HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Is there trolling going o...

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:47 AM

Is there trolling going on here in regards to Obama? Like

the GOP have to get his numbers down, and start an anti Obama discussion here on the DU, when Obama is pretty much a settled issue?

270 replies, 28958 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 270 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is there trolling going on here in regards to Obama? Like (Original post)
applegrove Jan 2015 OP
MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #1
Recursion Jan 2015 #2
MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #9
Recursion Jan 2015 #13
MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #16
Recursion Jan 2015 #17
MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #48
Andy823 Jan 2015 #59
MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #69
Post removed Jan 2015 #75
snooper2 Jan 2015 #68
merrily Jan 2015 #125
applegrove Jan 2015 #6
X_Digger Jan 2015 #3
still_one Jan 2015 #10
RiverLover Jan 2015 #41
tosh Jan 2015 #50
Andy823 Jan 2015 #63
R B Garr Jan 2015 #4
Maedhros Jan 2015 #82
R B Garr Jan 2015 #92
Maedhros Jan 2015 #93
polly7 Jan 2015 #98
R B Garr Jan 2015 #109
polly7 Jan 2015 #110
R B Garr Jan 2015 #111
polly7 Jan 2015 #115
R B Garr Jan 2015 #117
polly7 Jan 2015 #118
R B Garr Jan 2015 #120
polly7 Jan 2015 #122
R B Garr Jan 2015 #126
polly7 Jan 2015 #127
R B Garr Jan 2015 #128
polly7 Jan 2015 #131
R B Garr Jan 2015 #136
polly7 Jan 2015 #138
R B Garr Jan 2015 #139
polly7 Jan 2015 #140
R B Garr Jan 2015 #141
polly7 Jan 2015 #142
R B Garr Jan 2015 #144
polly7 Jan 2015 #145
R B Garr Jan 2015 #146
polly7 Jan 2015 #148
R B Garr Jan 2015 #150
polly7 Jan 2015 #156
R B Garr Jan 2015 #157
polly7 Jan 2015 #102
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #87
NoJusticeNoPeace Jan 2015 #204
R B Garr Jan 2015 #212
Cha Jan 2015 #5
MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #12
Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #42
MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #43
Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #46
MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #47
Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #49
MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #51
Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #57
Stellar Jan 2015 #270
LanternWaste Jan 2015 #52
MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #54
Andy823 Jan 2015 #64
NoJusticeNoPeace Jan 2015 #206
chieftain Jan 2015 #83
MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #84
Cha Jan 2015 #152
chieftain Jan 2015 #195
MADem Jan 2015 #94
Cha Jan 2015 #151
msanthrope Jan 2015 #187
Cha Jan 2015 #189
msanthrope Jan 2015 #191
Cha Jan 2015 #192
msanthrope Jan 2015 #193
MADem Jan 2015 #196
Cha Jan 2015 #215
MADem Jan 2015 #217
Cha Jan 2015 #224
MADem Jan 2015 #227
Cha Jan 2015 #233
Cha Jan 2015 #262
sheshe2 Jan 2015 #226
MADem Jan 2015 #228
sheshe2 Jan 2015 #232
Cha Jan 2015 #234
sheshe2 Jan 2015 #239
msanthrope Jan 2015 #188
MADem Jan 2015 #198
Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #14
sheshe2 Jan 2015 #223
Cha Jan 2015 #225
Recursion Jan 2015 #7
applegrove Jan 2015 #8
Recursion Jan 2015 #11
R B Garr Jan 2015 #15
Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #116
R B Garr Jan 2015 #119
R B Garr Jan 2015 #134
merrily Jan 2015 #53
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #70
merrily Jan 2015 #71
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #73
LondonReign2 Jan 2015 #56
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #24
Recursion Jan 2015 #25
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #29
Recursion Jan 2015 #30
daredtowork Jan 2015 #39
merrily Jan 2015 #124
Rex Jan 2015 #18
on point Jan 2015 #19
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #85
on point Jan 2015 #88
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #90
sendero Jan 2015 #186
daredtowork Jan 2015 #20
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #26
daredtowork Jan 2015 #38
merrily Jan 2015 #160
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #161
merrily Jan 2015 #165
BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #21
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #28
BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #58
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #61
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #32
BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #60
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #62
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #76
BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #162
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #164
merrily Jan 2015 #176
merrily Jan 2015 #130
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #137
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #154
BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #163
Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #114
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #149
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #133
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #147
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #153
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #158
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #214
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #219
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #220
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #238
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #251
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #253
MADem Jan 2015 #237
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #243
MADem Jan 2015 #245
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #250
MADem Jan 2015 #252
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #258
MADem Jan 2015 #260
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #261
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #155
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #159
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #211
MADem Jan 2015 #235
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #236
MADem Jan 2015 #240
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #241
MADem Jan 2015 #242
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #244
MADem Jan 2015 #246
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #247
MADem Jan 2015 #249
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #254
MADem Jan 2015 #256
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #257
MADem Jan 2015 #266
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #267
MADem Jan 2015 #269
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #259
MADem Jan 2015 #230
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #22
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #33
JEB Jan 2015 #45
ND-Dem Jan 2015 #67
Enrique Jan 2015 #23
1000words Jan 2015 #27
JDPriestly Jan 2015 #34
merrily Jan 2015 #177
msanthrope Jan 2015 #31
Jamaal510 Jan 2015 #35
sheshe2 Jan 2015 #36
Douglas Carpenter Jan 2015 #37
ChosenUnWisely Jan 2015 #40
m-lekktor Jan 2015 #44
Andy823 Jan 2015 #65
JoePhilly Jan 2015 #80
great white snark Jan 2015 #89
Cha Jan 2015 #184
sheshe2 Jan 2015 #200
Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #97
dissentient Jan 2015 #55
Marrah_G Jan 2015 #66
applegrove Jan 2015 #79
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #91
polly7 Jan 2015 #99
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #101
polly7 Jan 2015 #104
polly7 Jan 2015 #100
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #103
polly7 Jan 2015 #105
RiverLover Jan 2015 #179
JaneyVee Jan 2015 #72
merrily Jan 2015 #178
treestar Jan 2015 #74
merrily Jan 2015 #123
treestar Jan 2015 #180
merrily Jan 2015 #182
Rex Jan 2015 #197
merrily Jan 2015 #199
Rex Jan 2015 #207
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #264
struggle4progress Jan 2015 #77
NaturalHigh Jan 2015 #78
merrily Jan 2015 #129
NaturalHigh Jan 2015 #183
merrily Jan 2015 #185
NaturalHigh Jan 2015 #190
butterfly77 Jan 2015 #81
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #86
oberliner Jan 2015 #95
applegrove Jan 2015 #96
polly7 Jan 2015 #106
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #107
merrily Jan 2015 #167
merrily Jan 2015 #181
1000words Jan 2015 #112
applegrove Jan 2015 #121
1000words Jan 2015 #135
R B Garr Jan 2015 #143
1000words Jan 2015 #201
R B Garr Jan 2015 #202
1000words Jan 2015 #203
R B Garr Jan 2015 #205
Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #209
1000words Jan 2015 #210
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #216
Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #221
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #222
Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #113
merrily Jan 2015 #132
NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #166
merrily Jan 2015 #168
NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #172
merrily Jan 2015 #175
NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #208
merrily Jan 2015 #169
NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #170
merrily Jan 2015 #171
NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #173
merrily Jan 2015 #174
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #213
grasswire Jan 2015 #218
merrily Jan 2015 #231
Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #229
merrily Jan 2015 #248
Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #265
merrily Jan 2015 #268
Corruption Inc Jan 2015 #108
99Forever Jan 2015 #194
mstinamotorcity2 Jan 2015 #255
ucrdem Jan 2015 #263

Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:49 AM

1. Is there a specific op you have in mind? Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:59 AM

9. Why is that funny? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:02 AM

13. Manny, your alter ego *masterfully* trolls about Obama nearly every day

Though, from a downthread exchange with the OP I see he meant more "shill" than "troll", and you're not a shill, so nevermind...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:27 AM

16. Well, thank you for the kind compliment

 

Last edited Wed Jan 28, 2015, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)

although I prefer to think of it as satire rather than trolling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:28 AM

17. Yeah, see my definition of "troll" downthread

I'm a geezer; I still use the old Usenet definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 10:56 AM

48. Ok, thanks for the clarification

 

"Troll" on DU has become synonymous with "gratuitous disruptor" or "shill".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:22 PM

59. I prefer to think of what you do as

Stirring up shit, making things up and just plain old BS. Of course it gets you all those recs you love so dearly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Andy823 (Reply #59)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:38 PM

69. Are there some examples that you'd like to point out?

 

You wouldn't want people to think that you were doing those things yourself, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #69)


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:24 PM

68. it's only satire if done correctly, maybe BP could take you on as an understudy?

 

LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #68)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:32 AM

125. Your disagreement with his politics doesn't mean he's doing satire incorrectly.

I don't find RW stand up funny when I come across it on TV, but the audience seems to be laughing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:53 AM

6. Nope. Nothing in particular. Just noticing it here when I know it has been

going on (the issue of Obama's record being molested and groups created to help fix it years ago) and I'm wondering what the 411 is on the issue. Because I have not paid attention to it until tonight. I stay away from internal DU fights because of what I have been through in life (I come to DU to discuss the issues and the dreams of democrats) but today feel like jumping into the squabble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:51 AM

3. Err, I think you overestimate the importance of DU. This ain't the party's star chamber. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:59 AM

10. that pretty much sums it up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 07:31 AM

41. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 11:14 AM

50. (lol).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:08 PM

63. True, but

It ain't the party bashing chamber either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:52 AM

4. Yeah, it looks like anti-Obama to me and a way to troll this board.

And that's all mixed together with a little anti-Americanism, too.

U betcha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 07:45 PM

82. What do you mean by "anti-Americanism?"

 

Not cheering loudly enough for the war machine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #82)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 09:01 PM

92. No, by shaming and broad-brushing Americans using the

war machine as their platform to troll this board because of their "concern." I guess they get some sick jollies from insinuating liberals on this board are baby killers and support killing children.

There are various other subjects that are obviously trolled, but suffice it to say that American women can be some of their favorite trolling targets. Et cetera, et cetera.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #92)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 09:03 PM

93. I guess I haven't seen those posts, so I can't comment.

 

I have seen "you just hate America!" posts in response to criticisms of military operations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #93)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 12:49 AM

98. He/she is very, very upset I posted a story of a child killed in a drone strike.

Last edited Thu Jan 29, 2015, 01:21 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026144859

10 year 'troll' here. Pleased to meet ya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #98)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 02:26 AM

109. Nothing you ever say is in context.

You must do this on purpose. LMAO at the ten years. I've seen your attacks on people you attack here on a regular basis so that doesn't matter either.

I did get a big chuckle out of your interchange with the poster, The Magistrate, which earned you a hidden post along with 4 other posts hidden and a time out, so you are not very credible.

This is just repetition, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #109)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 02:32 AM

110. Do what on purpose?

I don't attack people who don't attack me, I speak exactly as I'm spoken to.

I get a big chuckle of you bringing up ad nauseum my hidden posts which mostly consisted of threads regarding Ukraine in which you never even participated.

Again, which Americans here, as you said, was I accusing of killing that child, and what's your garbage about me hating American women?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #110)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 02:39 AM

111. Nothing you say is in context.

I don't have to participate in a thread to read it. Duh.

And I doubt you get a chuckle out of what I post since you post such hostility. Your comment does not sound credible.

Your last sentence is completely out of context, which makes it not credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #111)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 02:53 AM

115. Ahhhh.

Such an interesting, explanatory post. Not one question answered by you .......... ever. Just the same old accusations, so full of hostility/hatred (I remember you now and lack of credibility I actually find them quite funny. None of your sentences have ever answered a single question I've asked in response to your accusations. But no worries, whatever helps you to feel better about yourself, I've got strong shoulders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #115)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:07 AM

117. Yet I've seen your hidden posts...

I suggest you go back and read them yourself to provide the context that perpetually eludes you.

I've answered you over and over and over as I've also seen others do, but it's met with hostility.

And I'm certainly not going to take your emotionally charged interpretations and "answer it" any more than I have here. This is now three interchanges on this thread alone, over and over and over... This is just gratuitous repetition.

Yeah, and I doubt you are laughing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #117)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:09 AM

118. Oh no, don't doubt it at all! But still no answers?



I do have to say, you're great at deflection. How does it feel to accuse people of the ugliest things possible and then run away all the time like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #118)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:17 AM

120. Okay, now I am laughing at you.

Look at the subject of this thread and then look at your posts. LMAO! Maybe I'm right that you do this on purpose to get posts hidden. LOL if you don't think people see through that.

"But still no answers" OMG!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #120)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:22 AM

122. I did what on purpose? Accused someone of nasty things for posting about the death of a child?

No, you did that. On purpose. And I know you're trying very hard to get me to have a post hidden in reply, but you're not that good.

Btw ........ I've never seen you attack anyone else who's posted about the death of children by drone. Why is that? Was this child so unworthy that a thread about him could be derailed with your vicious, completely unrelated comments and the others more sympathetic and to be allowed their stories told?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #122)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:40 AM

126. Back to my first post in this exchange. Nothing I've seen you say is in context.

So it's a waste of time to bother.

This is now the 5th exchange, and it's all repetition.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:42 AM

127. In other words, you've got nothing but filthy accusations, using the death of a child.

Thought so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #127)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:45 AM

128. "the death of a child" OMG, nothing you say is credible.

"filthy accusations". LMAO.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #128)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:54 AM

131. Then it should be easy to point out the others you've had such a problem with,

that you'd hurl out such accusations if it wasn't just this one child.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026144859

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6149749

And yes, filthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #131)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:02 AM

136. "just this one child" "others you've had such a problem with"

Nothing you say is in context; therefore, not credible "exercises."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #136)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:04 AM

138. Well, reading your own posts, everything I said was 'in context'.

It's just that you keep running away from your own words. I guess you don't own up to any of them?

Sad, that. Most people at least try to back up what they post about over and over and over ..... You - nothing. Oh well, it's been a snooze.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #138)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:07 AM

139. I've seen you attack other people for some time now.

It's mostly empty emotional tripe and stubborn grudges. Very short of facts. It's laughable you think being emotional about something means credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #139)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:09 AM

140. Examples? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #140)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:11 AM

141. LOL



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #141)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:12 AM

142. Still nothing? Lazy stuff. I thought at least you'd try a little something. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #142)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:16 AM

144. Oh, I'm sure you did think i would "try a little something"

Yes, I'm sure you did think that. That's why all the repetition to get something to alert on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #144)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:18 AM

145. Sorry, I've never alerted on you. But, you should have examples, no? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #145)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:20 AM

146. Your own posts to me here are all over the place.

All your words.

Read your hidden posts.

Remember I referenced those about 7 exchanges ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #146)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:24 AM

148. Did you miss the part that I reply as I'm spoken to, and when I'm accused of filthy things

I get to reply? Or are you special that way, and feel you're above any response. Never mind, I already know, and this got beyond boring a looong time ago. You carry on now ...... enjoy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #148)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:27 AM

150. Oh, you're back to "filthy things"

So repetitious.

"above any response" "Never mind, I already know" These are all your words coming from your own mind. Nothing I've seen you type along these lines is credible, and it's all taken out of context.

Go read your hidden posts. I mentioned them from the start of this nonsense. Remember?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #150)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:35 AM

156. Sorry, I don't have any hidden posts.

I also have no problem with those I did have - those not shut down because they were OP's on Ukraine were replying to the same kind of bullshit as you've been spewing here for two hours.

So let's get this straight - my post regarding the death of a child pissed you off to the point I'm 'Anti-American', accuse 'liberals on this board - especially American women' of enjoying baby-killing' - (pure filth!!!!!), I attack posters here as opposed to respond to them (as with yours) - yet no examples of this from you, and I can't access a single hidden post, as I have none.

You've tried so hard, I almost feel bad for you. Your hate makes you almost incoherent. It must be hard to hold all that inside, I guess I'm happy for you you've at least got an outlet here. Press Skinner to block all outside the U.S. comments if you can't take the same sort of criticism I have for our own NATO involvement and mining atrocities in Latin America. Unlike you, I don't save mine according to lines on a map - human suffering worldwide should concern everyone, and it's really too bad you can't understand we're a global family, the injustices for one will eventually affect us all. Using this child's thread though was contemptible, and to bring it here to use with your personal hatred - beyond pathetic.

Nighty-night, hope your day is better tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #156)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:43 AM

157. I've answered you over and over and over.

This is not the first time. Last thread a few weeks ago I copied your post and referenced the post number and you still did this -- FOR DAYS.

So much repetition.

LMAO, now you've added "your hate" to your ever-changing diatribe, all from your mind. My hate?

edit: now you don't remember your 5 hidden posts and time-out. "I don't have any hidden posts".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #92)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 01:11 AM

102. Who broad brushed Americans in my post?

I hate drones, I don't care where they come from. I hate children dying.

'American women'??? That would mean I really must hate all those in my own family living in the U.S.

Is there anything else I'm supposed to have done, as the resident troll?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 08:03 PM

87. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:08 PM

204. Funny thing is I have observed some in the AfAm community saying they see little difference

between rightwing teaparty racist assholes who attack Obama relentlessly, and liberals (alleged liberals) who also attack him relentlessly.

In many ways, I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoJusticeNoPeace (Reply #204)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 05:47 PM

212. Yes, I've noticed that, too.

It's really weird how the same attackers spread themselves over several progressive topics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:53 AM

5. Well, we're not going to have any volunteers come forward and say.. "yeah!"..

I'm sure the gop would love to get the President's numbers down.. that's why they're starting up with the Benghazi schtick again.

And, Repealing Obamacare for the whatever time.. next week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:02 AM

12. I still think our President deserves proper grammar

 

Even from those who've got his back.

But perhaps our language is evolving faster than I am.

I'm curious: do you know if she has his back on the TPP and TTIP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 08:58 AM

42. Petty. nt



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 09:58 AM

43. Petty? Why?

 

How would that sentence be scored on the Duncan/Obama/Gates Common Core tests? I suspect that it would fail even at the fourth-grade level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #43)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 10:47 AM

46. Who are you trying to impress?

i suspect that even your average 4th grader knows petty when they see it.

Of course there's always one kid in class who thinks they're superior to everyone else....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 10:54 AM

47. Don't you agree that "I got Obama's back" is gramatically incorrect?nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #47)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 11:07 AM

49. Don't care.

Once again, you're the smartest kid in class!

Boorish nonsense.

Yuck.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 11:21 AM

51. That's deeply unfair.

 

Delivered as a school bully might.

We're not talking confusion between a colon and semicolon here, not even improper hyphenation -- this is elementary-school stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 11:51 AM

57. Right.

You just purposely tried to embarrass someone by calling out grammatical errors in front of the class, and I'm the "school bully?"

In my experience, the arrogant, passive-aggressive types were always the worst.

Try this one on for size.....

Zat all you got?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 31, 2015, 09:43 AM

270. Isn't that generally what happens when someone is losing an argument or ...

doesn't have a 'come back'?

"You just purposely tried to embarrass someone by calling out grammatical errors in front of the class, and I'm the "school bully?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #47)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 11:25 AM

52. No more and no less incorrect than using a colon rather than a semi-colon to separate a dependent...

No more and no less incorrect than using a colon rather than a semi-colon to separate a dependent clause from an independent clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #52)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 11:31 AM

54. Disagree

 

Would you expect a fourth-grade student to properly use colons and semicolons? Even most adults screw it up, including me on occasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:10 PM

64. Some here only post for the rec's

And to impress their own egos. Sad when you think about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:11 PM

206. The same ones (I think, not sure anymore) who relentlessly attack our President also

tell us they will NOT vote for Hillary.

I just dont get how someone can allege to be SO liberal they would oppose a center right democrat over an EXTREME right republican.

I just dont get the logic.



I mean I get the complaints about Hillary (we need to stop talking about Obama, he isnt running again) as she is far from the kind of liberal I want running things, but compared to any of the cons that have a shot at being elected?

Well, compared to that clown car (remember they have the House, very scary), but compared to that clown car Hillary is a genius, a liberal, and a saint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 07:54 PM

83. Someone using the incorrect spelling of "complement"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chieftain (Reply #83)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 07:55 PM

84. Ouch!

 

Thanks for the heads up. I'll correct that mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chieftain (Reply #83)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:29 AM

152. Hey chieftain..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #152)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 10:28 AM

195. Hey to you Cha,

I enjoy your posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 11:26 PM

94. What is your complaint? The "I got" bit? Join the 21st Century--language is evolving far faster

than you.







This is not the first time I've seen you goad that poster about her sig line. Not sure what you're getting out of it, but it sure says a lot about you that you keep doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #94)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:28 AM

151. LOL.. I Got You Babe!

Mahalo MADem..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #151)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 09:10 AM

187. You know, I wondered what this year's gefilte fish was going to be. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #187)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 09:27 AM

189. This is it?

Grammar Policed in a sig line with a graphic stating "I Got Obama's Back"?!






















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #189)


Response to msanthrope (Reply #191)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 09:39 AM

192. Gotcha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #192)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 09:41 AM

193. You Better Believe It! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #151)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 01:51 PM

196. It ain't hard to "get" some folks' numbers hereabouts! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #196)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 06:40 PM

215. Yeah, and this drives 'em irrational..


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #215)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 08:02 PM

217. Take 'em to church--show 'em the VIDEO!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #217)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 12:38 AM

224. Zounds! I knew she was beautiful from her back but I had no idea.. for one thing I thought

is was a sleeveless shirt she had on! That's an incredibly awesome vid, MADem.. Mahalo!

How funny.. that beautiful dedicated woman and somebody wants to check out her grammar!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #224)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 01:54 AM

227. Don't get mad when anyone gives you some 'issue' with your sig line.

Just show the video, without comment!

I think she's pretty remarkable, and that painting is, too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #227)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 02:43 AM

233. Yeah, I usualy don't pay attention.. because who would have issue

on DU, amirite?(LOL)

But, in case someone does want to be so petty and worrywartish about it.. I will school them with LisaRaye McCoy's Tutorial~



Thank you Again, MADem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #227)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 10:47 PM

262. Kurt Vonnegut on "Got".. Final word.

-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #217)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 01:13 AM

226. I am so loving you, MADem!

Council told me to stay away from certain threads with some questionable posters.

However. Damn that was some awesome back up for Cha!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #226)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 01:57 AM

228. Don't get mad--put up a happy picture! That's my philosophy....

Or a video, what the heck! None better than that one!

Last I checked, we were all (or most of us) on the same "D" team!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #228)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 02:17 AM

232. k~



got it!



happy dance~



holy moley, someone said that? really?



haters~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #226)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 02:53 AM

234. MADem's Spectacular Spectacular, she.. The story behind the sig line..

A completely unexpected surprise!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #234)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 03:10 AM

239. If some here care to look every picture tells a story Cha.

Only if the care to look.

I gotta go Cha, it's late.

Let me know how things went.

Love you.

Lol~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #94)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 09:23 AM

188. Maybe Manny's trying out a new persona.....like "Grammar Nazi of DU Manny."

 

http://m.


Manny's told us many times he went to Cornell. And, he's a successful textbook writer. So with an Ivy League education and a penchant for technical writing, he may be perfect for the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #188)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 02:03 PM

198. OMG, that is an hilarious sketch! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:06 AM

14. Hahaha!!!!

Man, that would be funnier than hell if they did!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 12:29 AM

223. On advice of a lawyer it was suggested I stay away from certain threads.

Ya, for obvious reason.

However I had to say I love you Cha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #223)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 12:41 AM

225. Just called to say

I love you, she..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:55 AM

7. Well, sure, any discussion board has trolls

For that matter trolling isn't always a bad thing*; it can be a way to prove a good point if done well (see MannyGoldstein's alter-ego, "Third Way Manny" as an exceptional example of using the technique of trolling to make very good points).

There are trolls here, who make both pro- and anti-Obama posts. There are trolls who do so in a very thought-provoking way, and trolls who do so in incredibly tiresome and predictable ways. I don't think you need to imagine a conspiracy behind it; people just enjoy riling other people up online.

* NB: I'm using an older sense of "troll" from the Usenet days; it doesn't come from the creature that lives under a bridge and eats goats, but from the verb meaning "to fish". The original phrase was "trolling for newbies", and people would make shocking statements to get the inevitable reaction. In these latter days it has come to simply mean screaming misogynistic and anti-semitic epithets at people, but it's a much older and prouder tradition than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:59 AM

8. I meant payed GOP trolls. Here to mess up life for democrats...and thus alienate

anybody independent new online at the DU because Obama is talking to them and their struggles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:01 AM

11. Ah, I believe the word you may be looking for is "shill"

As to that, no, I don't think DU is a particularly big target for paid shills. We're an "already-declared" population so you wouldn't get much ROI for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:25 AM

15. Limbaugh references LexisNexis which gives the dittoheads

instant access to their boogeyman arguments. All it takes is access to a database like that and they can monopolize internet spaces.

I actually saw it in action a long time ago on a now-defunct board when one poster was responding with such voluminous and exacting references there was no way he/she could have typed all of that in the time it took to post. In their diatribe, I saw what looked like undeleted references to a proprietary database source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 02:56 AM

116. I would be surprised if any dittoheads can actually read!

I thought they were just a bunch of backwater hillybillies who tuned in to his radio program so they could get their daily ration of hate!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #116)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:15 AM

119. That's actually a very good distinction.

I see what you mean. The person posting that I referenced said he worked in a law firm and he posted all hours of the day and night, which was further suspicious because law firms are all about billable hours. This was about 10 years ago now when I first saw that and watched this persons methods.

But otherwise, I see what you mean -- the low level Limbaugh yahoos would not have any access LexisNexis. Yet there are plenty of functioning dittoheads that have time and access to spread their talking points, and they are using resources provided to them somehow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #116)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:59 AM

134. Also to add: The poster using the databases at the law firm

made me think he/she must have worked at a political operative type partisan firm rather than a regular firm concentrating on the usual billable hours.

When I saw the undeleted legal references, it has stuck with me for years that there are political operatives posting on websites. I've also used LexisNexis and know there are ways to research all kinds of politicians, Congressional records, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 11:26 AM

53. You could not imagine why anyone would plant paid posters here? Or perhaps make it part of

Last edited Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:40 AM - Edit history (1)

their "day" job? Not the DNC, not any wing of the Party, not any government office/agency, not one or more individual Democrats, such as Obama (at least until 2012) or Hillary. We are not exactly a unified group as to any of those.

Besides, according to Sunstein, who has listeners and fans in high places, discussing things with people who are all of like mind, as one might on an all Dem board, makes those people stronger in their beliefs. Having followers who are hard to shake up is probably preferable to having wishy washy followers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #53)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:39 PM

70. It is very interesting you mention Sunstein "cognitive infiltration"

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false “conspiracy theories,” which they define to mean: “an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.” Sunstein’s 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story‘s Daniel Tencer.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

Here is a link to that college paper -- http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:45 PM

71. He was on the Daily Show recently--book tour--saying essentially the same thing that my post said.

Apparently, he's been dining out on his college paper for quite a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #71)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 02:07 PM

73. Thanks for the Daily Show mention -- watching now

I didn't dispute anything your post said, I just found it interesting he was mentioned under the subject of paid trolls, Obama criticism, etc. I thought about mentioning him early, but I didn't it because a lot of what he mentions there deals with government conspiracy theories (yet, he advocates for a government conspiracy to combat it) based on the same COINTELPRO logic. Infiltrate, break up, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 11:49 AM

56. Well, there are faux Democratic Third Wayers

Paid? Only in the sense that remaking the Democratic Party into the Republican Party is their overall job

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 03:52 AM

24. By troll, does one mean anyone who disagress with one?

Or can a troll have an honest opinion and simply express it and not be a troll when one agrees with the opinion but be a troll when one disagrees with the opinion?

Is the distinguishing characteristic of a troll that the troll disagrees with one's own opinion?

Wouldn't life be boring if we all agreed?

Wouldn't we be dishonest to agree with Obama 100% of the time?

I loved his State of the Union speech with the exception of his support for the TPP.

Today, on the news, I was disappointed to hear that Obama plans to request still more money for the military. I would prefer to make better use of the money we are already spending on the military and get money for the new projects that Obama suggested in the State of the Union speech.

Now, by your definition, am I a troll because I disagree with Obama's support for the TPP and for more money for the military?

Let's get concrete about the definition of 'troll.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 03:55 AM

25. By my definition none of those makes you a troll

You're a troll when you deliberately post provocative statements not because of their inherent value but because of the response they elicit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 04:00 AM

29. OK. Thanks.

I understood troll to me someone who was just posting to annoy others and disrupt the discussion. It's a term I did not know well prior to the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 04:05 AM

30. I remember the Trolls of Yore, back in the 1980s

But I'm old that way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 05:53 AM

39. Here I would only count "Concern Troll"

Lots of people are picking a fight so calling someone a troll for being provocative is kind of petty. Perhaps they just want to fight for their point.

By "Concern Troll" I mean someone who pretends to be for a Democratic point, say the Affordable Care Act. But in their comments they start issuing "concerns" that lay out the argument for the opposition. It soon becomes clear that these posts are to astroturf for the GOP while pretending to be a Democrat.

For example: "I support Obamacare, but..."

- bogus point 1

- bogus point 2

- bogus point 3

- bogus point 4

You get my drift.

Having seen this in action, I would like MIRT to keep an eye out for these guys. And I didn't even call out for MIRT for misogynist jerks in the past. I know the difference between a vile opinion and a GOP talking point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:25 AM

124. Like the OP of this very thread?

Sure seems to fit in with the "fishing" concept you posted somewhere else on this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:30 AM

18. The GOP doesn't have to do that, plenty of DUers will do that just because

 

they don't like him or his policies. Don't tell me you haven't noticed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:30 AM

19. Obama his own worst enemy. Can u say TPP, torture or chained CPI?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 08:01 PM

85. None of which is law. And "torture"? Link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #85)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 08:04 PM

88. Torture problem is pretty simple. Failure to prosecute Bush criminals. Try google for a link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #88)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 08:22 PM

90. Your original post insinuates Obama committed torture & the rest is, not surprisingly, all nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #90)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 08:42 AM

186. What's "nonsense"..

...is your insinuation that Obama is not doing everything in his power to advance the TPP.

Like an attempted murder, whether or not he is successful does not mitigate the crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:39 AM

20. I was on an interesting jury earlier

A person was reported because he was confirming what he saw as a pattern of trolling. Most of the jurors, including me, said "leave it" because we felt he was trying to help confirm a known astroturfer. But 2 jurors voted to hide one for "abusing position" and another for "calling a troll" (even though the post called out was already jury-hidden, i.e., probably trollish). It seemed to me that those two people ON THE JURY might be astroturfers trying to protect other astroturfers. I've been on other juries where the results were suspicious but none as clear-cut as this one.

I was recently embroiled in a discussion where a person kept rehearsing GOP/Tea Party talking points meant to encourage cutting SSDI/SSI. It wasn't just one point, the person used multiple angles as if he or she had listened to a presentation on the topic and already had the complete argument against SSDI/SSI in their head, even though they were pretending to be for SSDI for people who "deserved" it. I don't know what the rest of the history of this person on DU was (their post count was too high to be a new account), but in this one subject area they were GOP shills and they needed to be called on it. I attempted to get them juried but somehow they slipped through (other GOP on jury?). So I called "GOP concern troll" myself. Was that "abusing position"? I don't care. This person was planting GOP talking points meant to influence people to cut SSDI/SSI and comment after comment and no one was doing anything about it.

Do I think there is trolling going on here? Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 03:58 AM

26. I try to vote to leave posts as often as I can.

I do not care whether I agree with a post. This is a discussion board and we learn from reading and thinking about ideas that we disagree with as well as from reading and thinking about ideas we agree with. So I err on the side of keeping posts on the board.

It depends on what you think the purpose of DU is.

I often vote to leave posts I disagree with or that I do not think are accurate.

I'm interested in encouraging participation and having a lively discussion. Sometimes I suspect that people report posts because they get angry at the posts' content and feel incapable of writing am adequate, persuasive rebuttal.

That a post is left on DU does not mean that the members of the jury agree with the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 05:40 AM

38. This is my policy on juries on, too

Though my remark probably leaves an impression otherwise, I don't think I've ever voted to "hide".

What I was trying to say is I sympathized with this commenter calling out "troll" and that I've seen at least one person that I think I can finger as "GOP troll" and not "different opinion" myself. And that there were people on the jury who seemed to be trying to punish DU users for just noticing that attempts to seed GOP propaganda were present.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:50 AM

160. Respectfully, I think it depends on your view of jury duty, not your view of DU.

Open discussion is great, to a point. However, I think the function of the jury is, minimally, to enforce the board's terms or service which include civility and being a Democrat. There is a reason that DU exists apart from Discussionist and also a reason why juries exist. JMO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #160)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 05:00 AM

161. Yes on civility and being a Democrat. But Democrats do not agree on all issues.

Being civil is very important. It's tricky to decide when the limit of civility is transgressed and when not.

I personally try to be utterly civil. I think that is important. We need to demonstrate respect for each other. But then, I also think that people can learn a lot from DU. Excluding people from DU deprives them of the opportunity to learn, to understand that their arguments are not strong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #161)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 05:17 AM

165. I've been accused of being everything but a child of God, so I am very

aware that Democrats on this board believe different things--and often don't state those differences purely in an intellectual manner.

Perhaps an example will help:

A brand new newbie showed up on a thread about Social Security, aka OASDI, telling posters to keep their hands off the rich man's wallet because he (the rich man) was tapped out. (How's that for logic: The rich man has no money remaining.)

Other posts by this dear poster on that thread argued how unfair old age, survivors and disability insurance was to the people who paid the most into OASDI because they get the least out of it. (His lie about OASDI, not mine.)

A majority of the jury voted, correctly, IMO, to hide the post and mentioned MIRT, also correctly in my opinion. Indeed, it impressed me how fast MIRT banned the poster. However, one or two jurors voted to the leave the post on the ground this should be a discussion, not a hide.

In my view, that may be a good comment for someone serving on a Discussionist jury, but the poster was not even simply hideworthy. He was ASAP banworthy.

And that was not the only time I have see that kind of comment on a post that I considered unquestionable hideworthy, if not banworthy, such as referring to poor people as trailer trash. (That one did not got hidden, on the grounds jurors were impatient with political correctness, or some such. And I thought that a mistake.)

If I wanted to be on board where something like my examples are considered mere topics of discussion, I would post at FREEP or Discussionist or boards like them. I post here because I got beyond tired of such discussions after posting on mixed boards for years. If this is not my sanctuary from them, then I have none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 03:28 AM

21. There's no doubt in my mind that there is trolling going on for that reason AND because

they're terrified of a Hillary Clinton candidacy. The GOP just doesn't have a candidate as powerful as she, and the earlier they can have people turn against her, the better it is for them.

Also, taking down President Obama's numbers simultaneously helps to take down SoS Clinton's chances.

A double-whammy for them...if we let them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 03:59 AM

28. Do you really believe those who are criticizing Hillary Clinton

are GOP trolls because they're scared?

I don't know if it as easy to find since much of DU2 has been deleted but during the '08 election I used the search tool to go back to primary discussions and I saw a lot of people advocating for Hillary Clinton criticizing Obama for Rezko and how many times he voted "present" which ironically turned out to be the things the GOP used against him.

I found one
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4877008

Anyways, I haven't been a fan. I felt she would be more of a war monger than Obama and seems to support things depending on poll numbers. Her vote for the IWR was a deal breaker for me.

GOP is scared because the demographics aren't in their favor. That's why they've been pushing a War on Voting -- http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:13 PM

58. No. Not all of them, but it's hard not to be skeptical of some posts that are anti-Hillary here.

Those are the ones that appear over-the-top critical, even visceral in their dislike of SoS Clinton.

I've also remembered the 2008 Rush Limbaugh call to discredit Senator Barack Obama dubbed: Operation Chaos. He told his minions to vote for then Senator Clinton and to go to "liberal" comment boards and proclaim the evil of Senator Barack Obama while acting like a Hillary supporter in order to help her stay in and win the primaries. So, based on those calls (other Conservatives made similar requests of their supporters) I believe a healthy skepticism regarding critical posts about SoS Clinton is necessary here, today, as well, since she appears invincible when pitted against any one of GOP candidates and they desperately want to take the White House back in light of Bader-Ginsberg's health and age, and the high age of Kennedy and Scalia, as well.

I'm not a huge Hillary Clinton fan myself. In fact, it was for her IWR vote that I refused to vote for her in the 2008 primaries. But I would still have voted for her in the general had she won. I'd never go on any Democratic Party message board or community board to announce that if she won the primaries, I would stay home. NEVER.

And as to the argument that SoS Clinton supports issues based on polling - although I doubt she'd use national polls and would review internal polls that are more accurate - I don't see it as a bad thing to keep a finger on the pulse of one's supporters, is it? As an aside - and I am by no means suggesting you're a Republican or a Republican supporter - until you mentioned it here on DU, I've only seen Republicans claim that Clinton governs by polls. That claim was constantly made as a blight against President Clinton all throughout his presidency.

The GOP machine isn't going to use a one-trick pony when it comes to elections. They use multiple attack methods. The War on Voting is just one tactic. Vote stealing is another. Discrediting their opponents is another. Infiltrating their Base's watering holes and spreading disinformation, is yet another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #58)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:39 PM

61. There is a lot of that on both sides of the Hillary candidacy issue

Over-the-top, visceral. I could name an example but I prefer not to the call out. He does a lot of mocking on anyone closer to the progressive wing & dishonest in debate which can lead to a lot of over-the-top visceral on the other side.

I'm not blaming one or the other, or suggest on side has a monopoly on this behavior. A poster that I like & respect though I only seen 1 post (shortly after midterms) since he left shortly after DU3 opened (he didn't like the new format) that was a Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008 and no doubt is one now I could probably search his name & keywords and easily find it but he claimed that a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters left DU because of the behavior of Obama supporters (based on PMs he claimed he received). I'm not sure the accuracy of the behavior described but I don't doubt there was a lot of heated nastiness from the debates.

My claim regarding the polls, I haven't seen it myself other than myself but a lot of other words describing the same thing I mean. Such as Hillary Clinton going from "foolish anti-Wall Street rhetoric" in front of the Wall Street crowd to taking on big business on her book tour/mid-term campaign rallies in front of Democratic voters. There are other examples to describe what I mean.

I feel the same way about Obama. He answered a questionnaire, signed it agreeing full support for gays & lesbians such as gay marriage, then went to "undecided", to "less concerned", to "civil unions", to "god is in the mix", to "evolving" (poll numbers were "evolving" as well), back to full support. I don't bring this up because it isn't an issue have Obama considering where he originally stands & where he stands now. Its just what I mean when I say the poll numbers thing, I'm more interested in candidates that support things they feel is right thing to do rather than do 180s all-the-time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 04:11 AM

32. Hillary is not synonymous with Democratic candidate.

Some of us really would prefer another candidate or even other candidates.

It's very odd to me that Democrats cannot respect the right of other Democrats to prefer candidates other than Hillary. Personally, I don't trust her. And I don't approve of a lot of the legislation that Bill Clinton signed into law -- the repeal of Glass-Steagall helped set the stage for the 2008 economic crisis -- NAFTA cost a lot of American jobs -- the Welfare Reform Act came back to bite when we suffered the crisis in 2008 -- and on and on. The close relationship between the Clintons and Wall Street and banking leaders troubles me. I don't think the Clintons understand who is middle class, and I don't think they appreciate the plight of the middle class. And I don't care how much they try to sound like they understand, I just don't think they do.

Bill Clinton was poor as a child. Hillary was middle class but not well-to-do (as we used to say). They still mistakenly seem to want to identify themselves as middle class. But they aren't. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. But there is something troubling when people identify themselves as middle class and are actually wealthy. Why is that troubling? Because they think that they understand the problems members of the middle class are facing based on their own experience. In fact, their own experience is not at all like that of actual members of the middle class. They are in no danger of losing their beautiful home. They can afford health care and will have Bill's handsome pension to rely on for as long as they live.

We who are uneasy about Hillary have good reasons to be so.

The Democratic Party is a big tent. So be it. A person is not a troll because he or she does not want Hillary to be the candidate in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:29 PM

60. True. But she *is* the frontrunner...for now. It's self-defeating to put her down as some

on this board are habitually doing. Instead, I would have preferred those posts to draw supporters in order to start a writing campaign and write Hillary Clinton to make her understand that some of her positions are not Democratic Party positions at all. I don't see that happening around here. Just lots of griping and moaning and groaning and "if she's the Nom, I'm staying HOME!" posts. That's detrimental to the prospects of getting another Democrat in the White House after President Obama leaves it, especially in light of Bader-Ginsberg's impending retirement, and that of Scalia and Kennedy who are both close to her age and will realistically retire in the next decade - or keel over in their seats a la Rehnquist.

We need to keep a Democratic Senate and a Democrat in the White House in order to prevent another Roberts and Alito from taking a liberal seat and filling two conservative seats in the highest Court. This, and only this, is the reason the Koch Bros are willing to spend $889 million on the 2016 election. They know how important it is to get a Koch-puppet Republican in there. We need to be just as vigilant to keep him OUT.

I understand and completely agree with your criticism of the Clintons. But you have to admit, that when you write posts that "if Hillary is the Nom, I'm not voting!" isn't conducive to the progress of this country.

We who are uneasy about Hillary have good reasons to be so.
Not saying that isn't the case. But when the complaints are taken too far, it becomes self-defeating. Instead, why not join forces and begin a writing campaign? How is she supposed to know what upsets us if we don't write her and tell her?

A person is not a troll because he or she does not want Hillary to be the candidate in 2016.
Likewise, a person is not a Democrat if he or she posts on DU or claims to be one. Healthy skepticism is crucial on a comment board that's easy to join and infiltrate by supporters of the other side. Remember Operation Chaos from 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #60)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:07 PM

62. I agree much like the PUMA thing

I believe the "No way. No how. No McCain" was aimed at getting her supporters on board considering it followed "We don't have a moment to lose or a vote to spare". It also shut up the McCain VP speculation as well as the remaining divisions within the party.

I don't how much of that were Republicans or Democrats. I know some of it were racists who were unwilling to get board with Obama but I don't want to suggest too much of that (even though there wasn't much difference on the issues as it turns out) because there is a lot of criticism here which I don't doubt there are racist Obama critics here or elsewhere. If I voted strictly on the issues top to bottom, all the way to the bottom of listed candidates, I would have voted for Cynthia McKinney in 2008. I didn't, but it gives an idea where my criticism comes. Also Hillary Clinton faces & probably still faces sexism (which would be unlikely from Elizabeth Warren supporters).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #60)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 05:35 PM

76. I do not trust Hillary Clinton, and I think a writing campaign would be a waste of time.

Sorry. I'm in California. As I have said so often, if Hillary or any other Democratic candidate cannot win in California without my vote (I'm in a super-Democratic district but ALWAYS vote anyway and work in the campaigns), she or he cannot win in the country.

No. I will NOT vote for Hillary. She has too many friends on Wall Street and is out of touch with the middle class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #76)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 05:07 AM

162. "I do not trust Hillary Clinton." Then there's no reason to continue discussing her with you.

Can't change a set mind and trying to is only a waste of precious time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #162)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 05:10 AM

164. Thank you. I've been watching politics since I was nine years old.

That's over 60 years. I think for myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #76)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 07:37 AM

176. OK, but if Hillary is the nominee and she loses California by one vote, I'm

going to call you out. Bookmarked!

j/k (of course). (I live in Boston, Massachusetts.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:49 AM

130. She is a frontrunner before the primary even starts, much like 2008.

It may be self defeating to criticize her if she is the nominee. Criticizing her before or during a Democratic primary is called being a Democrat and a citizen. Attempts to silence criticism, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:03 AM

137. Money quote!

"Likewise, a person is not a Democrat if he or she posts on DU or claims to be one. Healthy skepticism is crucial on a comment board that's easy to join and infiltrate by supporters of the other side. Remember Operation Chaos from 2008."

You Better Believe It!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #137)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:33 AM

154. If you knew how many, many hours I worked to get Obama elected.

In the Kerry campaign, I not only worked locally but traveled to two states other than my own to help make sure all the votes were counted.

Liking Hillary is not a litmus test for being a Democrat.

No one can challenge my claim to be a Democrat. I have attended my state convention as a delegate, served as an officer in my local Democratic Club, knocked on doors, hung reminders to vote on doors, registered voters. tabeled for candidates (if you don't know what that means, it means I have often stood at a table, registered voters and campaigned for Democratic candidates) -- the works. I was first active in the 1972 McGovern campaign when I was young. But I wore a Stevenson button long before that when I was in grade school.

So if your skepticism concerns my Democratic affiliation. forget it. I'm sure there are Democrats who have done more than I have. But most of them were paid for it.

Woops! I have to correct my account. I traveled to a distant state during the Kerry campaign, but only one state. The other time that I traveled to watch the polls and insure that all were allowed to vote was in 2008 when I volunteered for the Obama campaign. During the Obama campaign in 2008, I woke at 5 a.m. on election day, worked steadily throughout the day at the polls, making sure everyone got to vote, left when the polls closed, ate and fell into bed, exhausted. I was so happy when my daughter called waking me up to tell me Obama had won. I did not expect any result until at least the next morning.

As I said, don't waste skepticism on me.

I do not want Hillary Clinton to be our candidate. I think she has too much baggage and is too close to people on Wall Street. Obama has had enough trouble with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #137)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 05:09 AM

163. Thanks, Tarheel_Dem. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 02:53 AM

114. Hahahaha!!!!!!!!

She's not a Democrat!

That's a good one!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #114)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:24 AM

149. I did not say that she was not a Democrat although I suppose you could read my words that way.

I meant that she is not the Democratic candidate. Some DUers want to skip the primaries and just put a crown on Hillary's head. That is not the way it works. As Hillary once said, we have a process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:59 AM

133. CNN Money: "Elizabeth Warren is worth millions"

Senator Elizabeth Warren fights for middle- and working-class Americans. But she's part of the Top 1%.

Warren, the Harvard bankruptcy law professor elected to the Senate in 2012, is worth between $3.7 million and $10 million.

That's not including the three-story Victorian home in Cambridge, Mass., that she owns with her husband and fellow Harvard law professor, Bruce Mann. It's now assessed at $1.9 million, according to city property records.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/08/news/economy/elizabeth-warren-wealth/index.html

If we're burning millionaires today, throw Elizabeth on the pyre. Her "middle class" act can't be authentic, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #133)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:22 AM

147. We are not burning anyone, certainly not mere millionaires.

I do not want Hillary Clinton to be president because of her views on issues like H1-B visas, just how to define the middle class, "free" trade, the XL pipeline, use of military force, and because of her close relationship with Wall Street.

Elizabeth Warren, regardless how much money she does or does not have, believes in regulating Wall Street, has warned against the TPP and stands for the middle class.

FDR was also wealthy. But he stood for the American people. I don't think that Hillary Clinton is fully on the side of the American middle class. I think Elizabeth Warren is.

Personal wealth is not the test. Willingness to represent the interests of most Americans is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #147)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:31 AM

153. The Hill: "Warren: Destroying ISIS should be 'No. 1 priority'"

http://thehill.com/policy/international/216559-warren-destroying-isis-should-be-our-no-1-priority

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Wednesday said that the Obama administration should make defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) its top priority.

"ISIS is growing in strength. It has money, it has organization, it has the capacity to inflict real damage. So when we think about a response we have to think about how to destroy that," Warren told Yahoo's Katie Couric.
Warren agreed that "time is of the essence."

"We need to be working now, full-speed ahead, with other countries, to destroy ISIS. That should be our No. 1 priority," she said in a wide-ranging interview promoting her latest book, A Fighting Chance.


Now how do you suppose EW wants to achieve such a goal? With rainbows & lollipops?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #153)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:43 AM

158. I do not disagree with Elizabeth Warren on that. It's just common sense.

ISIS members are fanatics, crazy fanatics. And they are dangerous to the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #158)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 06:00 PM

214. So you're not against all war making millionaires, just Hillary? That about right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #214)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 08:26 PM

219. I am against Hillary's vote on the Iraq War. She should have checked her facts.

I think other members in Congress had the sense to vote against the War. I think my congressman did although I could be wrong.

Her vote for that war does not demonstrate her willingness to carefully examine evidence before making a decision. Obama is good at that. So is Elizabeth Warren.

War does make millionaires. We could end that by imposing limits on the profits countries make from war. I believe FDR tried to do that. I don't think he was entirely successful. But we should try.

On the other hand, ISIS is a fanatical group that believes in enslaving and killing people who disagree with it. That is a serious problem. They are quite aggressive. That is a serious problem. If there is a way to resolve the conflict with them without war, I would favor it. I doubt that there is although we should not give up trying. Meanwhile, we have to protect the people who are about to become victims of ISIS.

The Iraq War was a matter of our aggression. ISIS is a matter of ISIS' aggression. Two very different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #219)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 08:30 PM

220. Just to be clear, you want to make war with ISIS, but only if Millionairess Warren is CIC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #220)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 03:09 AM

238. No. I did not say that.

That is a question that cannot be answered.

It's like "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no."

It's simply a trap. It does not further the discussion.

Are you trying to make me angry or frustrated?

Because I am very patient and have a super-thick skin and probably won't be much fun in that way.

Thanks for your interest in my posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #238)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 02:24 PM

251. It's a discussion board, is it not? Many of us fear that the hype surrounding EW is just that.

It's like those folks who jumped on the Schweitzer bandwagon, simply because he was spouting anti-Obama gibberish, and then they found out that many of his policy positions are anathema to progressivism. That's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #251)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 05:00 PM

253. My big issue is disparity in wealth. I do not believe that Hillary Clinton understands that issue

or IS CAPABLE of fighting the structures in our society that cause it.

I just do not think that Hillary Clinton gets it. And we cannot be the great, creative country we should be unless we get a more balanced distribution of wealth and ownership and thus of opportunity and responsibility. Elizabeth Warren, thanks to her work on bankruptcy and the reasons people go bankrupt understands what is going on there.

All our national security efforts, all our environmental causes, discussions about education, all our other causes are absolutely useless if most of us do not have the money that gives us the ability to influence Congress or even our local elections. (or maybe even pay our mortgages on our modest home.)

I discussed Warren v. Clinton as our candidate with a very active member in our local Democratic Party clubs, and she said Clinton was the only candidate with the money to run. That right there encapsulates all the terrible top-down, money and therefore rich influencing and controlling everything, state not just of the Democratic Party but of our country in general.

Hillary is the most likely candidate because of the system that disenfranchises on a very practical level and sometimes even at the polls a large segment of America. Hillary rises in the polls as union membership declines, as wages stagnate while stock prices rise. That's the story. It isn't right. I see two candidates who could represent a larger percentage of the American people than Hillary: Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Those two understand the issues, viscerally. Actually, I would say that this huge for all practical purposes estrangement of many Americans from their political power -- because of the decline in union membership and power and because of the increasing disparity in wealth and quality of life -- will get worse if Hillary is the candidate. She just owes too much, including but not limited to her elitist lifestyle (which was not what she was born into and is not necessarily represented by the extent of her personal wealth but which is rather represented by the crowd she runs with) to New York State, Wall Street and the corporate behemoths including Walmart around the country.

Hillary really is Republican-lite in that she is supported by a crowd that is very similar and maybe even the same as the group, the corporate group, that thrives on and advocates for the enormous influence of corporations and Wall Street banks in our society.

At this time, we have almost no institutions (like unions or universities or other liberal organizations) strong enough to stand up for other interests in our society. Other interests like children and their health and education, environmentalists, urban poor, people who live in small towns across America -- ordinary Americans.

I'm kind of ranting at this point. But you understand my frustration. Hillary is the inevitable candidate because she has the money. But the reason she has the money is that she is viewed as a "safe" candidate by the very people who are bent on wresting political power from you and me and other ordinary Americans so that they can protect their own power and wealth which is already unreasonably greater than that of the rest of America.

Here is what that means in terms of, let's say, environmental issues. The Koch Brothers have the money to lay pipelines and invest in dirty energy. We who own or are buying our little houses do not have the money to invest in clean energy alternatives that are friendlier to our environment. Thus, we cannot through our choices work for a better environment. Take away the subsidies for oil and raise the wages of ordinary people and you might discover that people will choose to be more self-sufficient when it comes to energy production for their homes and businesses.

Another example, we allow vertical monopolies to an extent that they squeeze out smaller businesses and makes it very difficult for start-ups. I shop in a store I love, but the store brand is nearly always cheaper than other brands. How is that possible? Many years ago I had a temp job working as a secretary for the day for a small group of people from a Caribbean Island who wanted to import spices. They couldn't. Our grocery stores at that time bought products through brokers who controlled the entry and sort of charged a modern day version ofa "salt tax" for access into the supermarkets. The money and the markets are in these ways controlled by the huge corporations. It's a system that makes it difficult for entry-level businesses to get a foot in the door of the prosperity that our economic gauges suggest exists.

Our tax policies favor inherited wealth to an extent that is unhealthy. In fact, most of the issues I am so concerned about involve tax policy that favors those now wealthy and disfavors entrepreneurs and small businesses and working people.

I sincerely believe that Hillary will be unable to do anything to change this direction.

And what is more, I do not see Hillary as a strong candidate. She is, I'm sure a nice and good person. Probably a loyal friend. But if she had what it takes to win a high-stakes election in which projecting personal warmth and likeability to large, perhaps television audiences, is decisive, she should have won in 2008. She didn't. The weaknesses in her presentation and what she believes in and in just who she is as a person do not make her the best candidate in my opinion. And I rely on past experience to back me up.

And then there are all the problems with the Bill Clinton baggage which will become a caricature by November 2016. We would be better off with a candidate who boldly projects a new image and a new direction. Elizabeth Warren's divorce issue will be more easily cleared up than Bill Clinton's womanizing issue. Elizabeth Warren has an obviously happy marriage and her divorce was long ago when she was very young. Quite different from having obvious, undeniable marital problems while living in the White House. (And I wish these issues did not intrude into our political arena but they do.) Elizabeth Warren is close to her daughter. I do not know how well she gets along with her son. Is there really an issue there??????

Gore should have won in 2000 (probably did). But he did not have enough of an advantage among voters to overcome the fraud, He was too much a part of the previous administration and old news. I think Hillary could hit that point where she is old news and too tied to the inevitable failures of the administration in which she worked.

There are so many reasons to look for a strong candidate other than Hillary that I cannot list them all. We need someone who will be able to excite great interest in Democratic issues. Do you seriously think Hillary can excite interest in the change we need? Obama did. But Hillary?

I picture myself standing at a table talking to middle class voters about the Democratic candidate. I've done that over and over, many times. How would I engender enough interest in Hillary to get people to vote for her? I don't have a sense that it would work. And essentially, when you pick a candidate, when you vote in a primary, you have to ask yourself what would you say to a voter about your candidate that would move the voter to get out and vote. With Obama, in my neighborhood in which many young men volunteer for the military, it was his view on the Iraq War for one thing. I live in a neighborhood of immigrants and people who are not white, European Americans. Obama's image spoke to them. So it was easy. I can't see that it would be so easy with Hillary. It is not a matter of race or gender. I just don't see Hillary appealing that much to people whose sons serve in the military, people who drive a truck for a living, people who have lost their homes, people just buying new homes and struggling to care for their children and work -- two working adults and a couple of small children in school or day care. I just don't see Hillary as their candidate. And remember, we don't have the unions to campaign at least among their members like we used to. Hillary is doing well in the polls now. But Republican money could bring those polls down via TV ads. And how do we in the grassroots counter the force of those TV ads? What is it about Hillary or what she stands for that can overcome the inertia that those ads cause? I can't see it.

The problem in 2016 won't be Democrats voting for Republicans. It will be Democrats staying home because there is no reason to vote -- as we saw in 2014. I think that Elizabeth Warren would give a lot of people a reason to vote. Bernie Sanders is the most competent. His candidacy would provide more excitement than Hillary's in my view.

I just spoke to a friend of mine who lost her previously thriving business in the aftermath of 2008. (Lost her home too after a long fight to keep it and had to start over in her late 50s.) She is hardly political at all but supports Elizabeth Warren. I think that Elizabeth Warren would have enormous appeal. And that she says she is not running does not move me much. I think we need a reluctant candidate. That is a more compelling story than what might appear to many to be a bought candidate. And I think we need to dare to institute the reform that Elizabeth Warren wants. Our choice of candidate for 2016 is in my view an existential decision for the Democratic Party and possibly for the nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #214)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 03:07 AM

237. Warren is rigorously pro-military. People don't realize that about her.

She even used her clout to keep a Pentagon contract rolling when the Army wanted to cancel it (reason--cancellation would affect Bay State jobs). Her brothers served in the military and she's always been in favor of a strong national defense. She's also ANTI-legalization of weed, which is probably not a good stance over the long haul. Who knows, maybe she'll "evolve" on that issue, but will people point to it and say "Well, she was against it before she was for it?"

I think sometimes people put the qualities they'd like to see on a politician who says something that sounds good to them. They make assumptions about the person that are not in evidence.

I think Warren is very talented--I think she'll make a great Chair of the Federal Reserve, actually....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #237)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 04:18 AM

243. I support Warren for, among others, these reasons.

1. She has "it," that special ability to connect to an audience when she speaks. I personally think she is more electable than Hillary who, perhaps unfairly, seems cold when she speaks to a crowd or even on TV. Hillary tries to project warmth and the affection that she probably feels for people, but there is something overly cerebral in her public persona. Probably not there if you know her in person. So I think on this superficial but absolutely decisive issue, Warren is a better bet.

2. Hillary has an incredible amount of baggage. Her husband's mistakes, some of which seemed to be good ideas at the time but which worked to the detriment of the American people, especially those who lost their homes in the crisis that began around 2008. I've written about the many bills Bill Clinton signed that would make campaign fodder for the Republicans in 2016.

3. I remember wearing my Stevenson pins when I was in grade school. Repeat candidacies are not a good idea. Hillary is liked now and up in the polls because people recognize her name. They could be very bored with her by 2016. It's really hard to have an exciting campaign once you have lost big. And 2008 was a big loss for Hillary.

4. Hillary's vote for the Iraq War demonstrated to me that she is not careful enough and does not have good judgment and is afraid to go against the crowd. We need a strong president. Warren is quite willing to take an unpopular stance and persuade people and patiently wait until they join her opinion. Hillary is not good at that.

5. Hillary's voice is a problem although it is better than it was in 2008. Lacks warmth. That is not something people talk about a lot. I don't suppose there is much research on it. But I think that Obama's great voice is one of the reasons he won in 2008. Obama's voice is at the same time dry reflecting a sense of humor, patient, warm and most important, genuinely strong. He has a nearly perfect voice. Your voice is as important as your appearance. I can't picture Hillary singing really well. I'm sure that Obama could although he may not. Gore's speech and voice were a problem for him. Warren is ahead of Hillary when it comes to voice. Same for laugh. Hillary sometimes has a very scornful laugh. People pick that up on a very deep, emotional, subconscious level. I don't know whether Hillary could change her voice.

6. Then there is the big issue of the potential candidates' stance on the middle class. Warren's work on bankruptcy law (if you have read her book A Fighting Chance you will know this story) has given her a genuine insight and emotional connection to the problems of the middle class. That's me and most voters. The Clintons were once close to their middle class roots. Clinton's famous feeling our pain statement made him a lot of friends. The Clintons -- it's not their money or their fancy lives, the lifts on private planes, etc. Warren probably gets some of those advantages too. It's that Warren's life work has been studying the financial struggles of the middle class. That's her topic. She just has a mind for economics combined with a love of people. Hillary doesn't have that. And that is what we need now.

7. Warren conveys more of a sense of what she is about than Hilary does. This is especially important when it comes to who they are willing to offend. Warren is willing to offend the very rich even if she herself has a lot of money. She asks them the embarrassing questions, the questions Americans want asked. Hillary flatters the rich. How do I know that? Because the rich pay her money to give speeches at their events. They would not do that to someone who asked them embarrassing questions.

8. Warren relates better to labor. That's a Democrat. Hillary is not as strong on this point.

9. Warren can EXPLAIN COMPLEX IDEAS EASILY AND CLEARLY. All those years facing off with bored law students in bankruptcy classes. Can you imagine anything that develops your ability to explain things succinctly and clearly better than teaching (boring) bankruptcy law? She demonstrated this talent when she appeared on Jon Stewart's show. Blew me away. I couldn't believe how she boiled things down -- simple language -- without arrogance.

10. No way you can accuse Warren of being an elitest. From Oklahoma. Parents relatively poor and working class. Early marriage. Early divorce. Junior college. Pulled herself up by her bootstraps with the kind of help from her family that ordinary, middle class people give their families. She struggled and she has not forgotten. Contrast with Hillary who attended an elite undergraduate school and went from there into eventually the governor's office and the White House. Both women are intelligent. But Warren's story is a bit more compelling than Hillary's.

At the same time, if we Democrats want the candidate whose personal history and experience best qualifiy him for the job, we will go with Bernie Sanders. Time will tell whether he is electable. But when it comes to experience. Boy, he has it. He has been in the Senate a good long time and is as smart as they come.

So that is how I see it at this point. I could change my mind, but you can see my thinking and my reactions to the potential candidates.

I especially do not like the close ties of the Clintons with the Pete Peterson crowd. Pete Peterson is an avowed enemy of Social Security. I and a lot of people my age have to rely on Social Security for our income. Hanging around with the Peterson crowd is a big pirates flag, a red flag, a danger signal for me. That's got the nastiest side of Wall Street written all over it. And the Clintons appear to be really "in" with the Peterson bunch. Not good. Really ugly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #243)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 05:01 AM

245. You are of course free to support whosoever you choose~!

I just don't think Warren will run no matter how much people try to persuade her. I think she enjoys the "buzz" because it helps her national profile and it garners more support for her agenda, but I think she has a better sense of her abilities -- and her desires -- than many of her "Wishful POTUS" fans do.

Hillary (and her "baggage" have been well vetted--every complaint that even people here on DU try to make is "asked and answered." Those who support her aren't going to be dismayed by old news. OTOH, Warren, who has NOT been nationally vetted, would be CRUCIFIED. Her first marriage would be torn to shreds, as would her second (she started in with her present husband before she divorced her first one--the religious right would have a field day). The whole "Pow Wow The Indian Girl/Fauxahantas" shit would be dredged up again (and boy, was that RACIST, and UGLY, and NASTY--had not Brown been such a smarmy, sexist shit, that could have been the end for her).

She may be inspiring on the stump, but she barely beat back Brown in debate. He's as dumb as two posts, but he was more comfortable at the podium than she was for many of their exchanges--it was only when he started pushing his luck and calling her "Per-fesser" that the tide started to turn--but my analysis of her debating skills is "She's not that great." She does give a rousing stump speech, but those can take one only so far.

Most importantly, though, Warren is not fundraising, hasn't developed a fifty state strategy, has ZERO ground game, no local contacts in states, no mechanism to mount a campaign, and she has said NO over and over and over and over again. I think that, right there, is a BIG clue. If she was wanting to be cute and coy and play the "No means yes" game, she wouldn't have issued the "STOP RAISING MONEY" letter through her lawyer. What does she have to do to get people to listen to her, I wonder?



Elizabeth Warren has worked with Marco Rubio and Orrin Hatch and other wingnuts on legislative issues of import to her. That doesn't mean she is adopting their views and beliefs. Politicians deal with all sorts of people--they even get their pictures taken together. I think it's funny how the one with the short record of less than one term in the Senate gets a pass, but the one with actual experience of multiple terms in the Senate and as the senior member of the President's Cabinet gets dissed at every turn. It's like "We love you so long as you don't have a record. Or EXPERIENCE." That's no way to run a country.

I could say I don't like the close relationship between Senator Warren and registration with the Republican Party as recently as the MID-NINETIES, but that would be one of those "guilt by old association" games. In actual fact, I like Senator Warren just fine, I don't really care that she was a Republican in 1996 (that's probably why a few of the sexist jerks in MA turned away from Moron Brown and voted for her, to be blunt) --she's doing well in Ted's seat, she's acquitting herself well as a servant of the citizens of the Bay State, and that is where she should STAY.

Until, perhaps, she's appointed as Fed Chair....?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #237)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 02:17 PM

250. ^^^^^THIS^^^^^

I think sometimes people put the qualities they'd like to see on a politician who says something that sounds good to them. They make assumptions about the person that are not in evidence.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #250)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 04:55 PM

252. It's easy to do--what's hard is to weigh the good, the not-so-good, the things ya like,

the things that aren't yer favorite, and then come to a decision like an adult. No one is going to be Prince--or Princess-Charming, or all things to all people. But you can look at the likes of RMoney, or "Jebbie," or that loudmouth from Jersey, or the Ultimate Paulbot with the squirrel on his head, and it doesn't take a genius to see that anyone, absolutely anyone, with the (D) after his or her name--even if they won't ban guns/won't legalize weed/like the military--pick your "Waaah, that sucks" poison--is a damn sight better than anyone the GOP is putting up.

It's fine to support different people in the primary, but when someone repeatedly insists that they aren't running, and it's 2015 already, and they've raised NO money, visited NO states to meet with local leadership, hired NO staff, etc., maybe it's time to start looking at other options. There's a point at which it seems like it's ... I dunno ... as though they aren't even listening to the person they purport to adore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #252)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 07:25 PM

258. The sitting POTUS can attest to everything in your post. The pitting of one Democrat against another

bespeaks the influence of the Nader faction on the left. I don't know when people will figure out that these folks are as much an enemy to the Democratic Party as the GOP. No matter what Democrats do, it's never good enough. When Democrats address the issue they were so animated about, they either raise the bar, or claim victory for "holding their feet to the fire".

No one, and I mean NO ONE is looking for a bruising Democratic primary except opponents of the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #258)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 08:36 PM

260. But of course....which is why, despite all the pot stirring, we're not seeing much

in the way of excitement for these fringe and unlikely candidates on the ground. It's all internet chatter, nothing more.

There was a lot of internet chatter about Howard Dean, too--a guy I happened to really LIKE (and he appealed to me more than my own Senator who ended up getting the nom, truth be told). Unfortunately, a whole shitload of talkers didn't show up to help the guy--with either money or time.

Without a ground game, you're nothing--HD knows that, HRC does too...and so do all of the Didn't Rans who have thought about it and haven't come busting out, ready to do battle, because they know that in this era of Big Money, even though none of us like it and would prefer campaign finance reform to level the playing field, it ain't happening. Money talks, and I'd rather DEM money talked the loudest, at least until we can get a more sane system in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #260)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 08:53 PM

261. Truth be told, I don't see EW creating the kind of enthusiasm that HRC & BHO did. People were.....

sending $5 or $10, and feeling like they were part of history making. EW has an enthusiastic fanbase, HRC & BHO have a constituency. I want her to prove that she can work with Republicans in Congress, if she can't, we'll be right where we are today. Might she fare better with Republicans than Obama? She might, but they think she's even further left than he is, so I have my doubts.

Kooch & Howard Dean found out the hard way that it takes much more than a devoted liberal following to break into the big leagues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #155)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:48 AM

159. I did not find Warren's name in either article.

I think the scribd link discusses Republican candidates and Biden, but not Warren.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #159)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 05:24 PM

211. EW is "G" at the scribd link, but you have to scroll to the very bottom if that tells ya anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #147)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 02:58 AM

235. Where was "she" herself, Hillary Rodham Clinton, personally endorsing the pipeline?

The only place I've seen that shopped is here on DU.

I'm not talking about her working as a servant of the POTUS as Secretary of State, doing detail work on the proposed project, liaising with a foreign country, Canada, carrying water between governments--as a Secretary of State is tasked to do--I'm talking about her "endorsing" the effort.

I really want to see the tape of her saying "Yeee haw, when I'm the President, I'm gonna slap that pipeline down the middle of the country."

I have a feeling that will be a tough nut for even a skilled squirrel to find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #235)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 03:04 AM

236. She was Secretary of State when the pipeline deal was being discussed and negotiated with Canada

and then proposed.

Now, Obama says he opposes it and will veto a bill allowing it.

I think it is fair to assume that the pipeline was Hillary's project.

I would expect her to be silent about it if she did allow it to go through the State Department. I expect a full explanation and apology for not strongly objecting to it while it was under consideration by the State Department if she does not support it.

I am making an assumption and will stand corrected if Hillary strongly opposes the pipeline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #236)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 03:27 AM

240. You do realize that, as Secretary of State, she is NOT her own actor? She speaks for POTUS.

She carried Presidential water to all the nations with whom we have relations. Her actions and comments were constrained by PRESIDENTIAL desires. She could not act independently of the White House--she was an EXTENSION of the Executive Branch, in fact, she was Obama's most senior Cabinet member. She didn't enter into any negotiations, conversations, or discussions without having very clear parameters that were understood by her and POTUS (and VP, too--Biden has a good geopolitical head on his shoulders). She wasn't a Wild West sheriff, free to pursue her own agendas.

You're seriously trying to suggest that the SECRETARY OF STATE was TELLING THE PRESIDENT what to say and do about a national project? That she was driving the train, and Obama had to say "Wait, wait, stop....waaah! I don't wanna do this!!!!" That's like saying Obama had no control over his cabinet.

Do you realize how ABSURD that sounds?

The people who wanted--and STILL WANT--the Pipeline are the damn CANADIANS, and their rich business buddies in the USA. Cheap oil is making the project redundant and pointless--too much risk for very little reward, with most of the profit going to Canada and a couple of rich pigs--just a dumb idea.

All the SECSTATE was doing was playing the Presidential go-between with regard to those conversations--and that was her J.O.B. She wasn't there as an advocate, she was there as the person who was gathering the facts, getting the proposals, doing the cost-benefit analysis, and providing the information to her boss. She likely already had a sense of Obama's POV on the issue before she had a first meeting with anyone. In other words, she was there so HE wouldn't HAVE to be.

It is entirely inappropriate for the SECSTATE to advocate/tout for business ventures of this sort, but that doesn't stop people here from repeating, over and over, this narrative that Hillary was trying to bigfoot America with regard to the pipeline, when all she was doing was serving the interests of the nation -- and the POTUS -- by doing the homework and passing the information back and forth. For all we know, his decision to NOT go ahead with the project may have been the result of HER briefings. Regardless, there's this absurd construct that her duty with regard to the issue somehow translates into "approval" and that is just absurd. She was the token women on the Walmart Board who forced the Waltons to build their first "green" store (because they wouldn't let her do anything else), with natural light, passive heat, recycling--all before it was popular--and she's going to suddenly be enthused about a pipeline of sludge bisecting our nation?

It's probably one of the goofiest things I've ever read here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #240)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 03:35 AM

241. If you are correct, then I would expect Hillary to make it very clear that she opposes and opposed

the Keystone Pipeline and will continue to oppose it.

It's as simple as that. It is fair to assume that she as Secretary of State supported what was being done by the Department of State.

If she did not, she should have resigned. Paul O'Neill resigned from George W. Bush's cabinet after he saw that the Bush administration's direction was not one he could support.

The State Department provided a favorable assessment of the pipeline project shortly after Hillary left the Dept. of State if I recall correctly. She could have affected the recommendation of the Department.

If you are correct, then I expect Hillary to distance herself from the Keystone Pipeline project. She has not made her views clear on this as far as I know. I could have missed a report. Please post a link if you have a statement by Hillary on this issue. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #241)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 03:58 AM

242. I strongly doubt you'll see that happen anytime soon.

First, she should keep her effing mouth SHUT about the topic (which IS what she is doing) for as long as she can while her former boss is in office. That's what a LOYAL former SecState does. Also, if Obama finishes on a high note, he'll be an asset to her on the campaign trail.

Obama has made his decision about this pipeline, for now. But what if he changes his mind? Realistically this is not gonna happen....but who knows what the future might bring? If Putin goes crazy and launches WW3, we'll need petroleum products, for example--unlikely, but never say never.

People will create dramas about what HE said, and what SHE said, and the dramas will be complete lies, but the bottom line is this--she worked on the project, she discussed it with the POTUS, and the POTUS has made a decision. It's not for her to start stirring the Keystone pot while her boss is still in office.

Second, there are people in Congress who want the thing, and people who don't. They're on both sides of the aisle too (we do have states that are very "invested" in the oil industry, still). No sense in ticking those people off any sooner than needs must--some of 'em are bound to be disappointed.

Hillary Clinton spent several years as the nation's top diplomat--she knows how to take a diplomatic stance, AND to stay loyal to her former boss to the extent she can manage so long as he's sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. In fact, that might be part of what's behind her decision to delay announcing-- she doesn't want to spend a lot of time focusing on differences (and there will, inevitably, be a few--there always are...see Gore after Bill Clinton, e.g.) when Obama is in his Lame Duck/To Hell With You Congress last two years.

These comments from back in November don't sound, to me, like she was in love with the idea:

“I can’t really comment at great length because I had responsibility for it and it’s been passed on and it wouldn’t be appropriate, but I hope that Canadians appreciate that the United States government — the Obama administration — is trying to get it right,” she continued. “And getting it right doesn’t mean you will agree or disagree with the decision but that it will be one based on the best available evidence and all of the complex local, state, federal, interlocking laws and concerns.”
...she said of the pipeline: “This is an issue that has become a proxy for everything … it is truly, deeply held opposing positions and people who are for it are adamant that it is necessary and not only necessary but salutary and does help to lead to a closer energy relationship between our two countries.
“People who are against it believe it has to be stopped because, when will we ever make the pivot away from fossil fuels if we don’t stop now(?)” she continued.
Clinton went on to note that people on both sides of the issue “may have some facts and not others,” even though they may be making their cases “in good faith.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hillary-clinton-keystone-pipeline-no-comment-107899.html#ixzz3QHzfXrRL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #242)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 04:39 AM

244. Sorry. But aside from the issue of the pipeline, that is Hillary at her least clear, her most

trying to please and say the right thing and therefore sounding very weak.

Oh, dear. That's why I will never vote for Hillary. She lacks grace in her language.

I remember reading in a book about her that she went into transactional law because she either did not do so well or was uncomfortable in litigation. I can see why. Total lack of clarity. Total inability to simply own her opinions and actions on a very important matter. Oh, dear.

That kind of demonstrates why I think Elizabeth Warren will make a stronger candidate than Hillary would.

Warren does not apologize for her opinions. Warren was a champion debater in high school and is still quite a strong speaker.

I remember when I was a child and played a lot of soft ball. There is this clear, resonant tone you hear when you hit the ball right in the center of your bat. It rings true. Warren hits that tone when she speaks most of the time. Hillary does not. It's like tuning a violin and hearing the overtones line up perfectly. There is a consonance, a sense of solidarity and fine tuning. Warren has it. Hilary does not. That's my reaction to the two top candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #244)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 05:16 AM

246. No--she's being very clear. She's not going to talk about it.

And she's not going to talk about it because it's OBAMA's issue, and she worked on it, on his behalf.

I mean, really--you might not like what she says, but you can't insist it's not clear.

You want her deepest thoughts, and she's telling you you're not getting them.

Warren hasn't had to apologize for her opinions because she hasn't been CONFRONTED on them. She gives fiery little speeches in front of friendly crowds and she points her finger and gives that sincere little frown, but she hasn't had to ANSWER since the debates in Massachusetts....and those had some ugly moments. She wasn't always clear and resonating--at times she was stumbling and halting and grasping for words. All I can say is I am so HAPPY that her opponent was that NITWIT Scott "Barn Coat and Truck, Let's Have a Beer" Brown...the guy was a MORON, but he still managed to land a few blows. That race was neck-and-neck for most of the duration, all the way up until Brown just got "too" cruel and "too" tasteless and his staff started getting all racial and racist (which brought out a segment of the population that was less-than-enthused about the race, initially) .

I did a LOT of GOTV before and on election day for Warren, and it was by no means a sure thing for most of the process. We were feeling more comfortable at the end, but for most of the race, it was "We could lose this thing"--even with the massive influx of money from deep pocket donors and ordinary citizens from all across America. And, speaking of those deep pocket donors, many of them were referred to the Warren campaign by Friends of Hillary--many of them ARE FoH, and that's where their money is going should HRC decide to run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #246)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 05:31 AM

247. Warren was an unknown challenging an incumbent. Of course it was touch and go.

But she won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #247)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 05:55 AM

249. An incumbent IDIOT who was an INTERIM seat-filler. He hadn't done a full term--he was finishing

Ted's term, less than three years in the job. And he was an unknown too, who, as people got to know him, they realized he was a DUNCE. The guy was an inarticulate buffoon, he didn't respond to the needs of his constituents, he was LAZY, and he didn't have a grasp of the compelling issues of the day. He was CLUELESS.

It should have been a walk in the park for Warren, but it wasn't. And she handled that NA thing POORLY--don't, for a second, think that business is "asked and answered" once and for all, because it wasn't, her heritage is apparently NOT Native American (many suspect she did the DNA and got back the bad news) and it will be revisited by the right wing, and trussed up to look like the CRIME OF THE CENTURY if she ever stands for national office. Even if she gets nominated to an appointed position, count on some wingnut revisiting it.

The false claim that she 'only got her job because she wrongfully claimed minority preference' will be repeated over and over again. Facts be damned, she'll be swift-boated with vicious efficiency, and the wingnuts won't make the same mistakes they made the last time (they did some racist demonstrating that turned stomachs). Next time around, they'll be very 'serious' and talk about 'integrity' and 'trust' and other loaded words to try to suggest that she's a liar. She knows this, too--she wasn't born last night.

The wingnuts won't even have to look very hard for their talking points--it's all been categorized and organized for them, and it's not going away. Make no mistake--that was a HUGE stumble and it could have been fatal. Had Brown not overreached on the issue (and by so doing, turned out a disinterested minority population who knew what that shit was about and didn't care for it) he might have pulled it out. Thank goodness he was such an idiot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #249)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 05:16 PM

254. Same is true for Hillary. Benghazi! Ridiculous.

But underneath it all, Elizabeth Warren has exciting ideas that will bring voters to the polls.

What new ideas does Hillary have?

I just posted a long explanation of my doubts about a Hillary candidacy. The Republicans will probably nominate Jeb Bush. Ugggh! A Hillary/Jeb contest will be decided based on a) who can most rely on the base to get out and b) who can excite some interest in his/her campaign.

Hillary will get some boost because she is a woman and she cares about women's issues. But Elizabeth Warren will get that too if she can be persuaded to run.

On economic issues, now that unions are not much of a factor for our side, the Republicans present what is in reality a losing point of view but what during their campaigns, they sell with utter conviction and success. The Republicans say, we're rich and if you vote for us, you might become rich like us. People fall for that. There is some spot in every American soul that firmly believes that everyone can have everything they want and if you don't have what you want, you are a loser. The Republicans sell themselves as the party of the winners. We used to argue that playing fair and helping each other was the way to a reasonable, solid economic life for everyone. Trade agreements and computers have made the middle class jobs harder to find. I don't think that Hillary has an argument for the Democratic way that is convincing. Certainly NAFTA has not had a fair-play or help-each-other outcome for Americans. It's made good jobs harder to find. Almost everything the average consumer buys is made in some other country. Increasingly our food is grown who knows where on what kind of contaminated soil under what kind of dirty, third-world conditions. And all this goes back to the corporate dominance in our politics. Hillary and Bill are virtually the poster children for the loss of jobs.

We need new faces and a new message that builds on our old themes but brings our old message into the 21st century. I just do not believe that Hillary has much new to say.

See my post #253 (I think) here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6157628

It's really long, but it explains my doubts about Hillary. We need a really inspiring candidate.

As for the Native American ancestry. It does not surprise me that people think they have it and then find their DNA does not show it. My sister did her DNA. We have all sorts of ancestry from everywhere. Many, maybe most, Americans do.

Remember, there are lots and lots of Americans with Native American or African or Jewish ancestry who have no idea that they are one of THEM or that one of their ancestors was one of THEM. DNA is a tricky thing. Many of us are not what we thought we were -- and are the richer, culturally and in terms of health, for our inner diversity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #254)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 06:09 PM

256. It's not a contest for "Who has the most 'exciting' ideas.

The person chosen is seen as the best LEADER.

It doesn't matter anyway, though. Warren is not running, she's said so, and to disregard her statements is curious.

The NA controversy is not the equivalent of Benghazi (TM--GOP spittle). Warren dug herself a huge hole there, and that hole is probably why she will NEVER run for national office. You need to actually look at the links provided (and the links within the links). They'll make it clear just how messed up the situation is.

DNA is NOT a "tricky thing" when you are claiming you have it and you don't, and when you're personally identifying your parents as "white" on their death certificates while insisting you have native heritage. It's not "tricky" when you have an opportunity to check with your parents to be absolutely sure, in your thirties and forties and even later-- and apparently never do so. It's also not "tricky" when you misstate the circumstances of your parents marriage and fashion a divide between the families that did not exist. All this is in the links. She wasn't adopted, and her parents were white, they didn't elope in Montagues v. Capulets fashion (there was a nice little announcement in the papers) --and to make matters worse, once of her very white ancestors even SHOT an Indian (it made the papers). It was a Big Fuck Up on her part--she let her mouth get away with her common sense. People do that every now and again. It doesn't make them "evil" but it does cause problems politically. These problems are the sort that won't go away.

It's not the end of the world--she's a fine Senator, she made a mistake, oh well...but that shit will NOT play well nationally, because the GOP will play it 'right' the next time. They will go easy on the Pocahontas pictures, they will eschew the "Pow Wow The Indian Girl" and tomahawk chop mocking, and they'll get real "serious" and develop a great deal of high dudgeon that she took a benefit -- a "minority quota" is how they'll paint it -- that she did not deserve. She will be painted as "stealing" from the Indians--even though that's not what happened at all. It will make the whole swiftboating of John Kerry look like an onerous and complicated process. And she wouldn't be able to get a single idea out there, because it would be all about that controversy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #256)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 06:36 PM

257. And if you think that is bad, wait till you see what they do to Hillary.

Elitist college, straying husband (what does that say about her as a woman?), Benghazi (and they will find what was going wrong there because they are looking). There will never be an end to it.

What concerns me is the divide between Hillary's Democratic affiliations and the crowd she mixes with socially.

One of the big drawbacks is the tie between the Clintons and Pete Peterson.

Social Security is the lifeline for millions of disabled people and seniors -- read parents and grandparents in the country. The Clintons, especially Bill, have been all too prominent at Peterson-sponsored events. And then there are many, many, many other economic issues that are tied to the Clinton/Wall Street affiliation that can be used against Hillary and maybe should be used against her and Bill.

Sorry. I just do not see Hillary as an attractive, viable candidate that I can sell to voters when I am out there campaigning at my local level. She is an advertising executive's creation. I don't have a good sense that she is electable. But it depends on who the Republicans put out there. If they put Spanish-speaking Jeb Bush up for election, there could be a problem. Especially if pro-choice becomes an issue.

We need a strong candidate who appeals to people who are middle-class and not very political. I don't see Hillary as that candidate. The wealthy people who run the Democratic Party love her. But as in 2014, they will get out and vote themselves, but they have lost touch with voters and are not getting ordinary voters to get out and vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #257)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 11:45 PM

266. No, we've heard that before--it's not news. We will tell naysayers to cut the crapola, to get

back to issues, that their re-hash of old news doesn't get us excited at all--see, that's what VETTING does. Everyone who is going to vote already knows Hillary's story. They know about her husband (your remark about how she's a failure as a woman because her husband "strayed" is a real problem on this board, though, let me tell you--are you tone-deaf? It's the woman's fault that a man acts like an asshole, really? Please!). No Republican can besmirch her--they've already tried, and she's told them to go to hell.

Most people don't know Warren's story--even the 'problem' bits. When those start coming out, there would be no time for "new ideas," she'd be playing defense on the Native American shit, on the timeline of her marriages, and --notwithstanding that she was a Republican until 1996--she would be painted as a far, far lefty and her character and attitudes twisted, solely for political advantage. It's obvious that you're unaware of these pretty serious stumbling blocks completely. If you were aware, you'd see that it's a genuine PROBLEM, these things I've mentioned. Again, review those links.

You don't have to see Hillary as "attractive" - it's not a beauty contest. Again, that kind of verbiage is problematic. She's confident, capable, smart, and has very good judgment. And I'm sorry to tell you--it is the middle class, the parents with 2.4 kids, the grandparents who are still vital and vote, and the great grandparents who never miss an election who will vote for her. She doesn't need to convince people, she doesn't have to sell her "new ideas" or play the "getting to know you" game--they're ready and waiting already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #266)

Sat Jan 31, 2015, 12:37 AM

267. When I speak of "attractive," I'm not talking about beauty.

I'm talking about her stances on Medicare and Social Security. I recall how unwilling she was to raise the cap on the income subject to Social Security. That is not going to appeal to the real middle class, the parents scraping by with 2.4 kids and grandparents needing a lot of care. Do you know what Medicaid does to the assets of the grandparents in middle class America?

Hillary has no clue about that issue. If she did, she would raise the cap on taxes for Social Security and Medicaid and promise to bring a national insurance program that would cover nursing home and long-term care for the very elderly and the dying.

Hillary has a lot of problems. Bill is one. NAFTA is another. Her vote on the Iraq War is another. And while the Issa committee's investigation of Benghazi turned up nothing, there are questions about what our involvement in Syria and Libya were and I question why in the world our ambassador was meeting with the ambassador of Turkey in Benghazi rather than in Tripoli. There is something strange about two ambassadors meeting in an insecure region of a country like Libya in the way they did. Something very strange. It does not feel right to me, not based on my experience traveling.

The scandals, however, will not be the problem for Hillary. She may think she has taken care of everything, shut up the right (or wrong) people, sewed it up. Her problem will be the problem of the Democratic Party in 2014 -- incredible apathy.

Obama broke his campaign promises. We never got the cap raised on Social Security. Instead he favored chained CPI. The handling of the mortgage crisis really hurt the middle class. I held some very vulnerable hands during that period, and I will never forget how the banks were protected and families, some just starting to buy a home and set out on their lives were abandoned to their creditors. Clinton helped set the stage for that fiasco.

But back to Obama. He won because of his themes of hope and change. We really have not gotten much change beyond his hard-won health care bill, and the implementation of his health care reforms has been so slow that I don't know that Americans really perceive the improvement in our national health care system that it has and will bring. The closing of the Medicare prescription doughnut hole will not help seniors until I think 2019. That's a long delay for a bill passed in 2010.

Hillary will not have nearly the push in enthusiasm and hope that Obama had that pushed Obama to victory in both 2008 and 2012. She also does not have his energy or his backing from what we used to call "minorities" or from unions or from young people excited at the thought of a younger, enthusiastic president, one they could call their own.

Hillary's problem will be apathy. How in the world will she get voters up off their sofas and out of their workplaces to vote for her.

I was at the polls in 2008. People in Ohio were waiting for long periods of time to vote. We kept them waiting. A lot of them were African-Americans at the polls where I worked. It was of course their machine that broke down. They waited patiently. There I was an already older white lady from a different state assuring them they would vote. Do you think they will stand in the chill of November to vote for Hillary, assuming they can prove their identity and pass all the other hurdles Republicans will have erected to make it hard for them to vote at all.

So your problem with Elizabeth Warren is controversy. My problem with Hillary is apathy -- boredom and the sense of having been there and done that. Her negatives are going to have to do with NAFTA. It has not produced the jobs that Bill promised us and Social Security. She and Bill have hung out with Pete Peterson a bit too much to say nothing of their ties to the Wall Streeters who want to get commissions on churning Social Security investments and don't like the system we have which doesn't let them skim from the top.

I think that the Republicans will nominate Jeb Bush. He speaks Spanish. He is conservative on issues like choice. And Republicans actually think that GW Bush "kept them safe." (What a joke!) I expect them to pick as they did with Palin someone who will appeal to the Christian fundamentalists for the vice presidency, perhaps someone like Palin with problems, latent scandals, in her resume that can be pulled out to provide an excuse to fire her when she becomes an inconvenience. Remember Nixon's Agnew?

And then the campaign will boil down to the Republicans exciting their fundamentalist base with their vice presidential candidate and Democrats struggling to get out the vote in a campaign in which their base (and that includes union members and minimum wage workers, the long-term unemployed, and many other marginal populations with big problems like parents with kids who face frequent tests in the schools and who have not fared all that well under Obama) is not convinced they have a stake or representation.

So that is how I see it. Sherrod Brown is a possible candidate, but he also has a problem with his voice. Your voice is a reflection of your health. That is why we use it to measure people more than we realize. A good voice reflects good lungs and youth in most cases. Hillary's voice sounds cold and stern. Sherrod Brown's voice does not sound clear. I hate to say these things. It is very superficial and I will be the first to admit it. But remember how Nixon's sweating on camera hurt him in the 1960s campaign. A voice that does not sound robust and healthy hurts a candidate. It's a very deep-seated, sort of animal way that we judge people -- by appearance and by voice and even gait. Obama has the most perfect voice of any candidate in my lifetime. Maybe JFK could match him, but only maybe. (If Hillary is the candidate, she needs to work out regularly and do yoga - deep breathing and constant work on your abdominal muscles are essential in maintaining your voice. Ask any classical singer.)

Hillary in spite of Republican statements to the contrary does project an image of pretty good health. But Elizabeth Warren is even better in that respect. It's just a really basic, human desire to be lead by someone who is very healthy and fit.

I just think that the problem with Hillary will be getting out the vote. That she is woman will give her one advantage. But Elizabeth Warren would have that advantage too. The questions you raise about Elizabeth Warren's biography could be turned into assets because of her very likeable personality.

I continue to hope that Elizabeth Warren will run. We really need someone who understands the economic problems of the middle class in the White House. And she is THE one when it comes to that topic. Hillary is not. Not at all.

Of course, as you may remember and as I have mentioned before, I am studying the biography of Theodore Roosevelt. Although the reforms by FDR seem more important today, Teddy Roosevelt (in spite of his bloodlust which was deplorable) brought the energy that made change in our economic system possible. He was a true reformer. And we need a lot of reform today. We need a candidate with the fight and fire of Teddy Roosevelt (but not the cruel pride in killing). I don't think Hillary is that candidate. Time will tell, but I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #267)

Sat Jan 31, 2015, 08:51 AM

269. Neither Hillary--nor Barack--are "rulers." They don't have the power you ascribe to them.

And she does have a "clue" about a lot of things. So does Warren, so does Obama. Characterizing politicians as stupid and uninformed doesn't help your argument.

I don't have a "problem" with Warren. I worked to get her elected. I think she's doing a fine job. I don't think she's QUALIFIED for the Executive Branch. She gives great speeches about Wall Street, but she's never been called upon to engage in diplomacy with other nations and she's still a junior politician. Even Obama had political experience in the IL legislature--Warren has taught at Harvard. Sorry, that's not preparation for the most powerful leadership role in the world. "Controversy"--as you term it--is what the GOP would SUCCESSFULLY use to derail her candidacy should she be so foolish to think she could run and win. She cannot overcome that stuff. It's not news here in MA, but it would be news to the rest of the country, who--despite all the hoopla here at DU--don't know who the hell she is, most of them.

When TR was coming up, USA was an isolationist nation. He did send out the fleet to go hither and yon, and he did say "Speak softly and carry a big stick" (how charming) but he would have been ill-equipped to handle the leadership of USA in this nuclear day and age. He was a man for his time, but his time ain't now--and it's not Warren's, either. She can do a lot, she just can't do it from the White House.

The RFH Pac has gotten MILLIONS of small donations for Clinton--these people have already contributed, they are going to vote for her. Getting out the vote won't be a problem--she's got Howard "Fifty State Strategy" Dean with all his connections and influence ON her team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #247)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 07:43 PM

259. She managed 8 pts, in a state that Obama carried by 23. Eight pts would have been impressive if....

she had done that in a midterm. But, thanks to Obama's coattails, and a Neanderthal seat filler for an opponent, she squeaked out a win. That's not to take anything away from EW, but her "victory" wasn't exactly a story for the ages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #133)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 02:05 AM

230. If she wasn't worth millions by now, I'd think she was pretty stupid--and she's not stupid.

She has taught at top-ranked universities for a couple of decades, they pay VERY well. She has some grasp of how to handle money, I should hope she made good investments. She has a husband who isn't staying at home dusting the figurines--he's pulling down an Ivy League salary, too.

There's a point when what is supposed to be "Humblebragging" looks more like fiscal incompetence. If you've had the advantages of an education, and are able to get a good job, there's something wrong if you haven't managed your money appropriately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 03:38 AM

22. I think a troll has a better chance of defending RW policies of Obama

Last edited Wed Jan 28, 2015, 04:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Spout RW bullshit here or there then defend Obama when he refuses to prosecute torturers or anything Obama did that Bush did as far as foreign policy such as indefinite detention. There is another one. It is the perfect cover.

Now if someone is pushing progressive policies here or there, attacks Republicans when they do something, also criticize Obama when he pushes RW policy. If they are pushing progressive policy, are they really a troll?

How about a list of posters that are suspected and vet them that way? I don't worry about who is a troll so much, I just talk policy. If I like it, I say so. If I don't, I say so. My post history includes supporting Obama on policy choices and criticizing him on others. For a President that describes himself as a "moderate Republican"if this was the 80's), a troll would have an easier time defending those "moderate Republican" policies then push Republican policies elsewhere on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 04:13 AM

33. I'm with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 10:14 AM

45. Nailed it.

 

It's about policy not personality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:24 PM

67. +100

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 03:47 AM

23. no, there's a simpler explanation

what is really going on is that someone has a different opinion than you regarding Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #23)


Response to Enrique (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 04:14 AM

34. +10000000. Oh, the horror of it. Someone daring to think for him- or her-self. Imagine that.

A troll for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 07:40 AM

177. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 04:06 AM

31. You Better Believe It! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 04:14 AM

35. No doubt

there is a problem--not just regarding O, but Democrats in general, as well as issues concerning women and minorities. It's nothing new. It almost feels like a coordinated effort from the Right to target as many online discussion forums as possible and use many different tactics to either push their agenda or to stifle ours. I see plenty of wingnuts posting everywhere--they seemingly outnumber us on sports forums, on YouTube, and there are even some who post on progressive sites. In fact, there was a clip posted here not too long ago about a group of RWers holding a meeting, discussing tactics like going on Amazon just to give negative reviews to left-leaning books.
As for here, I try not to worry about it most of the time and I lurk as other DUers engage the infiltrators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 04:25 AM

36. YES!

So true!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 05:32 AM

37. considering Obama's positioning in the polls are absolutely dependent on DU - there must be - Part

Last edited Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:27 PM - Edit history (1)

of it is paid for Rove and the Koch brothers and part of it is paid for by ISIL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 06:00 AM

40. I don't think so but I do think some are so hypersensitive

 

to any comment that it ruins discussions that are critical of President Obama.

The POTUS has a large staff to protect him and respond to comments made by the media, politicians and the public; the POTUS does not need those with no real insight as to what the POTUS is thinking or how the POTUS will respond on the issue. The POTUS does not need wannabe spin doctors defending him on the internets.

It is a fact that President Obama is not very Liberal nor Progressive he is closer to Reagan with his policies then FDR. Many times over the last 6 years his rhetoric does not match the actions. Beside we the people have the right to complain or support our elected leaders, unless one is interested in echo chambers. If the owners of DU want a echo chamber they should so state. Now I know lots of Democrats voted for Reagan, why I don't know but I suspect most of them were also big fans of Reagan and also voted for him twice too. I suspect many of the same 'democrats' that voted for Reagan also voted for and support Pres Obama.

I think what is being observed here is the difference between the liberals &progressives and corporate, moderate, conservative democrats.

I fully expect that the die hard supporters of President Obama are going to canonize him just like they did Reagan.

That's my 2 cents and observations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 10:01 AM

44. some of you apparently wish the whole of DU was the BOG.

and what a lively/vibrant forum that place is!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to m-lekktor (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:13 PM

65. Yeah and some

Apparently think this is some right wing site for bashing the president and the party as a whole. If all people want to do is bash and trash, they shouldn't be here, wouldn't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to m-lekktor (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 07:24 PM

80. GD in DU is basically an anti-Obama forum.

Write an OP trashing Obama, and you'll get recs a plenty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to m-lekktor (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 08:05 PM

89. Care to back that up?

Who has said there is to be no criticism of the President in GD?

And the BOG is a group not a forum.

And yes it is vibrant thank you very much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to great white snark (Reply #89)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 08:28 AM

184. Mahalo great white snark.. those posters know criticism of the President is rampant in GD.. the OP

was referring to rw trolls. If no one is a rw troll then there's no reason to take offense. I doubt if the trolls are silently offended. It's their job to sneak and disrupt.

The Barack Obama Group~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to great white snark (Reply #89)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 02:08 PM

200. Thank you gws!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to m-lekktor (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 12:22 AM

97. Is the President Black?

Is the President a Democrat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 11:38 AM

55. Instead of vague accusations, maybe those who feel this way can lay out what positions Obama has

 

that you all think everyone should agree with, and also what opinions about Obama you think everyone should agree with, and then see if most do in fact agree with that. Being specific seems like it would clarify these concerns, otherwise it just seems like vague complaints that everyone isn't agreeing with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:15 PM

66. What a strange OP

I think you have a warped idea on the importance of DU. Also, you do realize that not all liberals agree with the Administration on everything, right? A troll is more likely to sow division by championing some of the more RW moves the Administration has made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #66)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 07:20 PM

79. Oh I agree you cannot tell from one OP. I thought to myself

yesterday...could one of this Iran lovers and anti Iran/USA peace talks posters be a troll. No way of knowing. My feelings I recognize down to micro feelings. I don't know in that post. How could I. So I posted a new OP about anti-Obama talk to see if others sometimes felt the same way. A big picture question. And they do. Half of them. So I'm certainly not alone. I will just have to post all my Obama posts in BOG instead of general discussion - to be sure. Live and learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Reply #79)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 08:26 PM

91. I count 3.. including myself that could be one of those trolls

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6146077

To be clear I'm hardly an Iran lover, they have about the worst Blasphemy laws but what makes Iran unique is it is specifically written into law that bashing Sunni Muslims is A-OK. anti-Iran/USA talks? No. Just the most obvious example but not the best but lets not pretend recent talks to lift sanctions aren't about Iranian oil. Plus we are allies w/ one of their biggest enemies Saudi Arabia and historical facts prove they provide financial support to the very enemies that attack us.

Former FBI translator and Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, interviewed by Brad Friedman on the The Mike Malloy Show on June 2009 has stated: "I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA%E2%80%93al-Qaeda_controversy

What isn't in dispute is Saudi Arabia has provided financial assistance to Al-Qaeda & The Taliban. Also our Arabian Peninsula allies have provided financial assistance to ISIS. None of which was my point, just included Iran's continued sanctions as they were the most obvious example of USA bullying another.

There is an easy to find out if they're troll or not. Search their history.

Here I am defending Obama multiple times in a thread on DU against those who are support legislation sponsored by my very own former State Senator Russell Pearce. If that doesn't prove I'm not a troll, I don't know what does? If I was, shouldn't I be supporting Russell Pearce considering I live in his district?

Plenty of cities and even some Nations are in this boycott (Which I opposed at first because I thought it would end up hurting the people they support but Tea Party assholes were busing people in from out of states-especially the Southeast-to have rallies for this law supported by the author who is a racist, Russell Pearce, Joe Arpaio, and JD Hayworth which got me to support one).

Also multiple people have gotten arrested the last two days protesting Sheriff Joe's sweeps which he said he would do no matter what the court says.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4485892

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #91)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 12:54 AM

99. Why did you single out my post, are you accusing me of being a troll? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #99)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 01:11 AM

101. I didn't mean to have it single out like that

See the OP after the Iran discussion I had a feeling that this OP was motivated from the responses received, this was the confirmation.

So I went back to My Posts and I clicked on either the link to my post or her reply (1). From there I don't remember what I clicked or where, I think reading to get an accurate tally so I could ask which one of us 3 is the troll. I guess from there on your post I copied the URL and pasting it without realizing it was your specific post (for some I assumed I pasted the View All version) However, I wouldn't accuse you or anyone with left wing criticism of being a troll plus if I were, I don't have any proof so I don't make those kind of unwarranted assumptions or accusations. It wasn't my intentions to single out your post, a mistake that I regret that I wasn't more careful.

I think these one of many troll suspicions, especially regarding anyone the criticizes or doesn't support 100% of what he does isn't helpful & is inaccurate, in my case as well as many others who seem interested in liberal or traditional Democratic policy. I don't or wouldn't have any issues with you. My issues are more with defending RW policies because the Democrat in charge supports in. Plus, since I suspected this thread was inspired by the "big countries don't bully" thread I was a little touchy because I felt I was within the troll wondering by the OP.

I'm very sorry, the last thing I hoped to happen in this thread was haven't come across as accusing others, especially those that feel a similar way that brought us under the troll suspicion.

On edit - my only intention in providing a link was a source of the concern so thread viewers wouldn't be limited to description of "Iran lovers" or "anti USA/Iran peace talks"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #101)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 01:16 AM

104. Oh, my apologies

As I never made mention of any 'bullying', or Obama, or anything but the facts regarding Iran's nuclear rights it just sort of took me off guard. No worries, I'm Canadian, so stay out of internal U.S. politics, but do comment on things that affect other areas of the world. It seems that some here are really upset at that ......... maybe they should make clear once and for all if people not in the U.S. should be allowed to comment at all - perhaps the thread-starter could help me out there, or ask Skinner to explain his policy on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Reply #79)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 01:02 AM

100. 'This' post is what this is all about??

Omg,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6146077

Iran has signed the NPT and has called for a nuclear-free ME.

Iran has the same right to nuclear energy as does Canada - they lack sufficient refineries to keep up with the energy demands of the population, as well as the right to nuclear-medicine. They're a very smart people, if they'd wanted nukes they'd have created them years ago - like Israel (but those are still secret, I think).


In response to your claim:

"I don't think pressuring Iran, which also wants to be a right wing nuclear Islamic state, is bullying."

Not one word about bullying, Obama or anything but the FACTS re: Iran's signing of the NPT and calling for a nuclear free ME - makes me a dreaded 'Iran lover'' and troll. Is that anything like being a Hussein lover? Or a Gaddafi lover or Chavez lover? Because I've been called all of those things. But if being an 'Iran lover' for stating simple facts is being a 'troll' on a progressive message board - whatever - I'll stick up for truth that involves the welfare of people everywhere in the world, and your name-calling doesn't bother me all that much, just a bit confusing as to how facts are the reason for so much angst and hatred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #100)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 01:16 AM

103. I should have clicked "View All" before copying and pasting

It was hours ago but I believe I clicked on yours & others to get an accurate count of who are the "Iran lovers" but I meant to post the entire thread but focus on the "Iran lover" subthread.

I think the OP was suspicious of any 1 of us 3, I'm not sure but I posted the thread for context to this discussion. I really didn't mean for you to take it I was singling you out. Not at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #103)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 01:17 AM

105. No worries!

Please see post above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #66)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 07:55 AM

179. Bingo!

"A troll is more likely to sow division by championing some of the more RW moves the Administration has made."

So true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:54 PM

72. Of course there is, its a public forum.

 

To think that all these trolls scourge the internet but leave DU alone is crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #72)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 07:48 AM

178. Yep. Pro this or that trolls, as well as anti this or that trolls

You get the "Confederate flag" trolls and shill, the pro lots of salt trolls and shills (usually crying, "Nanny State!", all kinds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 04:12 PM

74. IMO it is so illogical to let Republicans win because Democrats are not conservative enough

that it has to be trolling. How could any real progressive think like that? Encouraging us to shoot ourselves in the foot and let them win?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #74)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:22 AM

123. You've seen a lot of DU posts suggesting that we let Republicans win?

Or is the idea trying to get Democrats to stop going right? If you've seen posts suggesting voting Republican or third party, you might consider alerting. They violate the TOS.


BTW you may have meant "IMO, is so illogical to let Republicans win because Democrats are too conservative,"not "IMO it is so illogical to let Republicans win because Democrats are not conservative enough" which is how your subject line reads. As the subject line reads, it's entirely logical to let Republicans win, if you want government that is even more conservative than even New Democrats provide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #123)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 07:59 AM

180. Yeah letting Rs win because Democrats are not progressive enough

especially the ones from red states. There are posts that say that and that Republicans should win and make things so bad there is some sort of revolution, but those people are at least honest, if crazy. Others argue we should stay home or at least appear to approve of staying home for that reason. People don't have to say so specifically, in fact, that's dumb. They simply repeat it over and over hoping to have that influence and to wash us all in negativity towards our own party so we won't want to fight for it. We should punish the Democrats for not being progressive enough, and in that process, it lets Republicans win (they don't have to say it because it follows).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #180)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 08:05 AM

182. Really? I'm here almost daily and don't see many posts like that.

Last edited Thu Jan 29, 2015, 08:56 AM - Edit history (1)

People don't have to say so specifically,


No, nothing specific at all required in a post, when people are willing to leap to any conclusion that suits them based on nothing other than their penchants for assuming the worst of their fellow DUers .

Based on your posts saying nothing of the kind I could easily have concluded hundreds of awful things about you. Because, after all, you don't have to say anything specific for me to conclude justifiably that you are up to no good whatever and your motives are not on the up and up.

They simply repeat it over and over hoping to have that influence and to wash us all in negativity towards our own party so we won't want to fight for it.


Or maybe "they" are simply fighting for the Democratic Party they can can get excited over again, one that they believe can win elections again, one that operates for the 99% again, and hoping to motivate other Democrats to do the same, rather than simply accepting--and defending--whatever rightist policies Third Wayers and New Democrats hand them. Because I've seen plenty of posts that do specifically say things like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #182)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 01:57 PM

197. You don't see any because that special poster

 

wants Republican-lite in office, it is the kind of 'Dem' he likes the most. I think the OP is talking about him and others like him. Trying to destroy the party by forcing us to run Republican-lite...pathetic but that is the posters MO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #197)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 02:06 PM

199. Thanks for the 411.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #199)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:13 PM

207. Anytime!

 

I'm so sick of Reagan Dems supporting Republican-lite candidates. These are the same people that howl about the 2000 elections, yet they sheepishly won't tell you they voted for Bush Jr. over Gore in 2000. I've met some reformed RDs...but the biggest forum nannies seem to still love them some trickledown and hate anything with the word socialism in it.

It is their shared hatred for all things progressive that drives them imo. Always free trade over fair trade. Always, 'let's take it slow and wait our turn then we can fix everything' garbage.

Really has fucked up the party imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #180)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 10:57 PM

264. Those Democrats from red states do far more Obama bashing

but the progressive bashers are surprisingly comfortable with that. It is a symptom of the problem that a simple troll suspicion isn't an answer for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 05:36 PM

77. Trolling? At an anonymous online bulletin board? Why would anyone suspect that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 05:46 PM

78. I'm a big fan of the President personally.

I think he's a good guy who has done some good things. That said, I still think he cares more about Wall Street and campaign contributors than he does ordinary Americans.

Naturally expressing such thoughts have gotten me banned from the BOG group, but I don't consider it "trolling." People usually say trolling when they really mean "saying something I don't like."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #78)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:46 AM

129. As a critic of many Obama policies, all I can say about "innocently" criticizing him in the BOG

is

I certainly can attest that you can criticize Obama in many forums and groups on this board. If one couldn't, I would not still be here.

The one place where rules forbid such criticism is the BOG. As a member since 2004, you must know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #129)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 08:16 AM

183. Actually, no I didn't know...

that any criticism of the President was forbidden in the BOG. Most groups aren't necessarily set up as fan clubs. Take the Hillary Clinton group, for example. I see criticism of her in that group.

That's cool, though. Whatever.

Edited to remove snark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #183)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 08:28 AM

185. Then I am sorry I assumed you would surely know. Criticism of Hillary should not be

in the Hillary Group, but the decisions are up to the hosts of each group.

This appears atop the page that starts each group:



This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group. For detailed information about this group and its purpose, click here.


The BOG's Statement of Purpose reads:

OG Statement of Purpose [View all]

This discussion thread is pinned.

Can we bring over the one from DU2 to our new digs here on DU3?

The mission of the Barack Obama Group is to discuss information and news about the life, career, accomplishments, and presidency of Barack Obama; to provide a haven for those members of Democratic Underground who support the president and his policies; to discuss President Obama's policy positions, speeches, interviews, and other public appearances; to discuss President Obama's political campaigns; and to discuss the causes which President Obama has championed, including health care reform and ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Those who have a generally negative view of President Obama and his administration, support his defeat in the 2012 presidential election (in primaries or the general election), or who are generally supportive of those who do, are not welcome in the Barack Obama Group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #185)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 09:32 AM

190. That's cool either way.

They can have the fan club, and the rest of us can discuss the President frankly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 07:32 PM

81. Yes

 

They started after his first win. After the second win they have just about taken over.

They try to jump into every discussion to stop the truth by making up lies or changing to confuse those who are new to politics.

They try to change the subject of a lot of post to shut them down but they are finding out there are too many..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 08:02 PM

86. From the defensive tone of some of the responses, I think you got your answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 11:30 PM

95. Do people really believe that Obama discussions here on DU impact his numbers?

 

That's a tad loopy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #95)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 12:05 AM

96. No but creating strife on settled issus, like Iran negotiations in exchange for no nukes,

will annoy and perhaps chase away some independent from this website. That will cost votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Reply #96)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 01:19 AM

106. Settled issues like claiming Iran is after nukes?

I stated what I did about the NPT and request for a nuclear ME. Why couldn't you ask me about that on the thread, instead of starting a whole new one to call me a troll for it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Reply #96)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 01:26 AM

107. That is a bit of a misrepresentation, at-least regarding me

(I say that because I can only speak for me but I also believe others positions regarding Iran are genuine)

Cha said something about Obama speaking for past bullies, I said his hands are not clean and referenced the 2010 oil sanctions. I actually support lifting them but mostly because I'm not a fan of putting sanctions on a sovereign country in the first place. Especially when there is a hypocrisy involved. The only reason why I mentioned it was an example, I could probably find another example but it is subjective.

The issue was more recent in lifting the cap on exports, which countries allowed to import want to import more Iranian oil is a more recent issue. I actually favor Obama's change but the change in geopolitics was the reason for it rather than an agreement that disapproves putting sanctions on countries.

Any serious honest person wouldn't find a bit of irony in the claim "Big countries don't bully smaller countries".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Reply #96)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 05:34 AM

167. That is up to them. Plenty of Democrats, rightist, center and leftist, supposedly were

driven from this board. Yet the posters who claim some were driven off the board, poster who think much like those Democrats who "fled persecution" somehow managed to remain here to post about those who fled. By the same token, Republicans and right Libertarians show up here all the time and, IMO, too many seem to have no trouble staying.

If this board is not someone's cup of tea, maybe they should find a board that is more to their liking. Expecting the board to change to fit some indies that you imagine may not want to post here because some policy of Obama's is being criticized. As long as we're imagining Independents trying to evaluate political discussion, the ones I imagine, if anything, welcome open and vigorous discussion of all political viewpoints, as suggested by their refusal to affiliate with one side or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Reply #96)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 08:02 AM

181. Yet, your two line OP mentioned posts here bringing down Obama's numbers.

Is there trolling going on here in regards to Obama? Like the GOP have to get his numbers down, and start an anti Obama discussion here on the DU, when Obama is pretty much a settled issue


Hard to red that OP any way other than you assume posts here affect his numbers IRL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #95)


Response to 1000words (Reply #112)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:21 AM

121. LOL. I take it you don‘t want the discussion

of disruptors to continue. I‘ve learnt from you and will post all of my Obama threads in BOG.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Reply #121)


Response to applegrove (Reply #121)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:14 AM

143. That poster has pages of self-deleted posts.

Makes you wonder how bad the posts were that he/she had to delete them all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #143)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 02:37 PM

201. I have a grand total of four posts hidden, they are posted as journal entries.

 

All others are deleted when the thread is no longer active. Just the way I roll ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1000words (Reply #201)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 02:48 PM

202. Wow, sounds like quite a strange and calculated strategy.

What's to hide.

Actually I've read a lost of your posts, though, so it's not hard to figure out why you would delete them as a message board strategy.

Hats off to applegrove for this thread and the analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #202)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:01 PM

203. Lots of games being played at DU

 

The posts are removed because I feel the only worthwhile dialogue is real time. Once a bit of time goes by, some context and spirit of the discussion is lost. Which is unfortunate when someone comes across a post days later and solicits a jury to hide it. (A favorite "strategy" of a certain cadre of hair-on-fire "educators" on this site.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1000words (Reply #203)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:09 PM

205. "Lots of games being played at DU" Oh, U Betcha.

And this thread has certainly been illuminating as to who the true game players are and a peek into their strategies. It kind of confirms what I suspected about those who attacked the "educators" on a constant basis with nothing but emotional invective or the now-famous stubborn obtuseness.

U betcha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1000words (Reply #203)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 04:10 PM

209. Point of order

Which is unfortunate when someone comes across a post days later and solicits a jury to hide it. (A favorite "strategy" of a certain cadre of hair-on-fire "educators" on this site.


Not true...

After 24 hours all alerts on an existing post go directly to admin, not a jury.

So much for the grand "strategy."

Seems you've covered your tracks for nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #209)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 05:15 PM

210. You are correct, my mistake.

 

Hours later, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #209)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 06:48 PM

216. Oh Snap! "Grand strategy" indeed. Thanks for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #216)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 08:49 PM

221. Just trying to be

a dutiful "educator."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #221)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 08:50 PM

222. And doing a bang-up job, my Dear!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #95)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 02:51 AM

113. Well, if the truth were known . . . .

. . . yes, there are some people chewing on Obama on a daily basis here that think that they have great influence on his poll numbers.
They are the ones that constantly remind everyone else that free speech is a right!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #113)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:55 AM

132. Major Hogwash, pls link to one of those daily posts about about impacting Obama's poll numbers

adversely by criticizing his acts or omissions at DU.

The reason I ask: Every single one of the posts I have ever seen here suggesting DU posts are having enormous negative impact on Obama, or enormous impact of any kind IRL, have been written by Obama's supporters, apparently seeking to silence criticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #132)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 05:28 AM

166. Merrily, pls link to "every single one of those posts" ...

... that Obama supporters have posted suggesting that DU is "having an enormous negative impact on Obama".

Obama supporters tend to live in the real world - not in the DU bubble. And they can't help but notice that when Obama's approval ratings are on the rise, certain DUers post the most negative things they can find - not only about Obama, but about the Democratic Party as a whole.

Hauling out the "seeking to silence criticism" bullshit is what it is - bullshit. Calling Obama a piece-of-shit used car salesman, a corporate-loving lackey, a Republican in (D) clothing, a Wall Street puppet, a water-carrier for the 1%, a spineless kow-tower to the Powers That Be (whoever they are) is not criticism - it is name-calling. And, as such, it requires no factual basis, nor grounding in reality.

I await your links.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #166)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 05:49 AM

168. Sure. Right after I get the link I requested.

Major Hogwash claims he sees certain posts every single day, not anything like the claim I made. So, his coming up with a link should be a piece of cake. I very much disagree that the claim he made requires no links.

It was:

yes, there are some people chewing on Obama on a daily basis here that think that they have great influence on his poll numbers.

Had he said only that he saw criticism daily, I would not have asked for a link. But, he is attributing a specific motive to that criticism.


If you have read my posts, you know that I do not post more or less, according to poll numbers, nor do I change the content of my posts according to poll numbers. Nor have I called Obama any of the names you gave in your posts. And I certainly never post claiming or thinking that my posts affect anyone's poll numbers, which is what Major Hogwash claims he sees every day. So, if you have a beef with posters you believe do that, you should take it up with them, not with me. I don't answer for them.



As far as seeking to silence criticism what do you supposed the OP of this thread is trying to do, in a passive aggressive way? What does all shaming of posters, as a group, for the content of their posts seek to do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #168)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 06:12 AM

172. I am a bit perplexed ...

... as to why verifying your own claims is dependent on someone else verifying theirs first.

I never said you "posted according to poll numbers", nor changed the content of your posts based on same. Nor have I said that you "called Obama names". Nor have I stated that you have claimed that your posts affect anyone's poll numbers.

So why do you feel compelled to respond to things that were never said?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #172)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 06:28 AM

175. Oop. You didn't get perplexed about Reply 168 until after my reply 169 called you out for bad faith

and unreasonableness? Unfortunate timing, for the truly perplexed. Transparent timing for the not so truly perplexed.

Either way....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #175)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:46 PM

208. Now I am perplexed ...

... by whatever it is you're rambling about.

Why don't you just admit that you can't cite a single instance of an Obama supporter claiming that DU affects his numbers, instead of coming up with ridiculous excuses for why you won't do so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #166)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 05:57 AM

169. Oh, sorry. I didnt notice that you were asking for a link to EVERY SINGLE post that I have seen

here in several years of posting that claims our posts harm the President, as a response to my request to Major Hogwash for ONE link to a post of the kind he claims he sees daily.

Given the obvious unreasonableness and extreme bad faith of the request, both as a relative matter and in the abstract, forget I said I would respond to it, as soon as I got the link I had already requested. I regret every portion of my prior reply. I should have either ignored your post or responded with an equal degree of unreasonableness and bad faith as you post afforded me.

Besides, if you have never seen posts of the kind I described, you really need to read here more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #169)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 06:04 AM

170. I agree it was an unreasonable request.

I'm happy to see your personal Top Ten. That should be manageable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #170)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 06:09 AM

171. After your unreasonable and bad faith posts to me, I could not possibly

care less what you'd be happy to see. I have zero doubt you've seen that kind of post on DU before anyway.

If not, I'm sure you can search DU as well as I can, if not better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #171)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 06:18 AM

173. In other words ...

... you can't come up with a single instance of an Obama-supporter claiming that DU posts have a negative affect on his numbers.

You could have just admitted that up front - instead of hiding your lack of facts behind cries of unreasonableness and bad faith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #173)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 06:21 AM

174. Predictable much? In other words, due to your bad faith, I very obviously never looked.

but you knew that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #173)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 05:58 PM

213. Game! Set! Match!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #132)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 08:22 PM

218. merrily, you have been targeted here by a particular kind of....

....tactic. Used often by Obama defenders (or whatever they are). Threads are disrupted by obsessive detail nitpicking. Nitpick a detail, then start an argument. Complete with plenty of snark and attempts at intimidation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #218)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 02:10 AM

231. Thank you, grasswire. At this point, I'm ignoring the posts (on this thread) of one of them.

You may have noticed that I don't intimidate easily. However, I can weary of bad faith, especially when served in a boring manner.

I was not going to check the post you replied to in My Posts to see who replied, but I did and was happy to see your name. Thanks for replying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #132)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 01:58 AM

229. Just using logic to deduce why they think they have an impact on Obama's poll numbers.

If the flipside were true -- and they think they don't have a negative impact on Obama's poll numbers -- then why would they bash President Obama every single day at the DU, a Democratic forum that supported President Obama to be President of the United States 2 times!!
That makes no sense at all!!

The problem is, many of them realized long ago that their influence doesn't reach very far.
So, their extensive whining, moaning, groaning, sniveling, and carping about President Obama on a daily basis has no affect on what President Obama does as the President of the United States.
It's a complete waste of time to bellyache every single day about President Obama on the internet!

So, conversely, they must think they have an influence on his poll numbers, that they can drag them down.
Or else, why would they waste their time posting here about him at all?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #229)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 05:39 AM

248. Logic? That is not logic; it's leaping to quite a few baseless conclusions.

The first baseless conclusion is that posts at DU move any poll numbers.

The second baseless conclusion is that post at DU move the poll numbers of the President of the United States.

As you can see from other posts on this thread, a number of DUers, including me, think that is a ridiculous assumption.

The third baseless conclusion is that the only reason people have to post at DU is to move any poll numbers up or down.

The fourth baseless conclusion is that posters who criticize Obama do so only because they share a ridiculous assumption that their posts will move his poll numbers.

The fifth baseless conclusion is that the only reason to post criticizing Obama is some futile attempt to move his poll numbers.

The sixth baseless conclusion is

Well, you should be getting the idea, by now. Or, at least most people would have.

No one can stop you from leaping to baseless conclusions, or imagining stuff. However, you might look up the definitions of "fact" and "logic."

Meanwhile, enjoy your popcorn and your fact-free and logic-free conclusion about how evil your fellow DUers are if they have a different view of Obama than yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #248)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 11:11 PM

265. I've been here for 12 years.

And the first thing I learned is when someone at the DU asks a question, the way oberliner asked his question, does not give anyone else the right to jump on them for the answer given!!

You don't like the answer I gave to oberliner . . . tough!

So, now, as a very long-time member of DU, all I can say to your response at this point in time, is --

ALL YOUR BASELESS CONCLUSIONS ARE BELONG TO US!!






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #265)

Sat Jan 31, 2015, 01:21 AM

268. ALL YOUR BASELESS CONCLUSIONS BELONG TO US!!

Yes, I know. That's pretty much what my post said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 09:47 AM

194. No politician still in office is a settled issue.

Voicing objections to crappy policy pushes isn't "trolling", it's holding his feet to the fire, exactly as he requested.

What is trolling, is calling people troll just because you don't like what they have to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 05:23 PM

255. The trolls been here in my opinion

since November 2008. The GOP wasn't social media savvy until then. how can you when they usually talk to their own kind. They came here to distract and be messy!!!! some try and hide but we see them. I have no problem with them simple minded people trying to create confusion being here. They stay long enough they learn more about how ridiculously ignorant Republicans act and sound. We see those soft post when they finally come out. They go something like I used to be a Republican but I was a Reagan republican or something to that effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 10:52 PM

263. Sometimes I think yes, sometimes no, if you mean paid trolling.

And if you mean the same ol' haters doing the same ol' shtick day after day, well, I can't think who would pay 'em, but anything is possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread