To those whose enemy litmus is anyone who criticizes a democrat

[whatchamacallit]

Last edited Thu Jul 10, 2014, 06:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Someday, after a certain level of participation in betrayal of the 99%, a certain level of participation in wars of opportunity, a certain level of participation in the shredding of our rights... just being a democrat will no longer be enough. Just sayin.

BTW someday is long passed.

[whatchamacallit]

2. Yeah

I think people like an easy to navigate, black and white world. Simplifying and distilling everything to team identity. Too bad...

[BainsBane]

3. It's never been enough

but it's a hell of a lot better than the batshit RWers.

[McCamy Taylor]

4. In the Democratic primary it is ok to criticize a democrat. In the general it isn't.

Does that help?

[whatchamacallit]

5. Heh

Thanks for clearing that up.

[cui bono]

6. Sure, if all you care about is winning and losing and then ignoring actual policy implementation.

Get it?

[leftstreet]

7. But you can't ignore your policy implementation unless you win!

See?

[reddread]

80. that is what promises are made for

[840high]

26. ....

[Andy823]

8. But don't forget

Those who have a "litmus" test of "my way or the highway". People have the right to a different opinion, and a right to complain and criticize politicians, but for many it seems that if you don't agree with their view of what a liberal really is then you become the enemy. I don't have to accept another person view on things, and I don't expect them to accept mine. I would never say someone is not a liberal, nor would I call someone an authoritarian, party loyalist, or other things simply because they support the President and the party. People can disagree with each other and still be a liberal. Don't you agree?

[Skidmore]

13. Well stated.

[cui bono]

30. But don't forget

That goes both ways.

And in fact, authoritarian and party loyalist are normal, descriptive terms to use in political discussions. ODS however, is not, and is derogatory and is used way too often on DU simply because one makes a criticism of Obama.

[LWolf]

46. I think the term liberal means very little

and is used to manipulate people.

Liberal can be defined so many different ways, and so very broadly, that it loses any concrete meaning. So of course, people can be liberals and disagree with each other.

I would be considered, by conventional wisdom, to be a social liberal. I consider neo-liberals, who are economic liberals, to be the enemy; as much the enemy as neo-conservatives, the christian right, and the tea party.

[11 Bravo]

9. SCOTUS n/t

[reddread]

73. BOGUS n/t

[whatchamacallit]

15. Maybe you can provide some samples of this "constant criticism"

you attribute to me.

[bigtree]

18. that was over the top

I apologize.

[whatchamacallit]

19. Thanks

for the gracious apology.

[Enrique]

16. i agree with whatchamacalit that you should back up what you said

or else take it back.

[MohRokTah]

11. I am immediately suspicious of anybody critical of Democrats.

That suspicion plays out as being accurate at least 99% of the time.

[HangOnKids]

17. Me Too! It Is A Pretzel Kind Of Thing!

So glad you agree!!!!!!!!

[Rex]

45. I am instantly suspicious of anyone that gets caught with a sockpuppet.

It is a pretzel kind of thing!

[Puzzledtraveller]

56. You think so too?

HAHA, nice to see someone else noticed. Ahem, cough, Moh, cough, cough, Rok , .....Tah, whew, that was a bad hairball!

[F4lconF16]

20. "I am immediately suspicious of anybody critical of Democrats"

Does nothing about that sentence seem wrong to you?

Sure, Republicans are insane and would do far worse to us, and I support any Democrats over Republicans but wow, the implications of that sentence and the one following make me nervous.

[MohRokTah]

21. "Does nothing about that sentence seem wrong to you? "

Weirdly worded question.

Nothing about that sentence seems wrong to me.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. A primary contest usually involves Democrats being critical of one another.

In 2008, Obama was wildly critical of Hillary and she was wildly critical of him. Think about it. If being critical of a Democrat is always bad, then every elected Democrat practices bad politics. Obama sent to my home mailers which said Hillary wanted to pick my pocket using her terrible idea, mandated insurance purchase. Called her a thief, then implemented her policy instead of the one he claimed to support. So. Politics is politics, not a puppy cuddle.

[Armstead]

92. That would mean just about every Democrat at one time or another

Heck, as someone posted above, President Obama had some choice words for Hilary during the primaries -- and she had some choice words about Obama...and that's just one example.

[L0oniX]

22. Democrat exceptionalists are above scrutiny ...and introspect.

Have a nice day.

[MohRokTah]

32. Lefists purists are beyond contempt.

They deserve no respect as they are unreliable voters, hence their issues are not worthy of consideration.

[L0oniX]

40. "purists"? LMAO Ok whatever. Enjoy your extreme descriptions.

They deserve no respect as they are unreliable voter

Of course you can count on the lock step corporate centrist crowd so you don't need the left. You can count on Rino voters too. It's a shame that some Dems have sold out their party to the money to the point where it's not the party it once was. Of course their are plenty of the true believers that are just fine with that. They deserve the watered down Dem party they get since they are not willing to fight for what is right and defer to the simplistic means of going for mindless lock step votes.

[MohRokTah]

41. Thank you so much.

You've proved my point very adequately.

[L0oniX]

43. Your point is dragonshit. Trying to keep the Dem party from going too far right is not "purist"...

but for those who are happy to keep moving right ...I guess it is. Thanks for playing.

[MohRokTah]

47. The party moves right because the purists become unreliable voters.

They achieve the opposite of their desires.

[L0oniX]

49. LMFAO ...the purists are the reason the Dem party moves right?

Gotta blame someone but don't blame those who are attracted to republican centrist corporate values.

[MohRokTah]

51. You're starting to get it.

In a binary party system, which ours is, reliable voters are everything.

When purists make their ideological demands and then abandon the party when they don't get their way (much like a spoiled child), the party MUST seek more reliable voters and thus the only place to get those reliable voters is via a move to the right.

The purists then achieve precisely the opposite of their desires.

They become more effective rightwingnuts than the nuttiest of rightwingnuts.

[L0oniX]

54. If you really wanted to have a reasonable discussion you wouldn't use the term "purist".

There's nothing purist about having a decent Dem candidate that won't sell us out to the MIC, banksters and job exporters. I suppose many would be happy to have the Dems combine with the repubs just to get votes ...majority rules and all that psychobabel.

[MohRokTah]

62. Then it is obvious I can have no discussion with you. eom

[Bluenorthwest]

66. Here is a list of words that are antonyms for 'pure', the word you destest. These are the words you

endorse in it's place: adulterated, debased, alloyed, bastardized, contaminated, polluted, dirty, dingy, muddied, muddy.
Personally, I find purity more appealing than dirty, polluted, dingy, debased ideologies. You are pro filth. That's great!

[MohRokTah]

70. Purist and pure are two different words. eom

[SidDithers]

42. And yet they think that they're the base...

Sid

[L0oniX]

44. Yea Sid because you see that being said here all the time.

[MohRokTah]

48. PRecisely. Their foolish demands for ideological purity result in a move to the right by the party.

Their idiocy only functions in a multi-party system whereby coalitions of multiple parties are leveraged to formulate the government. In such a system, their way is the best way to move the nation left.

In our binary party system, they only serve to achieve precisely the opposite of what they desire.

[Bluenorthwest]

67. So between you and Sid, you got one vote to offer to your nearly Republican candidates of choice!

Use that powerhouse voting block wisely guys!

[MohRokTah]

71. Your rhetoric has gone off the deep end.

There is nothing Republican about the Democratic PArty.

[Comrade Grumpy]

81. This is some silly shit. Get back under the bridge where you belong.

[MohRokTah]

83. Those who resort to ad hominems typically have no argument. eom

[cui bono]

29. If that's true it's because the 99% is tired of the 1%.

And that your suspicion is that the person is a real liberal who is worried about the corporatization of both parties, one more than the other of course, but still happening in both parties.

[MohRokTah]

31. Your supposition is completely ass backwoards. eom

[L0oniX]

55. ^^^this^^^

[reddread]

75. facts would certainly get in the way of that line of reasoning

no matter how often they are presented, voter turnout being well documented,
the rhetoric and hate is all they have,
and all they need.
we only need ONE conservative party,
AND THIS AINT IT.

[cui bono]

84. Which facts are those?

The ones that show that Wall Street was given a place in the administration?

That Obama is pushing for TPP and wasn't letting anyone know about it?

That Obama had secret back room meetings with health insurance companies while not giving single payer any representation at all?

That Obama offered up cuts to SS?

Keystone pipeline?

Plenty of Dems backing legislation that is soft on corporations while not fighting for legislation that would help and protect the working people?

Yes, both parties are being corporatized, just one more than the other. Our elections are all financed by big money, both parties' campaigns are financed by them.

[reddread]

85. the political demographics of voter turnout in 2010

sorry if my reply was pointed incorrectly and confused you.
the whole leftist extremism canard is the mark of a lost Republican.
EVERY TIME.

[cui bono]

88. I'm still confused. So you don't think both parties are being corporatized?

I'm not sure what facts you were talking about either.

[reddread]

91. I was responding to the other line of reasoning, not the realistic one you are expounding cui bono

[TheKentuckian]

90. I don't see how you can get to 99% when Democratic politicians don't agree

anywhere near that tune, in fact there are often vast gulfs by definition, being critical is an automatic in the vaunted "big tent".

I tend to get confused when mutually exclusive things are presented as facts and near locks, borrowing from nationalistic and religious fervor is the vibe I get with shark minded tunnel vision that seems from perspective to have lost sight of why you got involved in the first place as well as the people, the water, the land, the air, the life on this little marble, the future.

Maybe not at all but I do know you are measuring with a ruler that becomes more twisted and distorted by the day to the point that yesterday's great evil slip slides into acceptable meaning we are in a circus of the absurd from jump. How low can you go? Are you so certain that either there is a low the TeaPubliKlans won't reach that will be unrecoverable if we are willing to be a little bit better than such a depth or that you yourself cannot be driven to being a "purist" should your ox should happen to have be gored in moving to some point on the ideological spectrum?

Don't be hasty but rather introspective and forthright. Consider the soundness of your logic is actually just being circular and self justifying.

Also remember that we are already well past the TeaPubliKlans being merely conservative, they have been actively regressive for a generation now and have been radical for a good fifteen years and getting crazier by the day. The Turd Way game of chicken has been a disastrous clusterfuck. There has been no meeting in the middle, they have gone boonkers and we are still chasing them.

It cannot end well.

Adherence to this nonsense strategy is suicidal for all involved, even those thinking they are getting over.

[PowerToThePeople]

12. There are many purported liberal voices

That are far enough right wing that they would have been seen on FR a decade ago.

[L0oniX]

23. Liberal bashing? Something I'd expect from freeperville or the ccave.

Quote from the "About" at the bottom of your screen:

We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office.

[PowerToThePeople]

24. Those I am bashing on

are not liberals imho.

edit - to quote you, because you made the point so well that I am talking of:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1024&pid=5101

The Dem party has moved so far to the right that it is attracting Rinos which might as well be brothers to the Dinos. Then there is an effort IMO to re-brand liberals as something they haven't been and the attacks are coming from both parties.

[L0oniX]

27. Obviously liberals are not centrists.

[WinkyDink]

14. It's spelled with a capital "D." Just sayin.

[Puzzledtraveller]

25. The problem is that for many it is already enough.

[liberalmuse]

28. I guess what I want to ask the critics, is...

"What are you doing to further the liberal causes you like to continually criticize in whatever font online?". If it entails large amounts of time on the computer posting numerous criticisms on a some message board about a man who is actually attempting, with unbelievable obstacles, to make things better, then I completely disregard that criticism and almost hold that person in contempt. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect those who continually criticize our President to be doing something more in the real world to further their cause than sitting on their duffs and typing a lot of negative, stuff, which does absolutely no good whatsoever. None. He has racists on the right of him and critics on the left, and people who think their armchair activism should be enough. He doesn't have time for that crap. He has to go out there and face people every day from all sides. So, to the critics, I ask again, "What are you doing in the real world, and not in the comfort of your own homes on your internet to make things better?" To the racists, I say...well, you can guess.

[agbdf]

33. Being a Democrat not enough?

Wow, the name of this site is Democratic Underground. It implies, at least to me, the we are all Democrats.

First, in order for us to elect Democrats in Red states like Montana, Nebraska and Missouri to name a few, we have to elect centrist candidates. Sorry but, a Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank, Elizabeth Warren type of Democrat is going to get a landslide
defeat in Red and most Purple states.

These moderate to slightly right of center Democrats help us keep a majority in the US Senate and add numbers to our ranks in the house. Yes, they often vote in a way to keep their constituents happy, they also help put us over the top on real important pieces of legislation.

When I first became active in Democratic politics, over thirty years ago, I was told that we are a "big tent party" with room for diverse viewpoints. If you want ideological, leftist purity, your in the wrong party - try the Greens or the Socialists. Yes, the voters who gave us W in 2000.

Now, about the so called 'one percent." These are the people who live in Beverly Hills, Greenich, CT, Manhattan, NYC, Silicon Valley, Palm Beach, FL South Hampton, NY, Malibu, CA, and within the exclusive neighborhoods of the Seattle and San Francisco metro areas.

Guess what, there almost 80-90 percent Democratic voters. Maybe you think that the one percenters are all hiding out in Utah, Oklahoma, Idaho and Kansas. I've got news for you: poor white Republicans live in those states.

Further, just to let you know where I'm coming from: I am a member of the one percent. Yeah, and I don't particularly feel rich living here in Seattle now. I live in the cities most exclusive luxury high rise condo building. I own one of the more inexpensive units. Almost everyone in my building - some 400 people - are liberal Democrats. They are the One Percent too. I have yet to meet a single Republican.

So, attacking the One Percent may be in vogue for the "Occupy" crowd, it's stupid for Democrats to attack rich Democrats who support the party and liberal cause most handsomely.

[Maedhros]

35. "Ideological, leftist purity" is dog-whistle terminology developed to denigrate those who hold

traditional Democratic values and who are angered when Democratic politicians discard them.

[agbdf]

36. Sorry, with due respect, I don't see it that way

We are not a leftist party - period. Wall Street and the stock market have soared under President Obama and President Clinton. There is no "dog whistle." You seem to want the Democratic Party to become something it is not.

Most of us are already behind our next and perhaps greatest future President: Hillary Clinton. It sounds like Hillary and those of us who support her might be your idea of Democrats who "discard" your particular and hard left values.

[Maedhros]

37. That's why I won't vote for Hillary. Period.

And if it earns me opprobrium from those who denigrate the Left, then I consider that a bonus.

Bye now.

[agbdf]

78. You mean in the primary - right?

I respect your decision to vote for the Democrat of your choice in the primary. But please, tell me you would support Hillary in the General Election against her Republican opponent?

[TheKentuckian]

86. What are these "hard left values" you disdain?

[L0oniX]

52. Obviously that won't stop them. Look up thread.

[PowerToThePeople]

61. Self-delete

Self-deleted. I logged out and was able to see what you were talking about. I initially thought you were talking to me because our back and forth were the only other posts of yours I could see. I thought you were calling me a left-basher.

[ellenrr]

57. ++

[cui bono]

89. + eleventy brazillion!

[Romulox]

60. If you've been in politics for 30 years, you've seen the Party wrenched to the Right.

And your problem isn't with the "ex-freepers", "sensible centrists" and corporate money-grubbers? But with "leftist purity"?

Sorry, but your post reads like a comedy routine!

[agbdf]

79. Wrenched to the Right?

You must be young. In the 80's when I was talking about have gays serve in the military and gay marriage (yes, I'm a gay man) Democratic Party members and some elected officials laughed in my face.

In 1983, when I began volunteering for causes supporting universal health care, I was brushed off by the Democratic elite. I was told, "the public won't support us" and "it will kill us in the election."

No, we are coming -finally- to our senses as a party. However, that doesn't mean we are going to be, or are, a socialist party.
I'm a proud Democrat. I don't infiltrate the Green or Socialist parties and try to make them like us.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. Just so you know, Bernie Sanders is an Independent Socialist, not a Democrat and Barney Frank

is retired from politics, but I assume you included him as a way to take a swipe at gay people. Many states would not elect people you elect in your city, you could have said that. But you put it another way for a reason.
I'm in a field where lots of liberal people make tons of money. None of them say things like 'my building is exclusive'. That lingo makes them barf. I first earned 1% money when I was 24 and did so with what amounted to a part time job, so I know what I'm talking about. Enjoy your condo. So hilarious.

[PowerToThePeople]

65. Attacking the 1% is exactly what we need to do

They have caused devastation around the world and caused great harm to it's citizens for decades centuries without any real repercussions. Time to pay the piper.

[Skittles]

34. it will pass for them in 2017

it is sheer hypocrisy for now

[ecstatic]

38. IMO, it seems that the "enemy" litmus test is anyone who supports a democrat.

Even the so called supportive threads usually start with a disclaimer, presumably to avoid being labeled and bullied by anti-Obama libertarians (e.g., "I too have problems with Obama but..." or "I'm not a fan of Hillary but...&quot

So, to those whose enemy litmus is anyone who supports a democrat, someday when the Koch brothers (and other billionaires) are in full control of a "privatized" supreme court/congress/senate/military, being a purist will no longer be enough. Just sayin.

[reddread]

76. those are marketing tested talking points, an absolute flag n/t

[Maedhros]

77. Please take your "purist" drivel elsewhere. [n/t]

[SidDithers]

39. Democratic Underground...

"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."



Sid

[L0oniX]

50. "politically liberal people" says it all.

[SidDithers]

69. The OP didn't mention liberals, only Democrats...nt

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

58. And yet the Primary process is about intra Party rivals being very critical of one another

So being critical of Democrats is a vital function of being a Democrat and it is part of how we win elections. Any elected Democrat you can think of has been openly, massively critical of other Democrats they defeated to gain the nomination.
So to claim being critical of our own is bad is to misunderstand the process in a basic way. I got mailers from Obama in 08 that said 'Hillary Clinton wants to pick your pocket'. Called her a thief. That's very critical. So if being critical of a Democrat is very bad, perhaps the President has set a poor example, along with every other candidate ever to prevail in a Primary contest.

[Romulox]

59. What about the "liberal" part, Sid. What makes *that* part optional, hmmm?

[SidDithers]

68. Sorry, thought the OP talked about Democrats, not liberals...

Sid

[Romulox]

72. Read your own quote. nt

[SidDithers]

74. Read the OP...nt

Sid

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. It is the responsibility of the people in a democracy to hold public servants accountable.

Even Democrats.

[ReverendDeuce]

82. Aaaaauuggghhh!!

[treestar]

87. Why is so much criticism necessary?

Why the constant haranguing? I dislike critical people - that is, people who can do nothing but criticize. There's a point beyond which it is desirable to focus on the negative.