General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe issues with DU participation IMHO, are a conflict between two thoughts on how to advance Liberal
ideas.
One group insists that the best way to advance Liberal ideas is to support the most Liberal candidate that is electable at that moment, even if that means minimal progress as long as we prevent things from moving backwards. This group thinks that supporting Democrats in office doing the best they can in difficult circumstances is a good idea because the alternative effectively gives support to the other side by tearing down the popularity of Democrats in office.
The other group insists that the best way to advance Liberal ideas is to support the most Liberal candidate regardless of perceived elect-ability. This group seems to believe that if that results in losses to radical right wing Republicans who will not only implement regressive policies and undo 10-20-30 years of progress but use the bully pulpit to try to convince the masses that regressive policies are the best ones for the country, making progress difficult even after they are gone, that's acceptable as long as we have backed the most liberal candidate possible. This group also seems to think that pillorying elected Democrats doing the best they can in difficult circumstances for not being Liberal enough is a good strategy. By relentlessly pillorying Barack Obama, this group has turned off a large portion of the African American community on DU which indicates, IMHO, not only a complete lack of political savvy, but either a complete lack of awareness of, or simply not caring at all about the sensitivity people of color have to attacks on the first African American president.
The two groups do not seem to be able to coexist here on DU and admins seem loathe to do anything about it. I think the evidence is clear that the website cannot accommodate both groups and continue to be successful. It seems to be turning off large swaths of people from both groups.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)You are saying that one group at DU supports wall street loving, surveillance state supporting sell outs in hopes that things won't get worse.
The other group supports candidates who actually stand for liberal ideals, and who support the positions that they believe in.
The later group should, rather than support candidates that they believe in, support wall-street loving surveillance state supporting sell outs - or leave DU?
Is that right?
Bryant
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)"The two groups do not seem to be able to coexist here on DU and admins seem loathe to do anything about it. I think the evidence is clear that the website cannot accommodate both groups and continue to be successful."
What view points do you want to ban around here?
Bryant
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)participating as much. It's not a question of everything being fine and all of a sudden requiring people to leave.
My preference would be to go back to when the SOP rules were some form of 'criticism of Democrats has to be positive and not over the top' and people could then either deal or not. And perhaps have a dungeon where more severe criticism could be put.
I welcome alternate suggestions that reverse the decline DU seems to be in.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Or to put it another way - of course it's in decline - the election is over, and we lost and people are demoralized - that has nothing to do with what we post at DU.
Who determines what is positive criticism and what is negative criticism?
Bryant
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Response to el_bryanto (Reply #20)
VanillaRhapsody This message was self-deleted by its author.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you know...selected in that election BY Democrats?
NO? Then maybe you just answered your own question.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Yes Lieberman has negatives but less than full fledged Republican. The primary is where you fight for the nominee not after. Did I want to vote for Crist???? He'll no, but I did because the alternative was worse. I lost anyway, but at least tried to win.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)
fucking droopy dog the putz pug.VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)luckily that is a big ol snowball's chance in hell so....not worried about it.
Its called Democracy...it means my fellow Democrats made the call.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He's regarded as a bit of a traitor, and he's retired, anyway. He's also not a Democrat. He's an invented party with Democrat and Independent in it that CAUCUSED with the Democratic Party during his tenure in the Senate.
It's a poor example, him.
I'll say yet again what I've said before, though--The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.
It's all about the Supremes.
840high
(17,196 posts)times.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)">
)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)
Like. "If you don't agree with me, I'm going to drill your head."
That's a winner.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
marmar
(79,739 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts). . . if an OP doesn't totally agree with everything you believe to be true, then it is not worth reading, much less recommending.
This is not an objective analysis.
What it is -- whether you agree or disagree -- is Steve's opinion of what the state of DU is today.
I think it is worth discussing, but obviously hating on the people who still support the President is more important to you than trying to discuss why this forum is losing its long-time members at a disproportionate rate.
Go ahead and continue with what you think is the best course of action to take, and I can guarantee you failure.
The GD forum was designed for communication for several various topics, not just the ones you agree with!
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Since the ultimate goal of politics is to Govern...
...and since the way you get to govern is to get elected...
...one group believe in working to elect the most liberal ELECTABLE person and then having that person make incremental improvements...
...while the other group believes that as long as you stand for liberal principles, it's okay if a Republican get elected instead and having that Republican reverse the improvements already made.
Is that helpful?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Just not as quickly as a Republican?
Do you think people in the second group should be banned from DU?
Bryant
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...but I've seen people in the second group talk here about "purging" the Party of those who they think aren't sufficiently progressive.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Then maybe you better stop asking that question....
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)In that context it's the primary, not the general election. Didn't you realize that?
I will vote against whoever the republicans put up, which by default requires me to vote for the democrat even if it is someone who happily turns a blind eye to all of wall streets faults and the desperate need for regulation in that area.
Bryant
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)lets gamble and see if we roll craps!
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I want to vote for a Democratic Candidate - rather than simply voting against a Republican Candidate. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Bryant
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)than an election ... damn what happens next; I made my point.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)were winning elections. Alas...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 5, 2014, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)
continue criticizing "our sensible centrist candidates" (after the primary), refusing to work for, refusing to vote (if not vote for) "our sensible centrists", and continue beating the moral victory drum, has nothing to do with "our sensible centrist candidates" losing elections ... Right?
{Imperfect Analogy Alert} This is a lot like a football team, divided over Quarterback support ... more than half (57 out of the 100) the team doesn't particularly care who the starting Quarterback is, they just want to play and win.
Of the remaining 43 players, 30 (reflecting the HRC/Warren polling), supports the "game management" senior, who relies on running the ball. The Senior has started a bunch of games and has a winning record; but, the games are pretty boring, as the team plods up and down the field. And the fans ... well ... they're happy with the wins; but the lower scoring games, leaves them less than enthused.
On the other hand, the 13 remaining players want the "quick strike" Freshman, who relies on the passing game. This makes for high scoring, exciting games; but, a lot of 4 and outs. The Freshman has started a few games; but, has lost more than he has won. The fans love the excitement he brings; but, want to get to the Super-bowl.
Now it's game day (the primaries) and the coach (the electorate) picks the Senior to start the game. This leaves 57 of the players unaffected, as they really didn't care ... they just want to play and win. This makes the 30 players happy, as they believe he gives them the best chance at winning. And this greatly upsets the 13 Freshman supporters, as they believe they can win with him, but more, they believe he is the teams future.
When the game starts, it is clear that 87 of the players are playing hard; but, most of the 13 are complaining about the play calling, some are just walking through the plays, and a few are flat out refusing to run the plays, as called.
And after the predictable loss, the 87 blame the 13; and, the 13 shrug their shoulders and say, "we should have played the Freshman ... if we lose enough games, you'll be forced to play the Freshman."
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)yet you choose to ignore it...it isn't liberals who are failing to show up, hold our noses, and vote for Not-Quite-As-Bad-As-The-Other-Guy.
The problem your sensible centrists have is convincing the great mushy middle that they are anything much other than Me Too! Republican Lite. When they act like Republicans (to the fucking point of refusing to say which party they voted for!) it isn't any surprise that the mushy middle votes for the true Republicans.
Your charade of blaming the most reliable of voting blocs-- Liberals--quite frankly sucks. We voted.
The problem isn't that we didn't cheer loudly enough, the problem is you ran sucky candidates more interested in collecting corporate donations than in articulating Democratic principles and policies.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)yet you choice to ignore it ... it IS liberals who ARE failing to show up ... those on the extreme of the left on the ideological spectrum, did, in fact, NOT vote (i.e, refused to run the play, as called).
Those not as extreme, though, did, in fact, hold there nose and vote for the Not-Quite-As-Bad-As-The-Other-Guy ... but not before taking every opportunity to express how flawed the Not-Quite-As-Bad-As-The-Other-Guy candidate is/was (i.e., complaining about the play calling, IOWs, being a distraction in the huddle by NOT focused on beating the Worse than the vote for Not-Quite-As-Bad-As-The-Other-Guy.) ... Not before refusing to work for the Not-Quite-As-Bad-As-The-Other-Guy (nor, did they spend any time working against the Worse than the vote for Not-Quite-As-Bad-As-The-Other-Guy).
And it has been pointed out to you a hundred times, yet you choice to ignore it ... none of this would be an issue, if your preferred Not Sensible Centrist; But Mythical Winnable Left candidate were able to convince, anyone other than the relatively small pool of the already convinced, that they had a shot at enacting their positions/solution ... it should be telling that the Left's populist positions were, mostly, accepted by the public; but not the candidates that ran on them!
I wouldn't call a cohort that consistently threatens to withhold it's vote and loudly protests it when they do vote, the "most reliable" voter bloc ... rather that would be, the African-American vote - that votes our preference in the primary, then votes the nominee in the election, without all the whining, moaning or gnashing of teeth ... AND, with the recognition that we are NOT going to get EVERYTHING we want; but, it's better than getting NOTHING of what we want.
We learned this because EVERY vote we cast is for the Not-Quite-As-Bad-As-The-Other-Guy; or, it's a vote against the Worse than the vote for Not-Quite-As-Bad-As-The-Other-Guy.
LOL ... you didn't cheer at all! Those of you that went to the polls, booed Democratic candidates all the way to the ballot box ... when, you could have, at a minimum, Booed the Worse than the vote for Not-Quite-As-Bad-As-The-Other-Guy ... and no Democrat would have had a problem with you.
Granted, the Sensible Centrists lost; but, few of them ran on those positions. It would seem, the sensible solution would be for candidates to run on the populist positions, to the extent their districts would support them.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)This lie--->"it IS liberals who ARE failing to show up ... those on the extreme of the left on the ideological spectrum, did, in fact, NOT vote (i.e, refused to run the play, as called)."
LOL. Of course you have ZERO data to back this up. Whereas:
Did liberals really stay home and cause the 2010 rout?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout
“So I went back to the exit polls and the picture I see shows nothing like that. If you are a proponent of this claim, I challenge you for empirical proof that some set of activist liberals "took their ball and went home" or whatever metaphor you prefer to make Obama's leftward critics appear childish and immature. Inside, the evidence I found that shows this just ain't so.”
http://blogforarizona.net/do-progressives-even-sit-out-elections-the-numbers-say-no/
“As you can see, Democrats did slightly better with liberals in 2010 than in 2006. Had there really been a collective we’re-sitting-out-the-election-to-spite-Obama pout going on, then there should have been a sharp drop in the liberal participation percentage. Yet notice the 9% in moderate voter participation and the concomitant 10% increase in conservative turnout. Republicans were pumped for that election but their turnout tends to be higher in midterms anyway. Millions of moderate voters either flipped to conservative or stayed home in 2010.”
“As you can see, all the Democratic groups dropped, but the liberal Democrats dropped least of all”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/news/2012/11/08/44348/the-return-of-the-obama-coalition/
Ideology. Liberals were 25 percent of voters in 2012, up from 22 percent in 2008. Since 1992 the percent of liberals among presidential voters has varied in a narrow band between 20 percent and 22 percent, so the figure for this year is quite unusual. Conservatives, at 35 percent, were up one point from the 2008 level, but down a massive 7 points since 2010.
Ideology. Obama received less support in 2012 from all ideology groups, though the drop-offs were not particularly sharp in any group. He received 86 percent support from liberals (89 percent in 2008), 56 percent from moderates (60 percent in 2008), and 17 percent from conservatives (20 percent in 2008).
I have not seen a similar breakdown for 2014 yet.
You also claim we are on the "extreme left". Well then, our few votes certainly aren't enough to swing an election, right? Imagine, we are both at the "extreme" edge AND we have so many votes that it swings elections! Amazing!
>LOL ... you didn't cheer at all! Those of you that went to the polls, booed Democratic candidates all the way to the ballot box ...
On noes! All we did was turn out to vote for them?? Who knew we weren't supposed to point out that they were running shitty "make believe we aren't really Democrats" campaigns that were destined to lose?? I guess what we should have been doing is cheering their obviously horrible tactics!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"it IS liberals who ARE failing to show up ... those on the extreme of the left on the ideological spectrum, did, in fact, NOT vote" claim, as you do to refute it ... I rely on the loud proclamations/pronouncements of your ideological twins that they would not/did not vote; you rely on their claim that they did.
You sarcasm speaks volumes ... But No, your criticisms COULD HAVE been directed at the Worse than Not Quite as Bad As The Other Guy.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)I invite you to post it. Until you can put up, your obvious lies are obvious lies, no matter how many times you repeat them.
You know who else did their best to ignore empirical data that refuted their precious lies? All those Republicans I used to argue with.
And your desire to have us cheer loudly when Democrats are pursuing a destructive, losing strategy is mind-boggling, unless the Democrats defeat is what you want us to achieve.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Then, after answering "NO", look at the empirical evidence you cite ...
Here:
What does that indicate ... a drop off in the liberal vote, right?
I hesitated to address the link because after looking at the link, it is only informative for those that know little about statistics ... their methodology, i.e., comparing 2014 with 2008 without controlling for population growth, both in terms of raw eligibility and/or registration, is flawed.
But that said ... I see that this discussion is going know where ... your sarcasm, your comparing me to a republican and your questioning my electoral motives, is the big indicator ... so I will beg off.
Peace.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)But first things first:
>He received 86 percent support from liberals (89 percent in 2008)
>What does that indicate ... a drop off in the liberal vote, right?
Yes, and the part you were careful to NOT to mention was that his (Obama's) support dropped amongst ALL ideologies, but Liberals least of all, while they turned out at an increased rate as well.
Now 2014:
http://graphics.wsj.com/exit-polls-2014/
Ideology: Liberals were 23% of the vote in 2014, up from 20% in 2010.
So Liberals continued to turnout, in fact at an increased margin.
But those Democrats candidates, you know who they didn't convince to vote for them? Well, I'll let your own Third Way friends answer that:
http://www.thirdway.org/third-ways-take/the-impact-of-moderate-voters-on-the-2014-midterms
There is no doubt that moderate voters were crucial to the outcome in 2014, and though Democrats won them 53% to 44% overall, it wasn’t sufficient (in fact, they did 2 points worse with moderates than in the 2010 wave).
So, yeah. Data.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Same data problem as before.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Yes, your refusal to accept empirical data that disproves your preferred hippie punching narrative. Fuck, some it comes from the precious Third Way!
Like I said, I used to have Republicans explicitly ignore empirical data when I argued with them. Sad to see it here as well.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Yes, I get it.
You don't like empirical data that puts the lie to your narrative. Therefore, it must be flawed.
OK
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)And throw in argumentum ab auctoritate
Any other logical fallacies you'd like to attempt?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)In a discussion of numerics/Statistics?
You're going to be late for your English for College Freshman class ... because you clearly have not taken a statistics course, at the under or grad school level.
But certainly, google is your friend.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)without anything to back it up.
Let's see:
First, you attempted to claim liberals were lying about voting.
When that didn't pan out, you tried selective editing, a al James O' Keefe. That didn't work out for you either.
So lastly you make a vague claim of authority, and claim the data must be wrong because you hilariously claim to have taken a statistics class, all without showing the data is wrong, of course. It just must be, because you don't like the results, an you know, because you are hilariously an expert. Argumentum ab auctoritate.
Then pathetically, you attempt to belittle. All the while being unable to find a scintilla of evidence to support your opinion
An honest operator, of at least one interested in the truth, looks at the available facts and draws a conclusion. You have no such interest in being honest or truthful. You do, however, seem to have a vested interest in perpetuating a lie.
Why is that, exactly?
And Jesus Christ, they don't teach Logic in English class!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I accepted liberals at their word (i.e., the posts indicating that they would not vote).
Yes ... I pulled one line that indicated that fewer liberals can out to vote in 2014 (than in 2008) to refute your claim that liberals did not stay home in 2014. (That is a fact)
I, also, indicated that I was reluctant to use the data point, because the overall data is flawed for drawing comparative conclusions ... and I stated why. The fact that you don't understand the why (but continue attempting to argue) is not my problem.
The fact that the numbers for all demographics dropped, does not negate the fact that fewer liberals did, in fact, go to the polls (compared to 2008) ... You are attempting to argue, "It didn't rain in neighborhood "A" because it rained in every neighborhood in the town ... (and you wish to lecture me on "logic"? ... Please!)
No ... My claim was not that the data was wrong because I have taken a Stats class ... I do, however, stand on the proposition that I was able to RECOGNIZE that the data set does not allow for any meaningful comparative conclusions (and told you why) BECAUSE, in taking the Stats course(s), I know the "rules" of (valid) data analysis.
Sometimes appealing to superior knowledge is just that. The fact, that you don't know what you don't know doesn't make my appellation a flaw in logical, nor does it render the argument false.
LOL ... You have pointed to EXACTLY the problem in this discussion ... "Garbage in/Garbage out ... Flawed methodologies make for flawed conclusions ... when someone is numerically illiterate, i.e., does not understand data analysis, they accept/arrive at conclusions that are unsupported by from the facts. This is the case here.
LOL ... I know! Perhaps you should hurry on to your English class because you clearly are not up to the Logics Course work.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Hilarious.
Like a cat that poops on the tiles, no matter how much you dig you can't hide your mess.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Only you could have gotten that out of what I wrote. And that is completely unsurprising.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)But that probably won't work either, since you want to credit a few people on the internet saying they wouldn't vote as more statistically valid than 5 sets of actual data.
Dig, dig, dig on that tile floor.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
OrwellwasRight
(5,312 posts)doesn't prove fewer liberals voted. It means fewer liberals supported Obama. It means 3% changed their minds supported someone else. It says nothing about "liberals not showing up to vote."
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)>>"you rely on their claim that they did."
The numbers are from exit poll data. You know, people exiting their polling places.
What we've got here, then, is Liberals going to their polling places and then not voting, or claiming that they voted for Democrats but didn't. Oh, those rascally Liberals!
LOL
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)contrary to your claim, your cited link has FEWER liberals going to the polls (whether they voted or not ...)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)that doesn't fit your story line.
Ok.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)at least I KNEW what I was doing ... as opposed to resting on arguments that only expose numeric illiteracy. The link that I pulled that from relies on flaw methodology.
As I stated earlier:
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)You don't like empirical data that puts the lie to your narrative. Therefore, it must be flawed.
OK
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)conclusions derived through flawed analysis of empirical data ... That is correct.
Question: Have you ever taken a Graduate-Level Stats Course?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)ALL the empirical data points are wrong.
Your opinion, for which you have no data, is correct.
OK.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)just THIS data set cannot support your conclusion because the methodology is flawed.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)They are all wrong. Your data free opinion is right.
Obviously
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)>>" it should be telling that the Left's populist positions were, mostly, accepted by the public; but not the candidates that ran on them!"
Which candidates ran on populist positions? Which strongly, unapologetically stood up for populist Democratic party issues?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Which, if true (do you have any actually data on this claim? You couldn't produce it on your other claim but hope springs eternal), goes to show that running conservative Dems is a losing strategy.
C'mon, name a Democrat that loudly, proudly, defended Democratic principles? That was an economic populist. I'll wait.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)How about: "C'mon, name a Democrat that loudly, proudly, defended Democratic principles? That was an economic populist. And left-handed. And, wore glasses in the 4th grade. I'll wait?
But how about you name a single Democrat that won (a primary or otherwise) that meets your criteria? I'll wait.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)that ran loudly, proudly on populist Democratic principles? Oh, OK, LMAO
>And left-handed. And, wore glasses in the 4th grade.
Reductio ad absurdum. I'm sure you can do better
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Which was my main point.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)do you thing Al could have won in Kentucky or West Virginia or Georgia or Texas or even, Colorado (though that might be a closer call).
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Yes, No, Yes, No, and Yes. And yes to North Carolina as well.
And even where we can't win now, ceding the field and running as pseudo-Republicans is a long-term losing strategy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)that they are highly electible.
In the last 80 or so years, when did the party fare better in state houses and in Congress, when it ran on traditional Democratic principles, or when it ran as Pub Lite? And the more Pub Lite it runs, the worse it fares.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Eugene Debs ... and a segment of DU.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)What group 2 ACTUALLY believes is that running crappy, 'slightly better than Republican' candidates, even if they win, tarnishes the Party and drives away current and future voters on the left, leaving the party continually chasing voters ever farther to the right.
And that running candidates who actually stand for and believe in the working classes and the poor and DON'T look like Republican lite, will draw more voters and increase turnout over time and rebuild the base.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,312 posts)Yup!
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)What you wrote is EXACTLY the problem.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)So criticising PBO's actions equals not carrying about the "sensitivities of people of color"??
Holy Molly crapolly..
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)(ESL and all)
What does "relentlessly pilloring"mean?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)every comment you have made for the last 4 years on DU and respond with a nasty critique of each comment.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I can't think of one single poster who had said only negative things about PBO continuously. People who criticise him are people who have supported him, who worked relentlessly ( no pun intended ) to get him elected and who are disappointed that he didn't keep his promisses and let them down.
They have the right to criticise. Or relentlessly pillor, which is the same thing.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)this is the first time you have hear THIS criticism on DU???
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Not you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I can provide you with a list ... if you would like. And then, you can go back as far as you wish, including the 2008 Democratic Primacies, to prove me incorrect.
And you know this, how?
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)
I can't think of one single poster who had said only negative things about PBO continuously.
holy scholy is right.
I'll add another
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Did you nor read I mentioned ESL? You have to resort to personal attacks that I "don't get nuance"?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)hyperbole ....that is what I would say....
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and chiding others for wanting to make swifter progress. I think the current police violence issues make the habitual preachers of compromise and incremental change very uncomfortable, for they can see that when lives are at stake asking for a delay or slowing of change is the same as saying 'we need to have some more lives lost before we can stop the violence'.
Fact of the matter is that many on DU often sermonize that change has to be really super slow and careful. I have always believed in the urgency of the now. The 'moderates' believe in taking things very slowly.
In a society replete with injustices, to call for slow or delayed change is to say 'the injustice must continue for some more time, more people must be jailed and killed, because the ship of State turns slowly and the perfect is the enemy of the good and half a loaf is better than no loaf and you need to be pragmatic and realistic and understand that politics is the art of the possible'.
In my view, each and every person who preaches incremental, slow paced progress is calling for more injustice prior to allowing any changes.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)issue activism and political strategy.
With issue activism, you can advocate for as progressive as you want the world to be on each issue. I support, for instance, Code Pink, even though I don't agree with them on every issue and I don't necessarily agree with their approach to candidates. But I greatly admire them.
The question that I think frames this well is, if we did away with the amendment that says that Presidents are limited to two terms, and Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were the nominees in 2016 for instance, would it make sense to attack Clinton in the runup to the election for not being progressive enough on a number of issues, anti-war, labor/trade, LGBT issues, etc., or would it make sense to support him against George W. Bush.
Sorry, want to finish the thought but have to run for now...
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)If we did away with that amendment and Bill made it through the Primary facing those questions he'd be the Democratic nominee, something we do not currently have. But in the Primary he'd be grilled by voters and by rivals for the nomination. That part, you don't get to skip it.
And again, what I see on DU from many people is a wildly contradictory set of narratives. The incrementalists are looking like the stooges that kept Darren Wilson types in a job a bit too long.
treestar
(82,383 posts)So if you want it swifter all you can do is complain.
You need other voters to agree.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)need to be to please the moderates? How many more deaths are required?
treestar
(82,383 posts)I don't know if humanity itself will ever see that.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)How does wanting simply to stop police violence equate to 'end to all crime'?
Can you not simply respond to what people post without pulling out some absurd extreme mischaracterization of what they posted?
treestar
(82,383 posts)police were beating some people in the 80s and it should have stopped by now.
There's no way to stop all police violence as there is no way to stop all crime, wars, riots and so on. And that right now. It has to be done now. There's no constructive approach to that.
OrwellwasRight
(5,312 posts)Incremental change!
When do we want it?
In due time!
Campaigned no one. Ever. 
marmar
(79,739 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)More spin than objectivity.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)... or evenhanded, or something.
Specifically, the way you describe the second group implies that they have malevolent motives, while the first group has benevolent ones.
I think both schools of thought are held in good faith, and both groups have benevolent motives for holding their opinions.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)for most of the time I've been posting here.
It's a discussion board, which means people primarily come here to share their opinions.
The best bet is just to accept that people have different opinions.
And also notice that people might disagree with you on one subject and agree with you on another.
And that people's opinions change.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It might be temporary, although the fact that in the last 3 months before an election participation crashed on a political discussion forum should definitely be a concern to anyone who values DU.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)here is not political.
We have so many side issues and groups that this is no longer a political discussion board. Also no matter what you post you will be attacked.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)the case of your last sentence.
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)is to purge another group of people? Brilliant!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
FSogol
(47,623 posts)and criticize DUers for not supporting him. What about them?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)don't get their favorite or their least favorite does!
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)their vote belongs to them and they don't have to answer to you about it. Imagine the nerve of people.
840high
(17,196 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,312 posts)Right on.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
Autumn
(48,962 posts) 
Puglover
(16,380 posts)You can't alert on something that doesn't exist.
Happy Holidays!
Autumn
(48,962 posts)
No, those posts don't exist but it's adorable when they try so very very hard. Happy Holidays to you! Are you ready for them? It will take me a bit to recover from my Thanksgiving company. Puglover
(16,380 posts)time we drove to Iowa to visit our lovely family. Good but I understand, tiring.
Oh and if there are posts that are wildly appreciative of Tribble Head Rand our resident "Troll Buster" will take care of us! 
Autumn
(48,962 posts)so I found that post to be hilariously dishonest. We stayed home and had a few out of town family members up, I did tell my Husband and kids that this was the last Holiday dinner I think I can bring myself to cook. So from now on it's the Daughters or Grandsons homes and I'll just sit and have a glass of wine, eat and leave. 
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Stunning, even if I do say myself!
neverforget
(9,513 posts)see any Rand Paul supporters? 
Autumn
(48,962 posts)here desperately because that suits their meme.( well at least three of them ) You can ask them every time they post that nonsense but they can't show you a single one so they ignore you.
merrily
(45,251 posts)FIRST name was Paul. IIRC, it was Paul Mooney, but it's irrelevant. The FIRST name was Paul some jurors voted to hide because of Rand Paul.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If you are in a Poker game ...and you can't spot the mark ... chances are the mark is you. Leave the table.
If you are in a room and people keep referring to "the fool" and you don't know who the fool is, they are talking about you. Leave that room.
If you keep hearing someone asking "who farted", every time you smell the "tart" smell ... chances are the person speaking is talking out both ends of his/her body.
Just saying...
neverforget
(9,513 posts)just walked into the conversation
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Blame it on the dog! That's a common tactic, as well. Thanks ...I had forgotten that one.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And it's "OK" to express "dissatisfaction" with current leadership. The posts are often cleverly phrased, using the conditional tense and leaving just enough wiggle room to escape the ban hammer.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)And yes it is "OK" to express "dissatisfaction" with current leadership and doing so does not make one a Paul supporter.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Put Rand Paul up in the right corner search box and start reading. It's subtle, but it's there.
There's plenty of "flying under the wire" happening around here.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Rand Paul supporters have no business on this site. Skinner will look into it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)When people act like assholes and call people "Third Way" or other snarky descriptors, and suggest that being a supporter of Obama or Clinton equates to being a corporate stooge or something, it brings the level of discourse way, WAY down.
It makes people who have better things to do not want to hang around arguing with people who would stoop so low as to use those methods. Hell, if one wants to argue with name calling putzes, one can always go find Republicans all over the place. I come here to converse with Democrats, but woe be it unto me if I don't support some pie-in-the-sky Kuncinich-like wasted effort, then, I am a "traitor" to some cause defined here by a small group of keyboard bullies.
Maybe the admins ought to just say "screw it" and open the board to trolls and weirdos. Turn it into Yahoo, where the stupidity absolutely burns! Or cash in and cash out--I'll bet this site is worth a few bucks; they might as well get some dough for all their hard work. Sell it to the highest bidder; take the money and run....?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Almost like both form a sort of offense/defense which is not a great analogy but I don't feel like coming up with anything better.
Pragmatism can spiral down into stasis.
Ideological purity can collapse into ineffective and self-centered disunity.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's kind of like a "why bother" situation...the old "arguing with monkeys" or "wresting with pigs" purposeless event.
It's not the differences of opinion that are at issue, it's the childish insults that--instead of people saying "Hey, you're being a disagreeable ass with those personal insults" -- instead get dozens of recs and the bad behavior is reinforced. A couple of completely idiotic posts lately, consisting of a string of inarticulate swears and personal insults directed against DUers, got plenty of "recs" that just blew my mind--I wondered what was the point of affiliating with that vast a number of people who would support such ill thought out, childish commentary. By any measure, it's just ... babble.
It's not the differences of opinion, it is the LEVEL of discourse--and lately, the level is in the sewer.
There were plenty of differences of opinion on the old DU, but they were never so nasty and personal, even though the debate was vigorous.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)"purists", and all that shit is really sweet from the "reality based", ROLFing, game theory playing, centrists isn't it?
Whiney hypocrites love dishing it out as nasty and snarky as they can muster but cry an ocean when they or the anchor like politicians they love that fuck us a hair less than the TeaPubliKlans get called on their stinky shit.
Boo fucking hoo, oh noes people call Turd Way believing and supporting folks Turd Way!
MADem
(135,425 posts)"Boo fucking hoo, oh noes people call Turd Way..."
Yes, those are perfect examples of what I'm talking about.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Your are boo hooing because the nasty condescension isn't just a one way street.
Bullies are quick to cry when folks fight back.
Plus, the reality is you are getting called names but called out for what you support and who you are as a consequence.
Don't want to be called Third Way and corporate, stop being Turd Way and stop supporting corporate dominance.
MADem
(135,425 posts)but it appears you've brought a back hoe. Keep showing us your best side, now!!!
I think I'll save this for...errr...posterity:
129. I wasn't the one whining. You folks are massive hypocrites and started the snark early and often.
View profile
Your are boo hooing because the nasty condescension isn't just a one way street.
Bullies are quick to cry when folks fight back.
Plus, the reality is you are getting called names but called out for what you support and who you are as a consequence.
Don't want to be called Third Way and corporate, stop being Turd Way and stop supporting corporate dominance.
Thanks for proving my point so enthusiastically!
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)All I did was point out your double-down.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)At least for holding on to bullshit positions and propping ones self up as virtuous when they are or support the cause of the very problem they are now whining about.
You might not be an overt snark monster but you are silent as a tomb as those you tend to agree with are all about it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I know it's a stretch, but it does make for a better DU experience all around.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)"act like assholes and call people "purists" or other snarky descriptors?
MADem
(135,425 posts)liberal as well as a conservative Democrat--to snark like "Turd Way?"
You don't see a difference?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Or DINO, or several others.
I equate using 'Turd Way' to things like talking about wanting 'ponies' or 'unicorns'.
The only 'difference' is that 'turd' is considered a more vulgar word.
But no, it's not quantitatively different than the language being thrown in the other direction.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And you're in hot water if someone with significant sensitivities wanted to make a stink, because "clutch the pearls" was abandoned as a common shorthand by this site YEARS ago, because some felt it had a negative connotation towards gays as a consequence of the old Wayans Bros. "Men on Films" skits. Even though the comment originated from those many postwar films of frightened women clutching their pearls to indicate dismay or horror, people stopped using it out of deference to those objections. Unicorns was abandoned before the last election, as were ponies and piles of shit because too many people cried about it as well as a reference, and it became rather stale, anyway.
But "Turd Way" has continued relentlessly, along with personal insults directed smack-dab at people who don't agree with your POV. Not just by you, but by a small but determined crew of very rude DUers.
I don't think using GOP-style snideness and snark as a tactic is terribly progressive, and I'd urge you to eschew it if you want to be taken seriously. I'm calling it out when I see it. I don't think anyone has to put up with not just turds, but SHIT directed at Democrats by people who claim to be Democrats. That's rudeness. If you can't discuss a topic without getting personal, you've failed.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You wrote:
"When people act like assholes and call people "Third Way" or other snarky descriptors, and suggest that being a supporter of Obama or Clinton equates to being a corporate stooge or something..."
How predictable are the talking points to try to shut down legitimate criticism of the corporate infiltration of the Democratic Party. How predictable, indeed.'YOU....YOU CALLED ME A DOG!!!!11!!1'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3171893
I've seen this tactic in several posts lately ... Authoritarians and Third Wayers don't like being called what they are, and since they can't yet prohibit words and restrict others to an approved Newspeak Dictionary, they settle for flailing at and attempting to discredit the individual words they dislike.
...When someone uses an accurate word to describe what you are doing or advocating, just put the word in quotation marks, add some exclamation points, and try to neutralize it by pretending it's an epithet instead of an accurate descriptor. We have all seen it here 1,000 times. A person's politics are described as Third Way, and he or she rears up in indignation, expressing shock at the "namecalling."
Well, no. "Third Way" means something. It is not an epithet, but rather descriptive shorthand for a clear and specific set of political values and policies. You can see what "Third Way" means by going to the Third Way website, where the goals and policies - liberal on the social issues unimportant to the One Percent but corporate and authoritarian on virtually everything else - are clearly delineated.
Those who embrace the policies don't want to admit it, so they try to make the term an epithet...something to be banned by a jury so that it can't be accurately applied to them on the forums. And we hear the very same sort of defensive attempts to discredit the word when Third Way authoritarianism is called "authoritarianism."
Of course "authoritarian" means something. Brazen defense of a government's spying on its own citizens is indisputably authoritarian. And "Third Way" is exceedingly clear about the policy agenda it describes.
I always picture an indignant poodle rearing up in outrage and exclaiming, "What?! You called me a DOG?!"
Orwell was right. Defending against authoritarianism *requires* defending language, because authoritarians will try to twist, discredit, or take away the words that are necessary for us to describe what is being done to us.Disregard the Third Way talking points with extreme prejudice
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160
MADem
(135,425 posts)Take a good look in your mirror, there, pal. You are what you deride. You certainly aren't very liberal given your unwillingness to hear the views of other people in the Democratic Party. Your way, or the highway, is what you are saying.
You gripe about "shutting down legitimate criticism" and then post a diatribe about shutting down anyone who doesn't follow a specific POV.
Ohhhhh kaaaaay.....right on cue, INDEED.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Well, that was an illustrative response to a post opposing the corporate agenda and corporate infiltration of the Democratic Party.
Carry on. None of it flies anymore...
MADem
(135,425 posts)your childish snark that you and your buddies use to shut down anyone who doesn't see things YOUR way. You bring the website down with the relentless personal insults. You drive people off. Anyone with an iota of intelligence and self-respect isn't going to waste their time when the level of discourse gets that low--and you're doing that when you use the language you've used just above. You pull this site into YAHOO territory.
People who can talk the issues, do. People who can't, call names and fling poo (like "Turd" Way).
BTW, your attempt to mirror my response didn't fly--it's obvious who is flinging insults in this conversation and it ain't me. I'm just telling it like it is. So you keep "carrying on," and you'll find yourself screaming at your mirror and your buddies, because people will stop engaging you.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)This poster, and his buddies, seem to have a habit of jumping in and highjacking threads with their own BS while ignoring those that ask questions or disagree with them. As you said it get tired fast, and it brings down the site. I have already stopped engaging with those who use this kind of tactic.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 5, 2014, 06:30 PM - Edit history (2)
not a poster here.
On the other hand, in substance-free, fact-free posts, I've been called not a real Democrat, a purist and been accused flatly of trying to suppress the vote (despite my many posts about helping get handicapped voters registered, making sure shutins and nursing home patients have absentee ballots if they need them, etc.)
To me, there is a big difference between criticizing a segment of the Party or a politician and flinging crap at a fellow poster, especially untrue crap.
ETA: And what is this thead--and so many others before it--but a call out of DU's left? How is that higher ground than criticizing a Party and politicians on a message board?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think some here just like to belittle and don't realize that their name calling is hurtful and hurtful to DU.
I am allfor disagreement here on the candidates but the third way name calling is hurting this place.
OrwellwasRight
(5,312 posts)never calls the progressives "stupid"or or blame them for every lost election or try to bully them into getting "smart" and seeing the light and other assorted insults and bullshit. Riiiiiiiiight. I can't imagine your feelings are really hurt by being called "Third Way."
And I love how even in your victim post you manage to insult -- again. You mock progressives like Kucinich, but you can't explain why progressives like Baldwin, Brown, Warren, Sanders, Waters, Conyers, DeLauro, Schakowsky, Merkley, etc. keep getting elected and re-elected when it is "impossible" and "not what the people want." Yet we're the bullies. Your bullying is used to put us in our place. So that we will shut up while corporate Democrats keep driving working class voters away from the party. Well, we won't shut up. Sorry.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Yeah, that'll work.
An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind, isn't that how the story goes?
Kucinich isn't a progressive--he's a Fox News asset. He went for the paycheck as soon as he could. He's not in public life anymore, he lost his last election and he is a private citizen in the employ of Rupert Murdoch. He works for one of the biggest corporatists on the planet, and he answers to him.
Where did I ever say that it was "impossible" and "not what the people want" for those people you named to be elected? Are you trying to put big honking false words in my mouth, there, or something? How can you make that kind of accusation after all the hard work I --personally--did, and the checks I wrote, and all the driving of voters to the polls I did, helping to get Elizabeth Warren elected? I mean, really--what kind of nastiness is that you are shopping? What does it say about you that you would say those sorts of things about me? I think you need to check yourself and watch where you wave that broad brush of yours.
I kind of figured that you (quoting you--in your own words) "won't shut up." It would be nice if you listened to someone besides yourself on occasion, though. Given your combative and snarky attitude, I won't hold my breath.
OrwellwasRight
(5,312 posts)Or don't you understand how argument works? You bring up a point, and I debunk it.
Like I did with your "Kucinich Pie-in-the-sky can't get elected" point. First of all YOU brought of Kucinich, not me. Read your own post. You'll find his name there.
pie-in-the-sky Kuncinich-like wasted effort
Second "pie in the sky" and "wasted" both mean "impossible" to get elected and therefore "not what the people want" or don't you know the meanings of the phrases you use? The clear implication of your post is that progressives like Kucinich can't get elected. I mentioned several. If you think that your arguments are "honking" and "false," don't make them.
Or are you now arguing that Kucinich pie in the sky types ARE what the people want?
"Shopping nastiness"? I think you have done enough nastiness on this whole thread for a lifetime. Your accusation sounds
like you doth protest too much. One of those "if I accuse others of what I am doing they will be on the defense and I might get away with my own nastiness" maneuvers. Sorry. I'm not fooled.
Also, point out where I said "I'm gonna get back at 'em"? Or "an eye for an eye"? I said neither, and I implied neither. What I questioned was your feelings being hurt by being called "Third Way". I think you are a false victim because I don't think your feelings are hurt at all. That is not the same as threatening to hurt you. Where did I threaten to hurt you? Or is that more made up nastiness too?
I do listen to you, and believe me, it isn't pleasant. But right, I'm the snarky one.
And nope, I still won't shut up.
If you want pleasantries from people who respond to you, why don't you make your initial posts pleasant? Oh, that's right, because you take no responsibility. It's everyone else on DU who sucks, right?
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's not being "mean" to point out that this kind of thing is "pie-in-the-sky"--it's FACT. He had as much of a chance of becoming President as I did. I think you don't understand the difference between insult and simple, bald-faced fact. Kucinich was never a player--ever. And he's now working for Murdoch. Both of these things are facts. And it's not being "mean" to say so.
You're the one who said I didn't support your laundry list of progressives, and I "debunked" that.
It's not a question of "pleasantries," it's simply a matter of not making fellow Democrats enemies. If I want someone to engage in a shit-flinging contest with me, I'd join one of those rightwing sites. When I come here, to "Democratic" Underground, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a little comity.
It's pretty sad when the politicians that are championed by the various "factions" get along better than their followers do, here.
OrwellwasRight
(5,312 posts)The one making enemies by calling progressives "pie in the sky."
The only thing I am insisting on is that YOU RAISED KUCINICH. DIDN"T YOU?? OR ARE YOU DENYING THAT?
Where did I say Kucinich was going to become President? Where did either of us even discuss that? I'm serious. Please quote me if you can. Which Presidential race are we even allegedly taking about? 2004? 2008? I'm keen to find out.
I have serious doubts about your commitment to engage in actual conversation. You jump from irrelevancy to irrelevancy with jarring abruptness.
I'm done with your silly non-debate. Expect no further responses.
MADem
(135,425 posts)accuse me of that.
I said one candidate--Kucinich--was a complete non-starter. Again, I had an equal chance of becoming President. He had NO support. A lot of heat, no light. He was never going to win, place, or even show.
You're "insisting" a lot more than what you're suggesting. And since you have serious doubts about (my) commitment to engage in actual conversation you can indeed just say goodnight and wave goodbye. I won't mind at all--all you are doing is insulting me and mischaracterizing my POV, so really, what's the point?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)(Using the penguin/woodchuck dichotomy.)
I am a woodchuck, but I think you're vastly misrepresenting the penguin line, which is something like this:
There exists in this country a vast and untapped political base which desperately hungers for truly liberal policies, and will support any candidate who offers them if the party would (finally) get off of its ass and nominate one.
Now, personally, I think this line of thought is a complete fantasy, but that is actually what the "penguins" of DU do sincerely believe.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)especially this part:
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Try
"There exists in this country a vast and untapped political base which desperately hungers for policies that actually help the 99% rather than the 1%, and will support any candidate who offers them if the party would (finally) get off of its ass and nominate one. "
You can call those 'truly liberal policies' if you want, but generally they're simply the policies that 60-80% of Americans say they agree with when polled.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)The constant attempt by the woodchucks to paint "liberal" as synonymous with "whacked out fantasy land" is tiresome, and quite Limbaughesque.
OrwellwasRight
(5,312 posts)"Limbaughesque"
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You have identified the two groups but not the motives or outcomes of their actions correctly.
Case in point:
You can be critical of President Obama and be an ultra liberal and a centrist Dem could also be critical of the President.
It is your right and duty to be critical of your political leaders and if that pisses someone else off that is their error not yours.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)In order for that assessment to be true, current policies under the current president would have to be yielding incremental progress toward liberalism.
They are doing just the opposite.
We are not dealing with a slower or more pragmatic journey toward the same liberal goal. We are dealing with a corporate propaganda machine pretending that corporate Democrats *have* the same goals.
The absurd claim by Third Wayers that corporate Democrats have merely been obstructed by Republicans is so inconsistent with blatant reality and has been demolished with lists and lists and evidence of that reality so many times here that its repetition at this point can only reflect a repeating advertising/propaganda machine rather than attempts at good-faith discussion. We can post it all again and again and again: the relentless corporate appointments, the executive decisions, the slimy deals in which just enough corporate Democrats reliably appear to ensure that promised liberal legislation can't pass, the betrayals of liberal candidates and deliberate throwing of elections...
...but the Third Way "2+2=5" drones on.
That's what corporate usurpation of politics does, after all. Corporate money pouring into government and politics means the replacement of good-faith efforts to represent citizens with what corporations do instead: advertise, propagandize, and sell a product for profit, no matter how viciously and pathetically the shiny picture on the box misrepresents the product.
The talking points, the propaganda machine, and the rewriting of reality get so old.
Shun the Third Way Shills with extreme prejudice.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160
99Forever
(14,524 posts)I can't for the life of me figure out who they think they are fooling.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)No, those are Third Way talking points.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5910204
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is not discourse. This is a personal attack and a really blatant attempt to shut someone up by calling them Third Way, which this poster does ALL OF THE TIME
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 4, 2014, 08:45 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't perceive a personal attack in the alerted reply, just an alternate interpretation. Perhaps there is some history of conflict between the poster and the alerter, but that doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's not the type of attack that warrants removal, it just isn't.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Fuck the Third Way, enough of their right wing neocon corporate bullshit. WMWS is right on the money.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)This whole thread IMO illustrates the crumbling of the Third Way PR and message control machine.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)polichick
(37,626 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)What we need is better strategy and tactics.
For example, the grand jury scandals. There is a huge coalition against police violence waiting to be led to a solution. However, instead of making police violence the focus, people decide to focus on racial issues which are far more divisive - thus becoming an obstacle to solving the problem instead of an asset to it.
Taking a divisive approach pretty much guarantees that no solution will be enacted. Taking a coalition approach gives the best possible chance for a positive solution.
We don't need to be in permanent coalition with temporary issue-specific coalition partners. But I find it simply insane to not take advantage of the opportunities to implement real solutions to real problems that crossover issues represent.
Corporate domination is another one of these issues. Everybody across the spectrum is sick and tired of the corporate domination of the political process. But when the complaints are not about corruption but get diverted to side issues, like sticking it to Republicans specifically when there are plenty of Democrats who are part of the problem, or talking about taxes as the solution when they're not relevant (all the biggest corps have had laws written to minimize or even eliminate their exposure to taxes), then we get nowhere.
Build issue specific coalitions and we can get things done. Stay mired in 50%/50% politics and the status quo will reign perpetually.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)How many times have we seen posted, the school of thought that 'things have to get worse before they'll get better' and that 'maybe people will be so disgusted by Republicans in governance, that they'll vote for a progressive candidate the next time'.
That attitude gets nobody anywhere, and causes needless suffering to all those harmed by the Republican rule, while we're waiting for the liberal phoenix to rise from the ashes of the conservative dystopia.
Sid
mmonk
(52,589 posts)been gerrymandered since 2010. Economic and social justice can no longer wait on the wing of the Democratic Party that gave into Reaganomics and corporatism that has brought us to this point in history. We need a party that will stand up over a party looking to appease in hopes of a run of elected Presidents. The forgotten coalition hasn't forgotten.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Corporate Democrats and Republicans are moving us steadily into fascism.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4712258
Last edited Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:17 AM - Edit history (3)
To claim that progress is being made but is merely incremental is overwhelmingly untrue in the most important areas of policy. We are being thrown bones on social issues but inequality has been escalated viciously through policy, the power of corporations is being relentlessly increased, our fundamental civil liberties are being dismantled, journalism is under assault, peaceful protesters are being surveilled and brutally suppressed, whistleblowers are being persecuted, our president has claimed the right to imprison indefinitely and even kill without due process, militarization of our police forces has been expanded, our public education system is being corporatized and even dismantled, corporate power over the internet is being enabled, our environment is being opened to drilling and fracking, and a new pipeline is on the horizon. In addition to all this, this government is engaging in mass surveillance against its own citizens and assaulting us with propaganda and disinformation.
Corporatists have been installed in virtually every area of government by our Democratic president.
The most significant policy proposal on the horizon is the most predatory free trade agreement in history, which will force Americans to compete with workers in Third World countries. It will kill jobs, reduce wages for over 90 percent of American workers, restrict freedom on the internet, make obtaining life-saving medications more difficult and more expensive, and allow multinational corporations to sue for profits and overrule national decisions on everything from wages to regulations for environment and safety. It is an assault on all of us, and it is unconscionable coming from a Democratic president. However, it is wholly consistent with this administration's long record of working on behalf of corporate interests.
...We are relentlessly badgered to uphold the illusion that our corporate Democrats really do care about the same issues, principles, and goals that we do, even though their actions relentlessly pursue the opposite. As much as we are told by the corporate crew working this board that War is Peace and the chocolate ration has been increased, we have lived with our eyes open during these past five years, and we have watched first-hand what the flooding of our party with corporate money has done to its behavior...and to us.
Nothing is fixed until we are honest about what is happening. All the propaganda notwithstanding, more and more courageous liberals are standing up to do just that. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich....the launch of FirstLook....Bill Moyers' excellent work. The new statement at the Daily Kos that they will work to defeat the malignant influence of the Third Way in our party....These are all positive signs.
People who care deeply about this country are telling the truth about what we really are facing...the corporate hijacking of our party and our government....because the rose-colored glasses are malignant. The rose-colored glasses are a corporate lie, and they prevent real change.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)is the folly of their position they give.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,312 posts)Antonio Weiss, Mike Froman, Penny Pritzker, Robert Holleyman. Just the tip of the iceberg of the corporatists running the country.
Response to stevenleser (Original post)
LittleBlue This message was self-deleted by its author.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)The admins are not irrationally loathe to do anything about it. They don't do anything about it because they can't do anything about it. A huge part of this forum rejects DLC/Third Way philosophies. So many in fact that this forum would be a virtual ghost town without them.
Skinner et al aren't dumb. They can see what everyone else sees. They also know just how many members fit into that group. And they know they'd be destroying what remains of their site with a purge. Or sending them to a dungeon.
I don't think what you describe is actually the reason. We've chased off every new member who doesn't conform to the groupthink, and and we've chased off old members who do the same, so the obvious result is an ever-diminishing group of active members. Couple that with election fatigue and a disastrous mid-term, and people just don't show up as much.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Candidates are not the end-all of political movements. Candidates are the tools by which a political movement achieves its goals.
So it's not which candidate needs to be supported, it's which policies need to be supported.
And frankly, we need both camps. The "far left" people you decry in your post are the ones pushing the boundaries and setting the goals. We actually reach those goals via incrementalism - doing what is politically possible at that time towards those currently unachievable goals. That work is done by candidates, but they're just tools to get the policy.
Where embodying policy in candidates causes you to go awry is you're only looking at what can be done now. There no long-term goals, There's no "this is where we want to take the country". There's only "this is how we win today, tomorrow be damned".
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The elections of 1932, 1980, 1992, 2000 and 2008, for instance, are excellent examples of how the direction of the country was affected radically, either for the better or for the worse, by an election. Outside of the Revolutionary and Civil wars, its hard to think of how any singular action by the people changed so many things for the country.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And we use candidates as tools to get those policies.
Looking at it only as candidates gives you nothing to shoot for. There's no goal. There's no point beyond winning. And once you've won, there's nothing to do - winning was all you were trying to do.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)One thing that some people fail to see (and it can be colored by where you live) is that when you live in a liberal enclave it's hard to see why people would elect Blue Dogs in Democratic primaries. Electing a liberal in San Francisco is one thing (and almost expected). It's another thing to elect a liberal in the south. And even bluer states have some conservative parts. The state senate district that I grew up in (where Bill and Hillary Clinton are registered voters) is held by a tea party Republican (who will be replaced with another teabagger). Hard to imagine the Clintons living in a teabagger district, but it's true.
As for DU participation, forum participation in general is down due to the rise of social media. Personally I'd rather things be discussed on forums because you know that others are interested in what you have to say. This doesn't just go for politics but so many other things people post about on social media. (To use a non political example, your co-workers and college friends probably don't care that your latest juice cleanse recipe is not too good, but a forum of people on juice cleanses are going to want to know that information). Forums have a time and place, and I hope the pendulum swings back to them so people don't annoy each other on social media.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We support the same things.
One group demands the President provide them now, and if there is political opposition, all he has to do is "fight."
We realize it's not that easy.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)We do not support the same things.
Obama supports TPP. I do not. If you support globalist labor exploitation we do not support the same damn things. It isn't the speed of change it is often simply the wrong direction.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Expecting total agreement with anyone is unrealistic.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)You've been around long enough to have seen the 'lists' posted by both sides, so you're simply throwing out the total strawman of 'total agreement', which no one ever asks for. Hell, as much as I love Bernie Sanders, I don't 'totally agree' with him on anything, or even expect him to 'totally agree' with me.
treestar
(82,383 posts)How many things are needed to be the same before you can work with them? Apparently you could work with Bernie Sanders, though there is something he doesn't agree about.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)How many issues do you want me to list where direction, not speed, is the problem?
We are clearly NOT all trying to achieve the same things.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Obama is a world-class campaigner, but when it comes to actual governance he doesn't have anywhere near the skills of a Bill Clinton, who managed to get done at least some of what he wanted to do while dealing with a GOP Congress.
Obama's antagonistic governing style ensures that he gets no cooperation, as evidenced by the zero GOP votes for his flagship ACA legislation among other things.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Usually on DU his critics claim he is too willing to compromise.
Bill Clinton didn't get anywhere with health care and signed some rather Republican legislation. I don't see where anything he got that he wanted out of a Republican congress was anything the progressives would approve of.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)The "compromise" thing is people who think that his corporatism/warmaking is something he doesn't want to do - I'm pretty well convinced he does want to do that stuff, see his TPP moves.
When you look at how he called out SCOTUS in that SOTU while some of them were sitting right there (they were NOT happy) and how he has difficulty dealing even with Democrats in Congress (doesn't include them in decision making process then rides them to go along with what he has decided without them), that's pretty antagonistic.
Clinton had to deal with GOP majorities but he at least was able to rally the backing of his own party. Obama acts like there's the GOP, the Democrats, and the Obama Party. Seems like a new story about how Congressional Democrats get blindsided by an Obama initiative comes out every month. Do a search on the term "Congressional Democrats Obama" and there are stories galore about how he cuts them out of the process, sidelines them, ignores them, etc.
That's how he treats Democrats. When you then consider that since 2011 it has been required that he also convince some House Republicans to go along in order to pass legislation, it's no wonder that the only legislation that gets passed are corporatist initiatives on which he agrees with Republicans and thus has no need to forge a coalition to get something through.
Here are some links to demonstrate what I'm talking about:
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/20/6045891/why-congressional-democrats-don-t-like-obama
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is-frustrating-his-own-party.html?_r=0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-looking-to-mend-fences-with-congress-is-reaching-out-to-democrats/2014/12/03/3fdf9078-7a40-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/barack-obama-democrats-113016.html
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I think there are valuable members of the community in both groups you mention who often have important things to say, agree or disagree with them you can at least respect what they have to say.
There are also trolls on both sides however, trolls don't necessarily even believe anything they say they are just here to stir up problems and they will take whatever side will piss off the people they want to piss off. They are the ones who really make DU suck.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Even Democratic politicians and Democratic candidates.
Blue_Adept
(6,499 posts)The catch-all nature of this part of the site is problematic because it flares to the top with trending and drives people out because all they see is the awful side of the posters.
Force more discussions in specific topic forums instead and raise profiles there of those areas so that actual topics are worked on rather than just the flare of the moment.
And topic consolidation is a must, though I believe it's near impossible to do due to the software, or at least that was my experience with the DCF base software back in 2001.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)I've been hanging out in this forum for nearly fourteen years. Good luck forcing anyone here to discuss what you think should be discussed, and how they should do it. 
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Lol, just kidding. It's hard for me to take your post seriously.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)wrong direction.
We aren't going too slow on civil liberties, they are being scuttled.
We don't think it is taking too long to rein in Wall Street, we are ever giving them more power.
We don't believe the murderous and corrupt police state is being put under control too slowly but rather they are growing more oppressive, more empowered, and less accountable by the day.
We aren't seeing a wealth disparity shrinking too slowly but rather seeing it expand.
We don't believe our environment is being improved too slowly but that everyday the magnitude of the issue grows.
We don't think the commons is growing too slowly but rather that is being gutted.
We are not angered that Social Security is being expanded too slowly but that is in danger even from Democrats of being cut.
The upset is not that public education isn't being bolstered enough but rather it is being destroyed as quickly as can be gotten away with.
We aren't frustrated with too slow movement from big carbon but that their reach increases dangerously.
We see decreasing water security not too slow an increase.
Homelessness isn't being reduced too slowly, it is growing.
Job and broad prosperity killing "free trade" aren't being scuttled too slowly there are ever more of them.
I think you misdiagnosed the situation entirely in a self serving fashion. Undo the progress of the past 25 or 30 years? Fucking A, it is imperative to undo the Reagan Revulsion that has had the lion's share of progress during that time frame.
It isn't so much the speed but the heading. No sense discussing pace when direction is at issue. Direction is what you are trying to ignore and pretend away.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Here's today's reality shit sandwich of *actual* Third Way direction:
Obama Ready to Defy Base in Order to Advance Trans-Pacific Partnership
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025911398
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Real people would just fess to what they believe and what their aims are. Driving the wrong direction from your destination on a sustained basis is not the best way to get there. In fact, it pushes the difficulty significantly.
Of course there is a limited market for a more inclusive and secular Reagan/Bush Republican style party though they love to goofily pretend that that is the mass population they must do all this supposed song and dance to attract despite that it doesn't attract anyone and what it is, is an appeal to their vanity.
They are hoodwinked, delusional, or lying their asses off while thinking everybody is too stupid blink and breathe at the same time.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Nailed it and then some. I hope it can sink in with our party before principles crowd. Very nice!
treestar
(82,383 posts)IMO it is lazy thinking to say "I have nothing to do with it, it's the Democratic leaders that are responsible." Like we can simply sit back and watch other people do things. Once elected, they still have to have our support so they can justify whatever votes they make. They are dealing with Republicans on a daily basis, ones with power. And who know they always have the support of other Repbulicans
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)We must either change or break the supposed Democrats who cheer blissfully as someone with a "D" next to their name joins the efforts of corporate dominance, military interventionism, making our world a toilet for profits, the gutting of civil liberties, propping up toxic institutions, systemic racism, and increasing poverty for whatever absurd rationalizations they can come up with to sleep at night and face a mirror every morning.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)That line made me laugh out loud!
Then I asked myself - is Stevvenlesser even 35 years old? Surely he was not even born or a mere child and has no idea how far backwards we've gone in the past 25/30 years.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)sum up how lost and useless this web site has become better than anything you could have actually written. After I read your OP, I actually wondered if someone would be trite enough to toss in the ubiquitous Third Way insult and was actually a bit surprised that someone did without so much as a trace of irony (or awareness).
You just have to laugh at how absurd and pointless some of these people are and this all is.
K&R Good post (from someone who actually read it and didn't just copy and paste responses to other people on different topics and pretend that it was in 'answer' to what you've written here)
Number23
(24,544 posts)Way which is exactly the kind of behavior that has caused so many to wash their hands of this place and never return but NO ONE is saying anything about his point about the number of black folks that couldn't be paid to post here anymore? Cali_Dem nailed it in another thread when he stated that as the number of white libertarians flooded this place, the number of posters of color dropped and dropped BIG.
Sometimes I visit the old AAIG forum on DU2. Easily 70% of the people that posted then don't post anymore and there weren't many of us to begin with. But I guess it's much easier to pretend that he's calling for a purge than address that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And point yet again--I think there's a crew of disruptors with a big old spoon, intent on stirring up some shit, and I, too, often think that people of color are just not welcomed here by some factions.
I don't know what the solution is. Maybe, as a group, we should be less tolerant of "rudeness that doesn't rise to the level of a hide" particularly if it's coming out of the same crew, low level, over and over again.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I have a lot of people on ignore and that includes a lot of folks who jump to ridiculous negative assumptions about people and their posts.
I think that makes our point in yet another way. When you need to have that many nasty folks on ignore to filter out the drivel posts, the site has a problem.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The site shouldn't filter out every comment that is nested beneath that of someone you have on ignore. It should function like the 'name removed' comments, and simply collapse the comments of those you have on ignore and show you 'name on ignore', and then let you see comments by everyone else, even if those comments are nested beneath someone you're ignoring.
Number23
(24,544 posts)thread and "drivel" sounds about right to describe what they're saying.
But by having them on ignore, you're missing some unintentional hilarity. Looking at some of the really bizarre responses to your OP it seems that you have driven a few folks batty here. Must be that one thing you have that they don't -- moderate success.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)When the overarching narrative was "Republican Lunatics vs. Everyone", traffic was up. That's the Superman vs. Lex Luthor of narratives; simple and direct and easy to understand by just absorbing the sound bites of the week.
The fight we're in today is over the soul of the party. That's boring and wonky to most people.
That's part of it, anyway. I also think there's an huge amount of disappointment in, not only Obama, but the party. Many who are interested in politics have become disillusioned by the all-too-transparent kabuki theater in recent years, designed to skirt actual liberal policy and achieve some mild, corporate-friendly legislation instead.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)She's so coy, as if she doesn't know what's going on.
The truth is that she is impeding democracy, she's impeding the primary process by her tricks.
Unless she comes out in favor of a robust discussion and series of debates leading up to the primaries, I will not support her, I will not vote for her.
Repeat, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Sponsoring a bill to increase the minimum wage, taking back Bush tax breaks given to corporations, ceasing subsidies to corporations who move off shore to prevent paying taxes, fighting for Civil Rights since college dats, outraged at executives compensation, ending tax breaks for outsourcing jobs, has a 85% voting record by AFL-CIO and there are many more and I really don't see where these imoede democracy.
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)
Captain Stern
(2,253 posts)The problem is that there are people in each group that think, and say, that the people in the other group don't belong here.
TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)It long ago ceased to be influential or important in real liberal politics, though. A result of various repeated purges and infighting. Sad, really. When I got here, the DU was the single most important liberal site on the internet, way ahead of Kos, FDL, Common Dreams, etc. My guess is the owners have what they want.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Yet the trolls can get shitcanned and come back under another name. I think that is the sites biggest flaw, the admins should not let trolls come back over and over under another name "because they might be nice this time".
No. Trolls are not nice and giving them six billion chances to prove it has run off a lot of good people imo.
merrily
(45,251 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I saw a recent poll saying about 65 percent of the party want Hillary. Now that will change as the primary comes along but I wonder if they think we are all"third way".
I am getting sick of the name calling here.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)intelligent insult.
The "third way" pejorative has been so overused and misapplied, that it's essentially been rendered meaningless.
Yet some posters can't seem to form a post without tossing it out for the umpteenth millionth time. 
Lame. Lame. Lame.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It is one of the reasons I post lesx here now.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)just because I became sick of seeing it all the time. I wonder how many threads and posts I've missed out on.
Exultant Democracy
(6,597 posts)Bill Clinton was very vocal about triangulation and Hillary was right there with him. Many on Du think third way politics and triangulation are bad, but it is the Clinton legacy in democratic politics and neither of them shy away from it. If you don't want to be called third way dont support the couple that invented triangulation.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Exultant Democracy
(6,597 posts)And the Clintons are the inventors of triangulation. Are you implying that you support Clinton while disagreeing with her legacy as a democrat and her positions on the issues? You are a DLC democrat and you shouldn't be offended by that it isn't a slur it is just a statement of the facts. If you don't want to be DLC democrat then don't support the DLC candidates, it's pretty simple.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Exultant Democracy
(6,597 posts)Unless you are implying that Clinton is not the First Lady of the DLC, then these two facts are more then enough to put you in your proper category as a democrat. If it was after the primary you could just be a good democrat, but it isn't.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Are they all DLC democrats?
Exultant Democracy
(6,597 posts)The DLC packaged and sold a lie to the Democratic party that we had to run to the center to win and except for two election cycles under Dean the democrats have consistently underperformed ever since.
HRC isn't just a leader of the DLC wing of the democratic party she is also a product that they packed and sold to democrats like you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Exultant Democracy
(6,597 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am not a fan or supporter of tge dlc or third way.
Exultant Democracy
(6,597 posts)Or perhaps like someone who buy "all natural" products and thinks they eat organic.
The Clinton's invented third way democratic politics, it is their brand and you obviously buy it. You can't both support Clinton and not support the DLC and third way politics it is the core of her political legacy.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I like the Clintons and I think she will be a great president because she is ready and prepared for the job. I don't agree with her on several things but st this point I don't think any of our other candidates can win a third Democratic term.
You can say whatever you want but I am not third wayer or dlcer and you are insulting me by calling me that. If you are going to continue then please don't respond to me anymore.
Exultant Democracy
(6,597 posts)Good democrats... that appellation is as disturbingly accurate.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am getting sick of being called third way and dlc when I am not, and I have no desire to argue with people anymore because I dare to like the Clintons.
I won't be responding back to you nor anyone else for awhile so I wish you all well and peace.
Exultant Democracy
(6,597 posts)I actually like the Clinton's too, like a lot. I can like them and at the same time understand that they are the leaders of the DLC and the originators of third way politics. They don't even run away from their legacy they proudly embrace it. (With the exception of HRC's Iraq vote)
However much I like them as people I also understand that supporting them is supporting a the DLC wing of the democratic party.
So really what else do you call democrats who support DLC third way democratic candidates in the primary so as not to be accused of name calling? Calling you Good Democrats as you suggest would put me in Godwin's law territory, so maybe there is something else you would find acceptable.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Mainly because it presumes a universal definition of what being liberal means.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)I don't agree with your premise, but what do you consider to be the solution?
BootinUp
(51,322 posts)After the Reagan revolution, the democrats had to essentially rebuild their voting coalition to be able to challenge on both the national level and in many of the more conservative regions. The winning solution is not the third way, it is the only way. Until someone demonstrates differently that is just a fact. You don't have to like it, you can deny reality if you prefer.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)I'm sure nobody will notice (they will)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)"By relentlessly pillorying Barack Obama, this group has turned off a large portion of the African American community on "DU which indicates, IMHO, not only a complete lack of political savvy, but either a complete lack of awareness of, or simply not caring at all about the sensitivity people of color have to attacks on the first African American president."
((((Gack!))))
Do you honestly believe that African Americans are really that fragile and stupid? That's pretty insulting. AA's are basically the only group besides Occupy with the wisdom to realize that the political system is totally fucking them, and the only group besides Occupy with the courage to actually get out in the streets and try to change things through direct action.
Here's the bottom line:
Centrism is undeniable epic fail, and now we've lost both the House and Senate.
And ya'll keep promoting the same Centrist candidates and policies that caused our epic fail, now you are telling us that things will only get better if we elect more centrists like the ones who keep leading to epic fail. The polarization of the wealth is compounding at the speed of light.
It is often said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.
We. Need. Major. Change. The people who are understand this are being driven off in hopelessness, because they are seeing that there are far too many Democrats who insist on doing to keep the same things over and over that are driving the party and the country down the fast lane to destruction.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)And brave. Its a sensitive subject and you addressed it very well, imo. We shouldn't judge a person, or a president, by their skin tone. Good or bad. Its actions, and most blacks that I'm friends with are aware of this. They will always be proud to have a black in the oval office, but they can see his warts too.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)CentralMass
(16,971 posts)There are some stats in this WSJ article.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-and-the-black-vote-1415060230
While I like the President I feel no urge to sycophantically support him.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)By constantly promoting the right wing. Even when they don't "win" an election, they WIN in the long run, through the constant drip, drip, drip of right wing ideology until it has become accepted as legitimate business as usual, and allowed on the table by that first group, even when the LIBERAL ideals of their own party AREN'T.
Not just at DU, but in every political office across the nation.
OrwellwasRight
(5,312 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 6, 2014, 09:54 PM - Edit history (1)
it is hard to know where to begin:
"even if that means minimal progress as long as we prevent things from moving backwards"
Um, we are moving backwards and have been doing so since 1980, with the active participation of both Democratic congresses and Democratic presidents:
-NAFTA
-extension of Bush tax cuts
-Iraq War Resolution
-The Failure to Close Guantanamo
-USA PATRIOT Act
-Repeal of Glass-Stegall Act
-No Child Left Behind
-Bankruptcy "reform"
-Letting telecom companies off the hook for spying after 9/11
-Wall Street Bailout without a single piece of accountability or requirement that "main street" benefit
-Deregulation of the trucking industry, which has led to low wages, de-unionization, and weaker safety rules
I could go on. Each of these passed with Democratic congressional votes and/or the signature/order of a Democratic president.
" that results in losses to radical right wing Republicans who will not only implement regressive policies and undo 10-20-30 years of progress"
A) Unstated assumption that the progress has not already been undone. It has.
B) Unstated assumption that if a neoliberal Democrat loses, a Republican wins. Why can't a more progressive Democrat win instead?
"Democrats doing the best they can"
Bullshit. Lieberman's state was to the left of him. He never did the best he could. Earl Blumenauer's and Ron Kind's districts are to the left of them on trade. They vote the way they do on trade because they want to--they could get reelected without those sell out votes on trade, but they don't want to do so. If Obama wanted to do the "best he could" he would have threatened Lieberman with loss of his chairmanship if he didn't get in line on government option, but he didn't. If Obama wanted to do the "best he could" he would not be pursuing special legal rights for corporations in the TPP, but he is. No one is making him do that.
"his group has turned off a large portion of the African American community on DU"
Unstated assumption that there aren't blacks who disapprove of the job the President is doing.
"the website cannot accommodate both groups and continue to be successful"
Unstated assumption that a successful website requires agreement of all participants. To posit the opposite assumption, maybe that is boring and the admins are specifically allowing the debate.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)What a spot-on post.
OrwellwasRight
(5,312 posts)I am trying to sharpen those skills -- we actually often lose arguments if we take them on their own terms. We have to look at their premises, which are often faulty or purposely build in "when did you stop beating your wife type" assumptions which put you on the defense immediately if you don't call them out.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)I found it to be very patronizing towards African Americans as if the whole AA community must blindly support Obama because they are the same race and that anybody who criticizes him is racist . there are PLENTY of leftist african americans who do NOT support Obama's center right corporatist warmongering.
OrwellwasRight
(5,312 posts)
Yeah, not cool to pretend that African Americans (or any group) is ideologically monolithic in order to shame people into shutting up if they have criticisms of the President.
I'm not enthralled with this OP.
Exultant Democracy
(6,597 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 6, 2014, 10:33 PM - Edit history (1)
There is literally no way that the democrats could have lost the Senate bigger considering the seats that were up. The first group you cite the DLC democrats won the heart of our party, implemented their strategy and presided over the catastrophic losses you cite as a downside of the second groups plan.
The proof is in the pudding after the 2004 Dlc electoral meltdown the liberal wing was thrown a bone and we got two cycles of Dean at the helm. The result was we won in states we never even imagined picking up seats in.
We want Dean back in charge of campaign strategy and warren leading on policy. If history is any indicator the Democratic Party could neuter the republicans by 2020 if we stop cow towing to the Rahm faction of the Democratic Party.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
OrwellwasRight
(5,312 posts)The facts are on our side. The money isn't though. And it's competing with facts for influence within the party's powermakers.
ellenrr
(3,868 posts)I for one would never allow anyone to call me a 'liberal'.
Now, an individual could call themself a liberal and have very good values.
But to me the word has been perverted (See Chris Hedges for example) and I do not accept that label.
It seems to me that the OP is using the word 'liberal' to refer to anyone on the left, and there is a whale of a difference between a liberal a progressive a radical.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts) Exultant Democracy
(6,597 posts)
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I don't really understand your false dichotomy, but let me give some of my own observations a go:
Third Way vs. Left Wing Progressive vs. Far Left Wing (Socialist or Libertarian or Anarchist "flavored" Democrats).
Hillary supporters vs. Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders vs. Other Possibilities (Jim Webb, for example).
Edward Snowden/Glenn Greenwald supporters vs. Edward Snowden is a criminal.
Support Obama no matter what vs. it's time to start criticizing the President
Intervene in Humanitarian Crises across the globe vs. reduce our military involvement
Do something about misogyny vs. men who think feminism is about taking away their rights
Do something about homophobia vs. people who think "identity politics" is losing the Southern white male "populist" vote
People for the prioritization of immigrant issues vs. people who feel union issues were shafted in the process, and again - no appeal to the Soouthern white male "populist" vote
Black Lives Matter vs. All Lives Matter
I could go on and on and on. There are many genuine ideological splits WITHIN the Democratic party, and a Democratic forum is the place to debate them. If someone decides to throw a hissy fit and leave because they have taken a hard line and their ideology isn't prevailing, then that is their problem.
By the way, I've been Jury'd twice over ideology policing: once in regard to my feminism and another in regard to my partisanship over Edward Snowden. Both times I was disgusted that people used the Jury system that way, and as a Juror I've always been careful to let opinion, whether I agreed with it or not, go. A forum is a place for debate, and if Democrats automatically agreed on everything they wouldn't need a forum.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)When a candidate is deemed "Not Electable" it is always deemed so on a basis of his not being conservative enough. A candidate's lack of electability is eternally predicated on their being "too liberal." On the other hand, there is no perception that any amount of conservativism leads to undetectability, even among democrats.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)and the Republicans would call him a union boss and a Hollywood liberal who pals around with communists and new agers!
He signed the bill allowing abortions in California!
He's divorced and has a gay son!
He's responsible for California having the strongest environmental laws in the country!
The guy put Sandra Day O'Conner and Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court!
God, he funded the Mujahideen and the early Taliban!
We'd never get him elected!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)This OP http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025923345 where the OP is happy that Mary Landrieu lost to a radical tea party Republican.
As I noted in my comment to that OP, Being happy that a moderate Democrat, who will vote the Liberal way on bills 70-80% of the time is being replaced by a Tea Party Republican who will vote the Liberal way 0% of the time, and we have lost a seat that will be difficult for us to win again in the next 20-40 years is a toxic sentiment.
It's toxic not just to Democrats getting more seats, it's toxic to the effort to pass any Liberal/Progressive legislation for the next 20-40 years. But to one side of DU, it is a perfectly acceptable sentiment.
G_j
(40,569 posts)you say there are two groups on DU, yet you use an example that has one rec. Your depiction of two distinct groups may be convenient for you, but it is far too simplistic.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)5 recs and 14 expressing agreement with the OP.