manipulative, anti-democratic rhetoric from corporatists.
Your post should be an OP.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)
struggle4progress
(126,109 posts)of a state that's split almost 50-50 Dem-Repub
And for a long time our state and federal representation mirrored that 50-50 split
Then 2010 came along and I started hearing a bunch of "Dems aren't liberal enough" crap from people who kept their brains in brown paper bags in the attic, and we lost the state legislature -- allowing the Repubs to redistrict and gerrymander''
The upshot was that in 2012, although a majority of folk in my state voted Dem, an overwhelming majority of our state and federal seats went to wingnut or Tea Potty clowns, due to the gerrymander
If you want to feel morally pure, I guess you can go ahead and write in Groucho Marx and John Lennon, in which case we can part ways amicably with my very best wishes to you -- because down here in the reality-based-community my friends and I are gonna be working our butts to the bone at least until hell freezes over, doing our best to elect all the-lessers-of-two-evils and making damn sure the-lessers-of-two-evils all know who brought them to the dance so they feel they owe us a twirl across the dance floor
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)*((Looks like I overlooked MAdem's post here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4260361)))
...
Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
Granted, the description is nuanced and leaves us a lot of freedom, but I thought it was worth pointing out on a thread that's gotten 200+ replies without any mention of the TOS we have all agreed to.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The Third Way was never a grass roots or populist phenomenon. The Third Way is a Wall Street, Koch-bankrolled, deliberate infiltration of the Democratic Party to transform the party's mission from representing The People to serving corporations.*
The Third Way is not "moderate" or "centrist" or even "democratic." It is an anti-democratic, corporate-purchased, predatory subversion of representative government. The people have indicated clearly and repeatedly that we don't want a fascist surveillance state, or austerity, or more warmongering at the expense of our schools and our cities and our children. The predation coming out of Washington has not even remotely resembled what the people have asked for, for some time now. The mission of infiltrating Third Way corporatists is to pretend to work for us, while actually serving their corporate Masters.
[font size=3]When your child or your party has an infiltrating, malignant tumor, you do not pledge loyalty to the tumor because it is now part of your child.
You excise it.[/font size]
We have taught the Third Way that they can perpetrate corporate authoritarian assaults and suffer no consequences whatsoever. It's time to teach them just the opposite, and get the corporate corruption out of the party.
________________________________________________________
Jimmy Carter: "We no longer have a functioning democracy."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024222542#post2
When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556
When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432
GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116
The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414
Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121
Hekate
(100,133 posts)
steve2470
(37,481 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
steve2470
(37,481 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)(Disclaimer, professional political operative here).
The county and local parties are the ones who ultimately field the candidates and choose the nominees. In New Jersey, the candidates on the primary ballot who run under the 'party line' (X County Democrats or Republicans) under their name are chosen at a county convention. Having voting credentials at the conventions varies by county and party (each has their own set of rules) but I can say that going to several of these conventions, more often than not there is only one candidate to step forward to put his/her name on the ballot and many (especially local) offices have nobody running at all. (I've voted in many a local election where I have no choice but to vote for the Republican because he/she is running unopposed). In NJ you can run 'off the line' but it's very rare that you will make it through the primary (the GOP is more successful at this). What gets interesting is when a district includes more than one county and the different county parties do not agree on a candidate.
If you would like to take back the Democratic party and make it more progressive, this is where I suggest you start.
Keep in mind when parties choose federal candidates, the local, county, and state level candidates are a farm system for Congress (think of them as minor league baseball). It's easier to elect Mayor Joe Smith or State Senator Mary Jones to congress than it is to elect anydude Bob Williams to congress (this does vary by year-- Bob Williams very well could have been elected in 2010's climate). To continue with the sports analogy, know who is sitting on the bench for your local party. If your party has a weak bench (as some state and county parties do), then work on building your bench and realize that making it to the big leagues might take a few election cycles. Start by electing progressive school board members, city council members, mayors, county governments, state legislators, etc.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)Instead of rallying behind a presidential candidate 2 years away, let's take back our local parties and build the bench.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)I do NOT have enough involvement at the local level, and as a citizen it's something I should work on. I live in Virginia, which is a purple state gerrymandered to look red.
In my defense, the OP is about the willingness to criticize your own side, and some people have run with it as a justification for third party voting. I don't actually mention such in the OP.
But you have goaded me into something. Local engagement IS a New Year's resolution. If you're from my state, you're looking at the state house and saying we have to change these guys before the next Census.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)I was in a very red part (9th congressional district) and the local committees were great. The one thing I will say about them is that most of them were over 70 and I would love to see some younger blood at the committee meetings.
Show up at the county/city Democratic party meetings.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
NCLefty
(3,678 posts):/
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)party loyalty is just people organizing around a set of ideals for collective action ... whenever I read posts like this all I see is a bunch of folks complaining about this policy or that policy or this tactic or that tactic.
I am of that contingent and couldn't help but notice the dodge response.
I do not know about corporate prop machince; but you post clearly reads like a ron paul "libertarian" screed to the weak and disaffected.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Do you think strong criticism of the drone campaign and NSA procedures is NOT a valid thing for Democrats to do?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(Yes ... I know un-Democratical is not a word, but ...)
No. If the U.S. is going to prosecute war/seek to "get" those that are actively seeking to do us harm, I support a drone program over placing American servicemen (and women) at risk. And, I am not overly concerned with regard to the NSA procedures ... since the NSA is doing far less than corporations with respect to data-mining and the misuse of personal information.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Whether we like it or not, the majority of Americans believe that are a Nation a lot of smaller but power-hungry Nations would LOVE to conquer or take down. We can never be a Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, or even England that have the privilege and fortune not to be as coveted as a target and conquest as this country.
And that's why we'll always find our country in some conflict abroad - as we did even under the "Peace and Prosperity" president, President Clinton!
But above all else, we need to keep al-Qaeda disassembled so that they don't unite and plan another attack on us, and that's what the Drones are doing without the painful loss of more American lives. I wish the Pacifists understood that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)an end to the drone program are pacifists.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Would they have to kill innocent civilians for example?
BTW. Ron Paul doesn't eat live puppies as far as I know. And neither do you as far as I know. I guess that makes you one of them Paul-Bots too.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I detest the loss of innocent life, regardless of the Administration in office; but on the other hand, innocent lives are always lost in conflicts ... and absent the end of U.S. involvement in this and every other conflict, I support the drone program, even with its flaws, over other options for prosecuting that conflict.
BTW, no one has said that Ron Paul eats live puppies or any other such hyperbolic rhetoric ... I do, however, have strong opinions about Paul and the fantasy libertarian world that he has drawn folks into. I, further, have strong opinions about Paul supporters that use a Democratic message board to promote dissension among Democrats.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)But I think you're being cavalier about the serious flaws in the drone program, and that attitude is getting people killed.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Ron Paul is a lunatic; but, cavalier or not, what are the alternatives to drone program that won't kill innocents?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)First, the drone attacks are not intended to blow up wedding parties and town meetings (except for maybe if the target of the attack was attendance and there was/is no better opportunity).
Secondly, there really is no way for those of us on the out-side can determine what really occurred.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The Third Way is pathetically desperate to focus on fringe, irrelevant Libertarian politicians. Libertarians who never get anywhere *near* the Presidency.... not just because the people detest their cruel views on social programs, but also and especially because the corporate elite would *never* back them financially.
Yet the corporate propaganda is desperately focused on elevating and then trashing them anyway. Why? Because they remind voters of Third Way betrayals on the wasteful, cruel drug wars; the bloody wars of empire; and the neo-fascistic surveillance state.
There's an easy solution to the Third Way obsession with fringe Libertarians:
[font size=3]Become the party that not only restores our Constitution and ends the surveillance state, but also reins in Wall Street, reduces inequality, ends the absurd drug wars, and STRENGTHENS social safety nets.[/font size]
Third Way Democrats would not have to worry about fringe Libertarians at all if they would crawl out of their corporate Masters' pockets for long enough to own the issues they SHOULD own.
.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)loyalists...
It's telling.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)I CERTAINLY think so. I think it's a real sign that they don't have a good argument.
I'm coining this shit -- It's "Hack Apologetics."
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)Since Republicans are worse when you weigh policy to policy compared to Democrats I am wondering what you do or plan to do.
If two politician are both for drone strikes, but one is pro choice and the other is antichoice, do you stay home?
I apply a strategy of the greater good, which 100% of the time means I vote for the Democrat.
The OP has stated this is what he did voting for Mcaliff, are you ok with that?
Post 205:
"And that doesn't mean, that never means, that you don't have to go to the polls and vote for the best reasonable option.
I voted for Terry Goddamn McAuliffe this election. That stung me. It hurt. That guy's a tool. But he was the better option"
Romulox
(25,960 posts)XRubicon
(2,241 posts)Or voting for greater good?
What do you think about Paul's approach to this dilemma?
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)is something that one must have to a certain extent. The Republicans would be worse than our bumbling party, and even our party has factions that would make things worse.
Criticizing the administration too much will bring on forces much worse than they are.
I find myself making excuses for Obama - his picks for advisors, top jobs, etc., are recycled from previous administrations and the result is a progressive speaking president with conservative acting policies.
I have to stay loyal because I fear the alternatives are worse.
Will check out your link and see what solutions you have for my problem.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)This is brilliant.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)I was hoping someone would notice. I did this whole blog post once of how Skynet ended up having the personality of Mitt Romney. I don't think we use Skynet enough in our political discourse.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Romney Skynet viewed the expiration of the Bush tax cuts as an attack and decided that government had to be shut down.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)DU is richer since the paulbibeau arrival. 
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Be loyal to others and you betray your values.
Be loyal to your values and you betray other people.
Be loyal to yourself and you limit your room for growth.
Perhaps we should abandon the concept of loyalty.
Progressive dog
(7,598 posts)if they can win. That's why Jefferson first complained about them and then formed one. They are necessary to our system and they are all over the world where people can vote. The only way to end it is to get rid of that damn voting, kind of like the Republicans are doing at the state level. I don't see how a democrat can think this way, so I have a hard time believing that you are one.
The NSA stuff has been way overblown by Snowden, the 1%'er Greenwald (yeah he'd be a 1%'er if he lived here-probably higher up in Brazil), and his "Libertarian" Paulite allies.
The drone attacks are a pretty mild form of war, compared with what we did in Iraq. I also supported the "illegal" seizure of Bin Laden from his vacation home in Pakistan.
MADem
(135,425 posts) bluestate10
(10,942 posts)The tea party and republicans are a danger to the very fabric of democracy. Only the obtuse can't see that fact.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Agony
(2,605 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)"regardless of whether those Republicans have an R or D after their name."
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)ETA: OK, I missed a few.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 2, 2014, 11:43 PM - Edit history (1)
In post 205 you wrote you voted for the best option.
Post 205:
"And that doesn't mean, that never means, that you don't have to go to the polls and vote for the best reasonable option.
I voted for Terry Goddamn McAuliffe this election. That stung me. It hurt. That guy's a tool. But he was the better option"
I can't imagine where you would ever choose anyone but a Democrat, could you give me an example where you picked other than Democrat?
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)But I have no problem whatsoever linking to my blog. I freely and cheerfully admit that. I don't need your permission.
Here's what I know: If the message takes hold, it takes hold. The message lives or dies on its own.
The reason you're getting personal is you can't really argue with the message.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)I am not sure what your message is...
paulbibeau
(743 posts)XRubicon
(2,241 posts)I vote straight-ticket Dem!
Just not out of loyalty. And when they're jackasses, I say so. Like, right before the election between Cucinelli and McAuliffe I was telling all my friends "You have to vote for that jackass, McAuliffe, because he doesn't want a war on your genitals."
See? Loyalty is NOT the same thing as strategy.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)paulbibeau
(743 posts)Also, I don't smoke. JUST LIKE HITLER!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)If a party represents your interests/beliefs, calling upon "loyalty" isn't necessary to garner support. If a party doesn't represent your interests/beliefs, "loyalty" is undeserved. Any call for "loyalty" should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism.
It's the inequality, stupid.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)but think things are often viewed differently on a blog or discussion forum. On discussion forums, teams seem to form. People have different mentalities and different reasons they are here.
1)Some people here only go after problems in the democratic party, barely mentioning republicans. They are people who would never be described as party loyalists. They are also some of the most important members of the party. They are the best group around when it comes to shooting down trial balloons that are really promoting possible bad policies for the party. Many of them claim no allegiance to the party, even though they almost always vote for democrats. Their vote must be earned, it is not given.
2)Some do nothing but rail against republicans. Their anger at the incompetence and hate of the right wing drives them politically. They are of huge benefit to the democratic party as they make sure everyone is aware of the hateful policies of the right. It is almost a kind of "off label" voter suppression. Make centrists and righties aware of the negative policies they have supported for a lifetime or years.
3)Some only praise democrats, no matter the policy. They can find no wrong. These are the loyalists. And to be clear, just about all of these people find faults in the democratic party, they just find it more important to build support. They do promote the brand "democrat" and it is extremely important that they do. With all of the negativity, they put a positive perspective on things. They work to highlight the good, and spin the bad. They should not be called names or scoffed at. They are extremely important to the party.
4)Some attack republicans and democrats when they are wrong, and support democrats when they are right(repubs are right so infrequent it wasn't worth mentioning). Their importance can't be overlooked. Most of them are excellent when talking politics in a bar or social setting. They are very well rounded in todays topics and current events. Excellent people to speak for the party without fawning over it.
I guess what I am trying to say is that it is not beneficial to sit their and call groups of people names because they think there are different ways to win the fight. Each group is very important to the survival of the party. Each group plays a vital role. The party is flawed, always will be. The only perfect democrat to some is themselves. It can be a very myopic view. We can all learn something from Sabrina. We can all learn something from Prosense. Open your mind and understand it takes multiple thought process and groups of people to work for something so big. So while I do like what you said overall, the attack on a vital group when it comes to moving the US forward is not needed. Party loyalists are much more than hacks, fools and operatives. I am sure someone could put up a post about members of du that you respect calling them hacks, fools, and operatives working dissent from the right. Neither would be fair.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)To your point 3) about those who only praise...
Is this a discussion board or a forum for people to posture and spin? Clearly its both.
A subset of "loyalists" exhibit their inability to debate, cede point and constantly rely on dishonest rhetorical techniques : ad hominem , appeals to authority, guilt by association to name just a few.
People who come to discuss policy are at cross-purposes with this segment of loyalists.
I've often thought that much of the disagreement here comes from these sets of poster's expectations being impossible to reconcile.
One set of people are trying to discuss politics and why it has lurched rightward and ways to get the democrats to have a more progressive and liberal agenda. Another small group (all on my ignore list) seems hell bent on just stifling dissent, in the name of public relations.
You can't have discussion with someone running a Public Relations operation.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)As you said, they are "all on my ignore list", so the whole argument should be of no consequence to you. So much anger is shown towards the "loyalists", yet very little is shown towards the rw moles who act like they are attacking from the left. They are the true disruptors.
"I've often thought that much of the disagreement here comes from these sets of poster's expectations being impossible to reconcile."
The disagreements come from all sides, it is a discussion board.
You don't need to have a discussion with someone running a Public Relations operation, that is why you have them all on ignore. The whole topic should be insignificant to you as you do not see these individuals posts.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Agreed re: RW trolls, see my MIRT alert and dead zombie sockpuppet/troll upthread was nuked because I pointed out his ridiculous post count.
I take your point about my admission that they are all on ignore, that's not entirely true. Only those posters who are in my view caught using fallacious or dishonest rhetoric. I do think that those who violate rules of discussion should be ignored.
And I do have a warped perspective from many here as I don't interact with RW morons in real life, by choice. I recognize that is not typical for most and many people endure right wing morons in their family and work.
That's why I focus on the third-way arguments and highlighting how most if not all of the arguments are rhetorically fallacious and thus should be discounted by people who value honesty and integrity.
Cheers!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Differences are minor, except with respect to one group. You can see from my posting history that I have gone after democrats and republicans. I just know, at this point in time, I can only have a true effect on one party.
Rock on bobduca!!!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression*
http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.
1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical."
4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.
6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."
9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.
15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.
_____________________________________________________
*Thanks to Matariki for reposting this list recently.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...being an important element in all significant legislation.
Gothmog
(179,548 posts)I thought that this editorial was decent http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-the-resurgent-progressives/2014/01/01/3fc6c686-723c-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html
The resurgent progressives are battling a double standard. They are asking why it is that “populism” is a good thing when it’s invoked by the tea party against “liberal elites” but suddenly a bad thing when it describes efforts to raise the minimum wage and take other steps toward a fairer system of economic rewards.
And here’s why moderates should be cheering them on: When politicians can ignore the questions posed by the left and are pushed to focus almost exclusively on the right’s concerns about “big government” and its unquestioning faith in deregulated markets, the result is immoderate and ultimately impractical policy. To create a real center, you need a real left.
I have no trouble with the people on this thread trying to move the center
treestar
(82,383 posts)Say you are a worker who belongs to a Union. Does sticking by that Union and supporting it make you a fool?