Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Yet Another Bulls*** Clinton “Story”. We have become even dumber than we were in the 90’s. [View all]freshwest
(53,661 posts)71. Or to be more genteel in speech, we're dealing with Dirty Tricks from Tricky Dick's gangsters.
Dirty tricks are unethical, duplicitous, slanderous or illegal tactics employed to destroy or diminish the effectiveness of political or business opponents. The term "dirty trick" can also be used to refer to an underhanded technique to get ahead of an opponent (such as sabotage or disregarding rules of engagement).
Leaking secret information, digging into a candidate's past (opposition research) or exposing real conflicts between the image presented and the person behind the image are always subject to argument as to whether they are dirty tricks or truth-telling. When a candidate runs into trouble or roadblocks in his or her campaign that are traceable to the other side, he/she can easily charge their opponent with dirty tricks. Often, the candidate is right in this accusation, but one candidate's "dirty trick" is another's "political strategy". The distinction changes with the times. Of course imputing the discovery of a past misdemeanor to the other side can be considered a "dirty trick" in its own right.
However, manufactured, irrelevant, cruel and incorrect rumors or outright lies or falsehoods designed to damage or destroy an opponent are easily described as dirty tricks. They serve to tie up the opponent into defending against and answering false charges rather than explaining their policies and platform.
Sometimes dirty tricks are not only aimed at slandering the opponent. Dishing the dirt against your candidate's opponent can be effective at alienating voters in order to turn them off from the entire project. These tactics may reduce turnout in order to assure your candidate gains by having his/her core voters show up at the polls; thus, an operative molds the outcome by angering everyone. The effort to lower an official's or a candidate's popularity in the polls is called "driving the negatives"[citation needed].
Political speech is protected by the Constitution in the United States and it is rare that a wronged candidate sues for slander after an election season is concluded. Laws were introduced in the UK to prevent untrue statements being made about candidatessee Miranda Grell for a 2007 case.
Political candidates have been accused by their opponents of virtually every sin and crime ever described, from graft and vice to bribery and communism, polygamy, drug use, spousal abuse, fascism, pedophilia, miscegenation, adultery, stupidity, demagoguery, and support for nudism.[citation needed]
The story of dirty tricks in American politics begins with the first campaign for President of the United States, in the 1790s. Thomas Jefferson hired journalist and pamphleteer James Thomas Callender to slander his opponent, Alexander Hamilton.[citation needed] After a falling out, Callender turned on Jefferson and published attacks on his previous employer.
The Nixon Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP), a private, non-governmental campaign entity, used funds from its coffers to pay for, and later cover up, dirty tricks performed against opponents by Richard Nixon's employee, Donald Segretti. Segretti famously coined the term 'ratfucking' for recruiting conservative members to infiltrate opposition groups (and/or misrepresent them through false flag activities) in order to undermine the effectiveness of such opposition.[1]
As a result of post-Watergate reform legislation, such activities are strictly regulated, though other private entities still may practice what has become commonly referred to as questionable or unethical dirty tricks.
Recent nomenclature equates a Dirty Tricks Squad to any organized, covert attempt to besmirch the credibility or reputation of an individual or organization so as to render them ineffective...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks
Note the exception for private groups in regulations. That is why the media gets away with so much. And of course it's not just DU that has sensed a problem.
It's going on at other websites, and is the mainstay of talk radio and cable television 'news' shows. The emphasis in the Wikipedia article is mine and it fits the pattern. This should be known by everyone here.
The original DU was beseiged by trolls early on. MIRT keeps expelling them.
Some have come to believe the same things the trolls do, and don't fit all the traits defining trolling.
But the terms Ratfucking and Ratfuckers were employed by the GOP referring to what they were doing to Democrats, not each other. Democrats do not do it to the GOP because it goes against our values as we want all to be informed with facts and to encourage voting. When someone says or does otherwise it gives the appearance of Dirty Tricks.
.
Leaking secret information, digging into a candidate's past (opposition research) or exposing real conflicts between the image presented and the person behind the image are always subject to argument as to whether they are dirty tricks or truth-telling. When a candidate runs into trouble or roadblocks in his or her campaign that are traceable to the other side, he/she can easily charge their opponent with dirty tricks. Often, the candidate is right in this accusation, but one candidate's "dirty trick" is another's "political strategy". The distinction changes with the times. Of course imputing the discovery of a past misdemeanor to the other side can be considered a "dirty trick" in its own right.
However, manufactured, irrelevant, cruel and incorrect rumors or outright lies or falsehoods designed to damage or destroy an opponent are easily described as dirty tricks. They serve to tie up the opponent into defending against and answering false charges rather than explaining their policies and platform.
Sometimes dirty tricks are not only aimed at slandering the opponent. Dishing the dirt against your candidate's opponent can be effective at alienating voters in order to turn them off from the entire project. These tactics may reduce turnout in order to assure your candidate gains by having his/her core voters show up at the polls; thus, an operative molds the outcome by angering everyone. The effort to lower an official's or a candidate's popularity in the polls is called "driving the negatives"[citation needed].
Political speech is protected by the Constitution in the United States and it is rare that a wronged candidate sues for slander after an election season is concluded. Laws were introduced in the UK to prevent untrue statements being made about candidatessee Miranda Grell for a 2007 case.
Political candidates have been accused by their opponents of virtually every sin and crime ever described, from graft and vice to bribery and communism, polygamy, drug use, spousal abuse, fascism, pedophilia, miscegenation, adultery, stupidity, demagoguery, and support for nudism.[citation needed]
The story of dirty tricks in American politics begins with the first campaign for President of the United States, in the 1790s. Thomas Jefferson hired journalist and pamphleteer James Thomas Callender to slander his opponent, Alexander Hamilton.[citation needed] After a falling out, Callender turned on Jefferson and published attacks on his previous employer.
The Nixon Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP), a private, non-governmental campaign entity, used funds from its coffers to pay for, and later cover up, dirty tricks performed against opponents by Richard Nixon's employee, Donald Segretti. Segretti famously coined the term 'ratfucking' for recruiting conservative members to infiltrate opposition groups (and/or misrepresent them through false flag activities) in order to undermine the effectiveness of such opposition.[1]
As a result of post-Watergate reform legislation, such activities are strictly regulated, though other private entities still may practice what has become commonly referred to as questionable or unethical dirty tricks.
Recent nomenclature equates a Dirty Tricks Squad to any organized, covert attempt to besmirch the credibility or reputation of an individual or organization so as to render them ineffective...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks
Note the exception for private groups in regulations. That is why the media gets away with so much. And of course it's not just DU that has sensed a problem.
It's going on at other websites, and is the mainstay of talk radio and cable television 'news' shows. The emphasis in the Wikipedia article is mine and it fits the pattern. This should be known by everyone here.
The original DU was beseiged by trolls early on. MIRT keeps expelling them.
Some have come to believe the same things the trolls do, and don't fit all the traits defining trolling.
But the terms Ratfucking and Ratfuckers were employed by the GOP referring to what they were doing to Democrats, not each other. Democrats do not do it to the GOP because it goes against our values as we want all to be informed with facts and to encourage voting. When someone says or does otherwise it gives the appearance of Dirty Tricks.
.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
109 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yet Another Bulls*** Clinton “Story”. We have become even dumber than we were in the 90’s. [View all]
riqster
Mar 2015
OP
I'll help Hillary fans out. Find out what email system Leon Panetta, Robert Gates,
TwilightGardener
Mar 2015
#1
I guess the National Archivist doesn't count? He says she's fine. And he should know. nt
Hekate
Mar 2015
#18
So you're sure she must have done *something* wrong, and any moment now the nonbiased MSM...
Hekate
Mar 2015
#24
I added stuff to my above post on edit that explains why I think this is trouble
TwilightGardener
Mar 2015
#28
I don't know if you did anything wrong, either. That is the nature of witch hunts. I look forward...
Hekate
Mar 2015
#29
I find it strange that insistence on public servants following good practices and protocols--
TwilightGardener
Mar 2015
#34
Have you read the OP and Post#9? That is what is going on. That is what I am objecting to...
Hekate
Mar 2015
#35
I don't know, it seems that the Clintons really love to shoot themselves in
TwilightGardener
Mar 2015
#37
what makes me angry is using private email systems for public business and then trying to
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#48
Hiding and/or deleting emails and thwarting transparency in government
TwilightGardener
Mar 2015
#101
The ones she gave to the State Dept.? What ones DIDN'T she give to the State Dept?
TwilightGardener
Mar 2015
#105
You make points that have been debunked. Among others the National Archivist has cleared her.
Hekate
Mar 2015
#60
Nobody can "clear" what she did. It's already been done. She sequestered all her
TwilightGardener
Mar 2015
#72
There's something else for people to think about re. Clinton Derangement Syndrome
BeyondGeography
Mar 2015
#4
This should be pinned to the top of DU's masthead. It should be required reading here.
Hekate
Mar 2015
#31
Or to be more genteel in speech, we're dealing with Dirty Tricks from Tricky Dick's gangsters.
freshwest
Mar 2015
#71
Must explain or the post gets hidden. A DUer had one hidden as the jurors didn't know the meaning.
freshwest
Mar 2015
#57
Agree with freshwest--but anyone who alerts on this, after the term is explained, deserves a
MADem
Mar 2015
#67
Harp was on Bloomberg today. Said Dem party has a lot of good alternative candidates
ErikJ
Mar 2015
#36
Nobody cares what BelligerentandStupid "the radical centrist" has to say?
TheKentuckian
Mar 2015
#20
Blunt and Cranky "used to think we couldn’t get any dumber than we were in the Lewinsky era" >SIGH<
Hekate
Mar 2015
#22
Did anyone at the AP think to do a whois search? Bob Cesca did, and the Daily Banter has it
genwah
Mar 2015
#23
It is not personal for most, it is all about ratings and nothing else. This drives ratings
krawhitham
Mar 2015
#51