General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's time for this destructive meme about shutting up during elections to stop,
Last edited Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)
once and for all.
We have in recent years witnessed a creeping, growing, extremely disturbing line of argument on political discussion boards about shutting up during elections, as though it is a given that good citizens must silence themselves so as not to disturb the delicate strategies being implemented by our parties. Or that they should not ask questions, because they will upset these delicate plans...
This week, we actually heard this garbage move beyond political discussion boards and come from one of the the campaigns itself:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021483594
This bid for silence is an affront to everything our representative political process is supposed to be about. It is a flagrantly antidemocratic demand for passivity by the governed, and it's an outrageous, dangerous meme that we need to stop dead in its tracks. Our entire political system is built around and depends upon government responsiveness to the people's voices. It's called representative government, and vigorous citizen participation in the political process is at the heart and the core of it. Especially during election seasons.
This new, outrageous claim that citizens should silence themselves during elections is a corruption of everything elections are supposed to be about in this country.
We have a serious problem of growing corporate control and authoritarianism in this country and in our two political parties. We are living in a time of "free speech zones," ....as though our entire country should not be a zone for free speech....and assaults on peaceful protesters.
It is well past time that the people of America speak out clearly and remind our politicians on both sides that they work for us....not the other way around.
So the next time someone tells you that you need to be quiet because it is election season, let them know in no uncertain terms they have it exactly backwards. The very health and survival of our representative government depends on our willingness to speak out and make clear what we expect from our elected representatives. Our power and our responsibility are in our voices....*especially* during elections.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hamlette
(15,412 posts)"Our power and our responsibility is in our voices....*especially* during elections."
If you want the other side to win. It has nothing to do with corporatism. It has to do with family or tribe if you like. We all pull together when things get tough and we are vulnerable. We are always vulnerable in an election. It is the time to protect the family/tribe from attack from without. It is no time to weaken our leaders by tearing them down.
You don't have to praise him for the debate but you do have to overlook it and move on . . . unless you want Romney. If you are one of those people who says there is no difference between the two candidates and the last 30 years didn't show you are wrong you are, you have not been paying attention.
This kind of monday morning quarterbacking accomplishes nothing. Does anyone actually believe that complaining about your own candidate BEFORE the election will somehow affect their performance AFTER the election?
Until all the votes are counted, SUPPORT your candidate, pick a different one, or stay home. Sheesh.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Free speech, like beauty, is its own excuse for being.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Since when do we have to be silent and why should a Candidate be shielded from the desires of their supporters. Has it occurred to you that they might do more things we want and need if they actually heard us. Censorship isn't good and dont give me shit about dissent on positions aids the enemy. Candidates.need to hear us. Maybe they wont sell us out if they really knew we were listening. Oh wait. I
Just committed treason.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Whew, that's a relief! So you will allow people to express their honest opinion, as long as its done in a short period of time.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Saying that. They are railing against suppression of free discussion which isn't democratic its republican. Mr. Obama owes us the social security info. This is too 'quiet rooms'for me. Google recommends to op.
twins.fan
(310 posts)It is my opinion, that if a candidate takes a position on an issue, the candidate should welcome the tough questions. That is the time for the candidate to explain their argument to a captive audience. When someone has the courage to ask the tough question, that doesn't mean that the questioner is unfair, because if the questioner is wondering how the candidate addresses an issue, there are others that wonder how the candidate addresses the issue too. If the candidate cannot address the tough questions, why are they the candidate?
It is Gingrich and Rush who insult the questioner. We shouldn't use the same tactics.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)The people clamoring for silence recognize something- that if there is not quiet lockstop, there will be tough questions. Tough questions could lead to losses.
Why? Because the people supposedly representing us have plans that run counter to our interests.
A good example was the Deepwater Horizon disaster. I was one of the people who pleaded and protested against dirty energy and offshore drilling. I was told to sit down, shut up, President Obama and his team were taking care of it.
...And then the inevitable happened...and the President went on national TV and asked us to PRAY.
No, I will NOT shut up! If you can't talk about the issues and address the problems in a sane way, how am I supposed to vote responsibly? This is not a sports event- who we elect determines who lives and who dies!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)What's craziest about the arguments you see, already in this thread and elsewhere...and what exposes it as the one percent propaganda that it is...is the absolutely ludicrous assumption that exposing and talking about policies advocated by a candidate should be *dangerous."
If a candidate is working on behalf of the people, talking about policy will attract and energize voters, not the opposite. If policies are not reflecting the interests of the people, speaking out to change that will only increase electability.
Social Security is a great example. Every single poll confirms that protecting SS benefits and standing up for this fundamental compact with Americans is not only the right thing to do....It is electorally popular, even across party lines.
Pushing our party to represent the people rather than the lobbyists and the corporate donors will strengthen our party, not harm it. Americans need to push back against this pernicious propaganda that attempts to silence the central mechanism we have to ensure that our party works for our interests rather than the interests of corporations, and draws the support of the people as a result.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I remember when this sort of lockstep was mocked when the FReepers were doing it with Bush.
Now it seems like we've been asked to worship the D, no matter what it does.
I'm a progressive- if the D's want to march Right (into Hell), I'll be happy to sit here and continue to be Cassandra.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)What lesson do you learn from that?
When there is war and your bastion is under attack with threat of complete destruction, do you kibble with one another or do you point the weapons at the incoming enemy?
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Gore won 2000, and Kerry won in 2004. Did you want us to storm the Bastille?
There hasn't been a legally elected Republican since before Nixon, and there hasn't been a non-third way Democrat in the WH since Carter.
What are you fighting for, or against? I'm fighting against the triumph of RW Juju, and it's a losing battle.
Excellent comeback.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)That's what I'm getting at.
Too many Democrats and Liberals were disenchanted with VP Gore to vote for him in 2000, just like too many were disenchanted with President Obama and the Democrats to vote in 2010. And the results were . . . ? Democrats and America LOST.
Hope that cleared it up for you.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Gore solidly won, despite what he admits was stupid third way triangulating. Bush somehow ended up in the WH.
We let that happen. We let blatant election fraud slide, "for the greater good."
2010 was a thrown game- the WH was upset at having a mandate to do things that Democrats do. They even blocked primarying Blanche Lincoln.
And now somehow "Democrats" and "Liberals" are to blame? The people who showed up and voted are the enemy??
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Lincoln had Democratic opponents in the primary, and both Obama and Bill Clinton came to the state to campaign for her in the first primary, which was pretty stupid, especially for Obama, who should have stayed out of the fray, period.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Gore ran a tepid and cautious campaign and chose known right-winger Joe Lieberman as his VP pick. That was a big reason the election was close enough to steal.
Know what the 2012 version of rw-lite is? Obama saying 'Mitt Romney & I agree on Social Security.' WTF is that? If Obama wants us 'troops' aiming our 'guns' against our Republican enemies, he needs to run as a solid populist Democrat on this issue.
Protecting Social Secrity 100% is the popular position, as woo & Hydra have already noted. It is right & proper for we Democratic constituents to demand this right now, during election season.
-app
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Because that's all that matters - who's in the WH and in control of Congress. We wouldn't have a Justice Roberts or Scalia. We'd have Progressives on the highest court that is set to rule on Affirmative Action, the 1965 Voter Rights Law, and Women's Rights. In addition, the meme that "there's no difference between Gore and Bush" gave us Citizens United. Brilliant!
All that other you're concerned about means squat if the Dems are so disillusioned and unenthusiastic that they just simply NOT vote. Unlike RepubLemmings, it doesn't take much for a Democrat to sit out an election, as we've seen in 2010.
I'm not a self-defeatist. I want Democrats to WIN and I'm not interested in what the Ultra-Left are whining about as much as I'm not interested in what TeaBaggers whine about. To me, those groups are two sides of the same coin. I'm a Democrat first and foremost, and a pragmatic progressive, and I will NOT do anything to jeopardize Democrats from winning. I'll save my whining for after the elections. That's the smarter thing to do.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)elections"; it is that the election process is corrupted. That is the real battleground.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)We can't have anything because:
The Republicans are in charge.
We need a majority in the House.
We need a majority in the Senate.
We need a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
We can't do anything until after the election.
We can't talk about it now, we have to wait.
I'm now too old to keep waiting, I do want my pony now, and I want it now so I know my grandchildren will have one too.
We used to be a government of, for, and by the people. Doesn't seem that way anymore.
What has the government done for us lately, health care? We could have had that 20 years ago, we just had to agree with the Republicans, it's their plan. Instead we wait 20 years and fight against them for it. Upside down world.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. There is really no other way to explain it.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)The lesser of two evils is getting really bad, too. What happened in the Gulf was entirely avoidable, and will probably have lasting effects 30 years from now.
We could easily have been Fukushima, too.
I'm not comfortable supporting things that are increasingly insane, simply because our opposition is offering worse. We're supposed to be reaching for BETTER, not mediocre.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)it doesn't hurt them, but it really is just a feel good forum for the most part. I get the impression that this is a large part of many of the DU posters world but in the reality of the world, it is small and mostly insignificant. That said, I do think the Democratic, and probably the Republican parties do monitor it for how the public is trending.
So if everyone just accepts "some health care is better than no health care" and "we really need to fix Social Security" how do we expect the Democrats to react? President Obama is known as a compromiser and has already hinted at making cuts to SS and we can forget about single payer health care.
There is no doubt in my mind that President Obama is a far better candidate than Romney, but keeping your mouth shut rarely helps you in the long run. Saying you want something better, or just different, than what is offered will not hurt or help either candidate.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)With the exception of a few people who come here simply to disrupt, everyone here is voting about the same, and what they see here doesn't change that.
I come here to see what's going on in the world since I can't trust my TV to tell me. I also come looking for alternatives to what we're being presented, such as new economic models or technological breakthroughs.
That said, because we're getting information here, I feel like that needs to flow freely, and for the most part it did here during the Bush Admin, because we were all on the same "team." Now, there's a lot of energy put towards shutting down conversations and information that could lead us to a better place.
Here's hoping for that 
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)The Gulf will look like a small environmental disruption if the Keystone XL Pipeline goes through.
If Keystone XL is built it will facilitate the mining and burning of enough tarsands to accelerate climate change to the point of catastrophe. After getting a biased environmental impact statement from the State Dept, one that didn't even consider the detrimental effect that tarsands mining would have on climate, President Obama has put off his decision on the pipeline until after the election -- probably early next year. (Even if he loses the election, Pres Obama will still have almost two months this year and 19 days in January to be president.) The delay might have had something to do with 12,000 people encircling the White House demanding that he say no.
It seems President Obama is trying to get both sides -- the pro-pipeline movement and the anti-pipeline movement -- to hold out enough hope that he'll side with them ultimately that they'll support him. What better time than now to get him to promise that he'll say No to Keystone?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)came up with this nonsensical 'shut up and vote' meme, should not be allowed to work in the electoral system of any Democracy.
It's not as if they are telling the Lobbyists, currently flooding DC BECAUSE it is Election season, to 'shut up'. They know better, they know, Big Corporations, that this is the time to get what they want from our elected officials.
So what is the reason for this? I have tried to understand how such a policy in any way benefits the American people, and I can't think of one single reason.
But should the people comply, it leaves the field open to the Coporate Lobbyists who won't have to compete for the attention of Politicians in DC with the American People.
So I personally believe that this meme emanated from Corporate America because THEY are the only ones who will benefit from the silence of the American people.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Always speak up.
Fight for Obama.
Fight for Left-wing candidates at the local level. Build a bedrock of leftist principles and work your way up.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Occulus
(20,599 posts)but your reaction was interesting.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
bigtree
(85,998 posts). . . or just accept that there will always be folks with that pov and move on. Memes are mostly organic.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)Some of this sit-down-and-shut-up hysteria might make sense if the GOP ran a strong candidate (like Jeb Bush or the celebrity Sarah Palin), but Romney? lol
treestar
(82,383 posts)They can be tombstoned.
This board is for Democrats.
It's a matter of who you want to see win the election, not a matter of telling you to stop your constant criticism for one month or so.
The serious problem of growing corporate control - hmmm, you think your aiding Rmoney is going to stop that? That "serious problem" only gets more serious with Rs in power.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)
great white snark
(2,646 posts)A better effort would be getting Democrats elected and that's what this Democratic forum does.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)What are you talking about?
Yes, this is a forum for people to help get Democrats elected
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)I thought it was much much more than that.
oops, I think I replied to the wrong poster. Throw this up one level like Mitt throws a er um, hankie, would ya?
RC
(25,592 posts)no matter where they are in the political spectrum. It's the (D) that's important.
When I see stuff like that, I think of Lieberman. He was a (D). For some of us, there is more to it than voting for (D)'s
WE already have way too many 3rd way and undercover conservatives with (D) by their name passing as Democrats.
We need to pull, push, move the Democratic party back out of the Republican territory we are now in. The move to the Right has been so insidious many don't realize we, the Democratic party, are now far to the Right of the Republican party of 60 years ago.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)People have been saying this and supposedly trying it since DLClinton
I agree 100% with everything you say.
But for the purposes of this website the "D" appears to be the only thing that matters
RC
(25,592 posts)But that seems to get lost quit often.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)This forum is just a feel good forum. If anyone with less than 100 posts says the slightest thing questioning the status quo, the troll hunting posse wants to get them kicked off the forum, how does that convert anyone? Too many on this forum want everyone to toe the party line but are afraid, or even worse unable, to defend it.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)lol It's just what the rules say
I agree with you, by the way. I'm just saying it is what it is...
RC
(25,592 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)Now it's a "purity test." And that is a huge contributor to our current fuckover by the 1%.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)all it got us was triangulation, appeasement, concessions, and a far right agenda. No thanks
rudycantfail
(300 posts)our party leadership helping the GOP off the canvas, brushing them off and legitimizing their failed policies instead of marginalizing and ridiculing them.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)that's why cheering for D's just because of their affiliation is a loser.
Autumn
(45,106 posts)because I will never accept that. If I wanted repuke light I would become a fucking republican.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.
Yes, I know that it's right next to the "and to support Democratic candidates for political office." But just because you are a Democrat, doesn't automatically make you a progressive.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Not "OR."
RC
(25,592 posts)That is still OK because they have (D) by their name?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Well that just leaves it wide open to manipulative interpretation.
Nice straw man.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)and then use people to achieve them. Handing politicians a blank check has never worked.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)From the About section, this is our Mission Statement:
Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:
• Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
• Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
• Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
• Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
• Having fun!
The first line mentions being liberal people, no mention being Democrats, just helping elect them in the fifth line. It does mention the Democratic party by saying we are not affiliated with them.
I am not sure about web sites, but with a business, the mission statement is their religion, it's what they believe in. So read the about section, it's at the bottom of every page, then tell me, what should I take away from this mission statement?
RC
(25,592 posts)Too many progressive and Liberals would be dangerous to the long time 3rd way and status-quo here.
Yes, there are lots of real trolls here that need to be banned. But there are lots of non-trolls being banned for not being pure enough, in somebodies opinion, in their first few posts. I got this mind set from the bragging troll hunters in MERT and some Alerts I got jury duty for.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the way to influence them. After the election as we have seen so many times, it is way too late.
Do you tell Corporate Lobbyists to remove themselves from DC during Election Season also, because they are busier than ever right now, making sure that Politicians DON'T listen to the people. And this meme clears the field for them, removes the voices of the people. Which leads me to believe that they are who started this meme as they are the only ones to benefit from the silence of the people.
I want my Reps to know RIGHT NOW, that Social Security eg, needs to be loudly and strongly defended and that we will not be fooled by prevarication or weasel words like 'fixing, adjusting and using the word 'deficit' in the same sentence as SS etc. etc. They need to know now what a vast majority of the American people want from them so that we have them on the record AFTER the election.
I am sick of being told now that we 'didn't listen hard enough' to the President during the last election and so we should not complain when he does something like end the ban on Offshore Drilling. And this coming from the same people who every election season tell people they should not try to clarify anything until after the election. Face it, people are awake now, they are not as naive politically as they were when this all started.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's ironic to see someone going on about corporate influence and then helping Rmoney get elected.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)That is the same logic as the Right used for people who opposed the War in Iraq 'So you're a Saddam Hussein supporter'.
What a giant leap of logic that was then, and still is.
Considering the polls on issues like SS eg, it is far more likely that by speaking out strongly against the Republican plans to destroy it, Dems might even get some of those votes since the huge support for SS crosses party lines.
But if dems remain silent on the issue, you are leaving the field open to Right Wing talking points and are far more likely to LOSE votes for Democrats. Especially Independent votes as happened in 2010. Seems to me it is the silencers want Romney to win if I am to use your logic.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He's saying Obama isn't good enough at this or that. Or Obama doesn't have enough of his own ideals. He's trashing Obama a month before the election. That helps Rmoney.
After the election, when Obama has a second term, he can trash Obama to his heart's content. Why not just wait for it?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Please stop putting words in my mouth, and read what I actually write.
tama
(9,137 posts)from the point of view of progressive values and policies, that main function is sharing information and ideas, members educating each other and as we leftists say, "raising political consciousness" of the working class, which is us. Some people also make new friends here, which builds what we call "social capital". Agitators and propagandists from every field having arguments and discussion, and some of that does rub on slow by slow, rational reasoning especially when spoken with heart in the right place does have an effect, slow by slow people start to understand different view points and underlying causes of our common problems better, without having to agree on all issues, but agreeing that variety of opinion is a strength, not a weakness.
There is also a small but vocal group of people who instead of discussing the issues from progressive point of view concentrate on personal attacks demanding absolute and uncritical loyalty for the Beloved Leader, and when they do offer their opinions about the issues, those tend to be from the right wing edge of this forum. Much closer to political positions of Rmoney and Republican party than the great variety of progressive voices and opinions they seek to silence.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is simply in the TOS that this site is for people who support Democratic candidates. If you don't, go find progressive underground and exchange ideas about things unlikely to happen if Rmoney and the Rs get more power.
tama
(9,137 posts)This is both Democratic AND progressive underground. What you said is not true. What I said is true, and because it is true, authoritarian bullies and right wing disruptors hate and fear progressive discussion and try to silence it.
They are not succeeding. They are just revealing what they are.
treestar
(82,383 posts)During election season, it is for people who support the Democratic candidates.
tama
(9,137 posts)it is pointless to repeat that line to someone who can't vote in US elections but is on DU in the role of foreign correspondant. On behalf of those Americans who discuss the issues from progressive point of view also during election season and forum policy concerning that, see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1489968
What is more interesting for me is that you don't deny my impression that authoritarian mindset coincides largely with DU right wing positions on issues and policies, but just keep repeating that pointless point.
If you're a foreign correspondent, make your own blog. This one is for Democrats.
you are against non-Americans participating in this forum, take it up with the admin.
treestar
(82,383 posts)on it just before the election, which is against the rules of the board.
Those who are against Democratic voters holding fire to Obama's feet are against Obama and progressive values.
treestar
(82,383 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)that our speaking out hurts, rather than helping, Democrats and the Democratic Party.
Please read my other posts on this.
treestar
(82,383 posts)For real, then one does not trash them right before the election.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)It makes you wonder what exactly their agenda really is. Is Nader running by any chance?
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)must be a troll? Is that what you mean?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Really. No people who appear to be so critical and unsupportive of Democratic candidates, in the month before the election, might well be trolls.
And in fact the tone of your post is very immature. Read the TOS rather than make childish posts.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)killing off most of us. At least the non ass kissers. Read your own damned post if you want to see childish. Everyone who doesn't agree with you should be tombstoned. It's in the rules man.
treestar
(82,383 posts)non ass kissers. You're like a right winger insisting everyone to the left of Nixon is a communist. Everyone who is not a 100% critic of our own candidates is an "ass kisser."
If you're going to call supporting Democratic candidates ass kissers this isn't the web site for you. It's not a matter of agreement with me but of the purpose of the site.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)this is our site, not just yours. You are way off base accusing everyone of being either far right wingers or now you say:
Do you even read anyone else post? No one has said anything about if you are not a 100% critic you are an ass kisser. I was actually referring to you thinking that everyone else here needs to kiss your ass, think as you do, and shut the fuck up and sit down if you don't blindly tow the line.
Bullshit. Where do you get off and why the hell do you think you are superior in any god damned fashion to ANYONE ELSE?
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)and no one outside of DU gives a rats ass about what DU talks about.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Recently there was a dust up on DU that got attention.
Can't recall what it is right now.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)shhh! THe repiglicans can hear you squirm. They might laugh at us. Ooohh. Let's not say anything. Someone might read it. It could change the world.
RIght.
treestar
(82,383 posts)So it is seen outside DU and sometimes mentioned by pundits.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)nothing.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)of Operation Chaos types. Yes, that's why this place has gotten so shrill over the past years. I remember a time when this place was a safe haven for Democrats. Of late, there is less contention at HuffPo on the MB than there is here.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Hope that helps.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)See - that bit of vagary is part of the problem.
This board is:
One doesn't have to be a Democrat in order to support liberal political ideology and the thought that a politician with a "D" after their name is more likely to support those policies.
Pushing the idea that DU is "for Democrats" marginalizes everyone who isn't - in essence, it's just more of that sit down and shut up crap that the OP is discussing.
Your particular post goes to the next level with the accusation that the OP is "aiding Romney" and the implicit threat that anyone who doesn't toe the line "can be made to shut up". Do you get extra points for that?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Especially at this time of year
KG
(28,751 posts)
lunatica
(53,410 posts)is probably more than enough don't you think? When do you think we should start supporting him again? Surely it should be some time before the elections don't you think?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)
gateley
(62,683 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
shanti
(21,675 posts)no can do. if he wins, we could possibly have more right wing supreme court justices, and that is chilling. we won't even mention the rest of the evil rmoney has planned.
i understand what you are getting at, and i'm as pissed off as you, but what other choice do we have?? come on!
obama has one more term to make it right. let's hope he makes the right choices.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)actually sway votes. Sure, "membership" may be approaching 200,000, but how many of those members actually post on a regular basis? 200? 300? Look at the names that show up in the forums... always the same ones and that's not a complaint, just an observation.
A DUer could post actual empirical unimpeachable proof that Mitt Romney eats the babies of minorities for Sunday breakfast, and not a single vote would be swayed either way. We all know how we're going to vote already. To hear it told on DU though, one wrong word posted in a popular forum might actually harm President Obama's chances for re-election. Yeah... that's not gonna happen. Thinking along those lines is actually kind of delusional.
So IMO any arguments about what's posted here short of some new poster coming out and saying he or she voted for Hillary then McCain and aren't supporting President Obama's re-election are much ado about nothing.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)I find it creepy, paranoid and cult-ish behavior. Fanaticism is unhealthy.
Bring back the "herd of cats" !
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I would also add adolescent self-appointed Hall Monitor Wannabe behavior,
AND counter productive Vote SUPPRESSING behavior.
"Sit Down & Shut Up, you're opinion or issues are NOT important" doesn't get people to the polls.
The time to Speak Out Loudly on Issues like No Cuts Period to Social Security and Opposing the new secret Anti-USWorker "Free Trade Deals" is NOW.
During Campaign & Elections, with enough voices, it IS possible to make candidates publicly take a stand on the issues.
After the election, THAT door is CLOSED.
DURec.
RC
(25,592 posts)I guess most here are too young to remember when Democrats we not so lock stepish, but had their own opinions on how things should be done. And we won elections with that too!
Now what do we have? Wholesale Election Fraud on their side, tolerated by our side and increasing mono-thought on our side, as the way to win elections.
No. It. Ain't! Give the people what they want and need. That is the way to win elections. Look at Hugo Chavez, he has it figured out
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)I will cringe when I hear Jon Stewart or David Letterman say anything negative about Obama during election season, as I feel they can sway some votes. But I don't think a forum such as this is going to be making a national difference in the mood of the country.
I knew when we elected Obama that he would not do everything my way. I knew he would piss me off from time to time. He does.
But he is still the best man for the job and if the repiglicans had not been waging a "just say no to everything" war on him, this country would be a hell of a lot closer to being mended.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)
quinnox
(20,600 posts)at least you were honest also in saying - yea, people should shut up if they aren't basically cheerleading at this point. I disagree, but its refreshing to see this kind of honesty.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)What good is just 'electing' people if they do not adhere to Democratic principles? And that is what this meme is asking. Not to speak out in support of Democratic Principles. It is essentially saying 'leave the field open to Republican ideals' until AFTER the Election. This make no sense and it never did and we saw the results of this 'strategy' in 2010.
Independents became disillusioned because they did not see a serious fight for their left/progressive views.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)attributing all kinds of evils he might be planning somewhere in his evil brain.
I recall a time here at DU where it wasn't half as contentious as it is these days - or since Barack Obama won the primaries in 2008.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... is a Republican core value.
I'm NOT a Republican. End of debate.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)I can support the president 100% and still disagree with him on several issues.
Of course it doesn't hurt that he's by far the better man for the job.
tama
(9,137 posts)Authoritarian bullies can and do ruin any party - political and other, but in bipartisan system both parties are big tents and the Republican party has also their libertarian / anti-authoritarian wing and tendencies. Which, as it seems, are now being largely purged out from the party and/or leaving. But the myth still lives among them that they are the "rugged individuals" of Wild Wild West and in their perception Dems are the commie control freaks of Big Bad Government.
For me, as a former member of a trotter party, among many things, it's been long clear that the age old tradition of sectarian divisions of Left are caused by centralist model of organizing, which by rule of thumb becomes ruined by power hungry authoritarian bullies competing for position at top of the hierarchy and then demanding blind unquestioning allegiance from authoritarian followers.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488868
FYI
rudycantfail
(300 posts)Obama and Romney had similar positions...it needs to be tweaked. Not sure how accurate that is because I can't remember who the source was.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Exactly right.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...to attention addicts who feel like they must boldly proclaim their ideological purity in a manner certain to piss off others who are in fact very anxious about the outcome of the election and the future of our country.
There isn't jack shit that is going to be possible long term without some Supreme Court appointments. And, basically, if your agenda is so far out there that it can't be done with the governance apparatus we have, then you are not going to be comfortable on what is expressly a partisan forum.
Have fun until November, but you are not going to be successful in telling others how you think they should behave, any more than they have been successful with you.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)"If your agenda is so far out there that it can't be done with the governance apparatus we have..."
Every single poll shows that defending Social Security benefits is enormously popular...even among Republicans. Our problem is not that the agenda of defending Social Security (and holding banks accountable, and making billionaires pay taxes...) is "out there" and fringe, but that we have an electoral system that pours so much corporate money into elections, that the politicians are not representing the people and their interests anymore.
It is illustrative that we can go into a debt ceiling debate with polls showing strongly that the American people want to protect Social Security, end tax cuts for the rich, and draw back on our military adventures....and we can confidently predict an outcome that does exactly the opposite.
That is how purchased we are, and that is why it is so important that we lend the party strength with our voices to represent us again. Remember that President Obama told us to hold his feet to the fire. There is a reason for that. This meme that Americans should shut up is nothing but a strategy for the one percent to push through policies that reflect not the peoples' interests, but corporate interests....because they know that strong citizen voices and participation push politicians toward popular, representative policies.
Defending Social Security is a POPULAR position, because it reflects the interest of the people. Pushing our party to reflect the interests of the people will INCREASE electability, not decrease it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and programs like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid? And this is why Democrats are so worried about what is happening to their Party. When we reach THIS point, where you are an 'extremist' for wanting your Democratic Reps to protect Democratic Programs, we know for sure that we have to speak out even louder.
And the use of talking points in your post is revealing also. It is especially galling to those of us who spent time on Right Wing forums arguing with them back in the Bush years to see their phrasing and talking points against Democrats being used here against Democrats now.
'Attention addicts'
'Ideological purity'
'Whining' etc. etc.
I never had a need to repeat these prepared attacks even against them. The difference between us Democrats and them is that we are capable of speaking for ourselves without prepared talking points. Seeing them around DU lately, raises a lot of questions. They are OLD for one thing, going back to Clinton years. And since I could never see anything coming from the Republican noise machine as worthy of imitating, I wonder why you do?
They make me cringe as they bring back memories of those days when I thought maybe it was possible to reason with Republicans and was met with a slew of these kinds of talking points every time.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And you and your cohort's repeated attempts to sow confusion on that point just prior to the election is transparent.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)comments he has made about SS. If you are convinced of what you say, I do not see the reason why you want to silence people.
And for the record, I have no 'cohorts' here or anywhere. I speak only for me, and I have never accused Obama of 'gutting SS' so I don't know where you got that from.
But I am concerned about Axelrod's nonsensical statement that they do not intend to discuss this most important issue before the election.
He doesn't get to make that decision. He is not even an elected official.
We the people get to talk about what is important to us during election season.
The fact that you believe we do not have that right, is very troubling, especially coming from a Democrat.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You seem to believe that disagreement with you is some kind of assault on your right to express an opinion.
You have every right to be wrong, counterproductive and misguided. I would not dream of denying your right to those things.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)That's not really as clever an argument as you apparently thought it was. It's also a very old tactic, used to avoid actually having a real discussion of issues.
You need to know that most DU Dems are very familiar with these tactics and so they have little effect, well not the kind they were obviously invented to achieve. They merely confirm what people already know.
Let me know if you ever decide that issues are worth discussing and you are ready to drop the use of these really old political tactics as they have become so boring after nearly two decades of wear and tear.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You have time and time again demonstrates that your only interest is in labeling those who disagree with you.
DU has had a regular contingent for four years who have posted, with regular frequency, the same fearmongering crap about how Obama is going to kill social security. It's been wrong every time, and it is just as wrong this time around as the umpteen times it's been done before.
It is as wrong as the "Obama's taking away all our guns" nonsense. And, no, I don't own one of those either.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I don't believe I mentioned Obama, but again, this is a tactic used to divert, distract, look over there, make false accusations, whatever it takes.
If you don't intend to have an honest, straightforward discussion, say that at the outset. Your comments are angry and always descend into personal attacks. Try to address the issues, not the person.
I will repeat what people, and yes I do speak for an awful lot of people as they do for me on this issue, are concerned about.
Post those labels I supposedly 'time and time again' used btw. I am very interested in seeing them.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)arguing for anti worker/corporatist agendas. Democratic leaders are slithering to the right daily and we are supposed to shut up because there is an election going on? No thanks. There is always an election going on.
I vote Democrat and I will support or criticize Democrats. If they are to fragile to accept that they don't deserve to lead anybody.
Going on and on about how bad Republicans are is a useless waste of time because everybody here already knows all that.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Through the decades, the Democratic Party has often been the ONLY thing standing between Americans and the looting and perversion of our country into a corporate machine. The growing corruption of that role by corporate money is not only important - I believe it is the single greatest threat our country faces right now.
We need to save our party from this purchase and infiltration and rightward march, because our party may be the only thing left that can save US.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Repeating a post from a subthread above, because I think the point is important:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488072#post12
What's craziest about the arguments you see, already in this thread and elsewhere...and what exposes it as the dangerous one percent propaganda that it is...is the absolutely ludicrous assumption that exposing and talking about policies advocated by a candidate should be *dangerous" to electability.
If a candidate is working on behalf of the people, talking about policy will attract and energize voters, not the opposite. If policies are not reflecting the interests of the people, speaking out to change that will only increase electability.
Social Security is a great example. Every single poll confirms that protecting SS benefits and standing up for this fundamental compact with Americans is not only the right thing to do....It is electorally popular, even across party lines.
Pushing our party to represent the people rather than the lobbyists and the corporate donors will strengthen our party, not harm it. Americans need to push back against this pernicious propaganda that attempts to silence the central mechanism we have to ensure that our party works for our interests rather than the interests of corporations, and draws the support of the people as a result.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)they seem to believe that if Obama moves far enough to the right that Big Media and Hate Radio will somehow come over to our side.It's hard to describe how dumb this thinking is. If the president would stop playing Reagan and start playing Truman, we might make a comeback.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)this November?
Response to woo me with science (Reply #34)
AnotherMcIntosh This message was self-deleted by its author.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,004 posts)Glitterati
(3,182 posts)criticizing one of our own, does NOT mean we don't support them.
Frankly, if you didn't support them, you'd be cheering ON their mistakes.
RC
(25,592 posts)Glitterati
(3,182 posts)with each other!
They see he/she disagrees with me. FIGHT!
They never even read the CONTEXT of the post.
RC
(25,592 posts)Here? What are you talking about? This is DU! 
funny, funny, funny!
hay rick
(7,624 posts)There is a large faction here who would censor most statements that are critical of Obama on the grounds that debate among Democrats might help the election prospects of Mitt Romney. The problem with that stand is that if we don't make ourselves heard now, Obama's election "mandate" on Social Security might be indistinguishable from what Romney would have done.
Obama was panned for his uninspired debate performance. His statement on Social Security- "I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position..." was surely one of his weakest moments. Obama is not above criticism. Just as Romney is furiously backpedalling from his 47% remark, the President needs to amend his statement on Social Security.
dawg
(10,624 posts)I'm not dumb enough to think that my little criticisms could change anyone's vote. But I do realize that they will fall on deaf ears as long as the election is still in doubt.
People get defensive about their candidate and will not listen to any criticism of his positions. And there is a lot there to be criticized. But Romney would be worse on every single issue. And, of course, there are many issues where President Obama is absolutely wonderful.
In order for our nation to succeed in the long-term, at least one of the two major parties needs to shift *far* to the left of where it is today. The Obama critics know this. They aren't trying to sabotage the election, they are attempting to play the long game.
But they're wasting their breath on this message board, at least until after November.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I think most of us were like that for a while, until we saw how damaging that is to this country.
I wish I had paid more attention to Clinton's economic policies eg, and the Dem Congress' signing away of Glass Steagal. But in defending him against the far Right, I was totally unaware of what was going on and we see the results of those policies now.
In fact I had assumed that the Dems had tried to stop the Repubs from getting rid of Glass Steagal and was thoroughly embarrassed when the facts were presented to me that I had been such a blind partisan I didn't even know those basic facts. The only excuse I have is that Bush terrified me so much that I wasn't willing to hear anything negative about what was our only hope to stop him.
Blind partisanship is part of the problem as was predicted by the FFs btw. And having once been guilty of it, I have learned that lesson.
tama
(9,137 posts)BTW did you learn the facts of Glass Steagal on DU or elsewhere?
Bucky
(54,026 posts)Ha ha, I keed, I keed
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Sometime before Dec 1 because then I have to start thinking about Christmas. You know, I can only think about one thing at a time.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)DU isn't the only game in town.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 7, 2012, 02:31 PM - Edit history (1)
Don't like it?
Tough.
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)you do with Obama and Democrats more people might buy into your bullshit.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
tama
(9,137 posts)or at least not supposed to be. So closest to your advice and what can be done on DU is to discuss the issues, question and argue against opinions that are closest to or identical with Republican opinions.
FSogol
(45,488 posts)
CthulhusEvilCousin
(209 posts)have an opinion on this, but it's worth noting that the Freepers are absolutely vicious to anyone who says anything slightly negative about Romney. The level of discourse here is much higher, as over there I saw one thread where they were calling one fellow a "POS, Mother ******" and "Obama troll", wishing he would get raped by Muslims. It seems most of the people who opposed Romney on moral grounds over there have been driven off, or, at least, have been silent.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:59 AM - Edit history (4)
to keep voters focused on the team colors instead of the policies that are in play.
When people cannot make their voices heard, recommend policy, or disagree with policy even within their own parties, without eliciting a storm of accusations of helping the other tribe, you have a perfect recipe for co-option of the parties by the one percent. When people cannot point out clear apologism for policies that cause devastating harm to human beings and to the core principles of our party without eliciting accusations of incivility to a team member or disloyalty to the team or the President, then we are dealing with a tactic for co-option of the party.
Why do people form political parties in the first place? So that like-minded people can band together around shared values and goals, to work toward policies that reflect those goals. I think what we are seeing in so much of our media and political discourse today is a planned strategy by the corporatists who have bought into both parties to strip real meaning from party and turn elections into a sport instead...in which you root for your team regardless of policy and regardless of direction. You are on the blue team, and don't you dare go disagreeing with anything the blue team EVER does, or you are obviously an evil red team supporter.
Our social alliances are perhaps the most powerful behavioral shapers there are, and Wall Street knows this. Detaching our team loyalties from policy and making it all about the color of the team jersey or the man who is President is a perfect recipe for getting people not only to support, but to fight for, policies that run directly counter to their own interests.
I think this witch hunting, accusing, silencing dynamic happened in the Republican party first, because corporate money corrupted their party first and most thoroughly. Any hapless Republican who dares to point out to other Republicans that the party is not really working toward the small government they claim to espouse, but instead is using government to feed corporate profits, will be hounded and witch hunted until he shuts up.
Until recently, Democrats were better about avoiding this dynamic, but with increasing Third Way/corporate presence in our party, we are seeing much more of that now. Who would ever have thought, ten years ago, that simply stating, on a Democratic board, that Democrats should not *attack* Social Security benefits would elicit the calls for banning and the insults that you see here in these threads?
That's why it's so critical to remind people how our representative system is designed to work....that raising our voices about principles and policy is absolutely NECESSARY to ensure that the parties reflect our interests, and keep reflecting them.
We must keep pointing out the flaws in the "shut up and be loyal" logic that reveal it as the propaganda it is. It defies logic that a party that is representing the people would need to be PROTECTED from people mentioning those policies, for fear of losing the election. On the contrary, our voices should be in constant, public conversation with our party, so that the party reflects the people's views.... and draws more people hungry for representation to our side.
Americans support defending Social Security benefits. Even Republicans support defending Social Security benefits. All these calls to shut up about defending Social Security benefits for fear of losing the election are.....nonsensical. They are corporate-derived, even if the people repeating them do not realize it.
Hand out civics books. Talk about representative political systems. Remind people about how our elections are REALLY supposed to work. Enforced silence is NEVER a part of a healthy democratic electoral process. We drown in corporate propaganda that is now trying to tell us that citizen participation in our elections, and even discussion on our discussion boards about what policies we would like to see, is somehow disruptive or harmful to the Democratic process.
Don't buy it.
CthulhusEvilCousin
(209 posts)is a very good post. Thank you.
justabob
(3,069 posts)great post
tama
(9,137 posts)Bravo!
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Beautifully Done!
[font color=firebrick][center]The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR. [/font][/center]
[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]
treestar
(82,383 posts)Repukes would make up 4% of the population. Some people are too idealistic. Maybe some people are too practical. Like most things, a happy medium is the thing to strive for.
"happy medium" as in "third way"?
Problem with "happy medium" is that it's location and meaning depends totally on the frame. But safest and most general location of happy medium is somewhere in the general area of belly button and heart.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Few in the US are really ready for an anarchists' vision.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Even in election years and even if they have (D) after their name.
They work for us..or, at least, are supposed to be working for us. If they're doing they're jobs properly they have nothing to fear from public discussion of how they're doing their jobs.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)than I do to the people asking them to shut up.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)&feature=player_detailpage
&feature=player_detailpage
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)Your post reads as if you want to practice the principles of Free Speech but only if everyone agrees with your point of view.
By taking the position you're advocating, aren't you actually telling some folks who may not agree with you to shut up? How exactly does that concept square up with open and honest discourse?
Think about it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)that Democrats should tell those calling for silence what to do with that request, and why. I am encouraging a vociferous response.
I believe the only calls for shutting anyone up around here are upthread and allude to banning me.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...and yes, in my humble opinion, you are telling folks to shut up if they dare challenge your stated priorities.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)should be the response of *any* American who is *ever* admonished by his party that he should shut up because there is an election going on.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...I served five years in the military to protect the Freedom of Speech of all Americans so don't start giving me a lecture on "civic education"!
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)as anyone can clearly read in this thread.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....myself included, that he's trying to shut people up who don't agree with his methods of stirring the pot a month before the election.
We can agree to disagree, but there's no real point in trying to question anyone's intelligence, is there?
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Perhaps the pot stirring is actually coming from people who are telling DUers to leave DU and/or asking that they be tombstoned. It is disruptive.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)They are being asked to use fucking common sense. As far as I am concerned, anyone that thinks they can correct an eye infection by poking their fucking eye out instead of working through prescribed eye drops until one medication works isn't fucking worthy of being listened to, so why in the hell would I want to shut them up.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's about "Don't come to my house and shit on my rug."
If you - and I do mean you in particular, Woo-woo - have nothing to offer a community beyond disparaging them and the people they very obviously opt to support, then you are doing this thing called "trolling." Now, you may disagree, in your mind, you are the lone prophet, a truthspeaker trying to open the eyes of the ignorant... but to the rest of us, you're some crazy naked man who wandered in from a desert somewhere.
I understand that you, and several others who are so very, deeply concerned can't stand the notion, but... we on DU are pulling for Obama and the Democrats. It's sort of implied by the name of the site.
So, maybe rather than griping htat people are telling you to shut up, maybe, just once, take a step back, and ask yourself - seriously ask yourself, "why do they want me to shut up?" Knowing your post history, you'll likely just conclude that you terrify them with your truthiness about what utter scum Obama and the Democrats are, but.. .whatever, so long as you ask yourself.
And pull up your damn pants.
gkhouston
(21,642 posts)Butterbean
(1,014 posts)this is Skinner's and Earl G's website, and they have made their rules, and by clicking that little check box when you register that says you agree to the TOS, you are effectively nullifying your entire argument here.
Sure, free speech is fine and dandy, and you are free to speak your mind, even during election season, IMO. Except on a privately owned website that has an explicitly stated TOS agreement that says otherwise. I get that you're not liking some of what you're hearing and seeing here lately, but in the defense of those posters, you agreed to the rules, and it is your obligation to follow them. If you don't like the rules here, well, there is always the option to start your own website and/or a private blog.
Not trying to be ugly or hateful, just telling it like it is. *shrug*
Hydra
(14,459 posts)And he acknowledged that the political climate(The White House) was forcing a split between the people who were loyal to the colors vs. the people who were loyal to the ideals.
The unrec coming and going was a symptom of that.
He basically acknowledged that the situation was creating a problem in more than one way. Almost of us will vote Dem, and are attempting to get Dems elected. I'm not happy with Obama's first 4 years, and I'm not happy with his current platform, but I happily tell anyone who tells me that they will vote for Romney that he's a welfare queen, liar and he'll raise their taxes.
The silencers would happily not have my help. I may not convince many, but if I can use facts to stop even just 3 people from voting for Romney, I've made a difference 3x bigger than just my vote alone. They would happily not have that help(and maybe lose) in order to have no criticisms of bad policies.
I think Skinner made the right call to allow critics like me to stay. If we can't have an honest discussion here, he may as well go to the DNC and have them sponsor this site as a campaign outlet.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)And he acknowledged that the political climate(The White House) was forcing a split between the people who were loyal to the colors vs. the people who were loyal to the ideals.
<...>
I think Skinner made the right call to allow critics like me to stay. If we can't have an honest discussion here, he may as well go to the DNC and have them sponsor this site as a campaign outlet.
What a bunch of crap to justify whining, questioning people's principles. This OP is a huge whine fest.
Always victims. The posts calling out Obama on Social Security has more than 60 recs. Who the hell is shutting anyone up? Even if someone expresses such an opinion, does it really warrant the whine fest?
Thank you for presenting the exact problem the OP was talking about.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Thank you for presenting the exact problem the OP was talking about."
...been told to shut up many times, and often start threads whining about being told to do so.
Nothing like being the noble victim.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)You seem to feel strongly about this issue...I disagree with chilling discussion from an objective standpoint. The more discussion and the more honesty involved, the more likely a good result will come out of it.
If you have a similarly objective reason why discussion of this type should not be occurring, by all means, share.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I disagree with chilling discussion from an objective standpoint."
...with straw men. I mean, there is no organized effort to silence anyone, and if you're interested in discussion, then debate people opinion by opinion. The grandstanding is unnecessary.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)And from almost day 1 when Bush and Cheney were allowed to walk out of the WH as free men.
The argument that we need to "Look forward" comes from the best source of all.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Ironic isn't it?
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I've been told by the best people in the world to keep my opinions to myself, that my voice doesn't matter. I've had factual posts deleted here by the mods because someone didn't like them.
Guess what? I wouldn't have bothered saying it if I didn't think it was important. I feel like it's important to share that with other people, so they find their voice as well. I'm sorry my facts and my willingness to share them disturb you and your "work" here.
" I've been told by the best people in the world to keep my opinions to myself, that my voice doesn't matter. I've had factual posts deleted here by the mods because someone didn't like them. "
You've had post deleted? How unusual.
Logical
(22,457 posts)as people who complain about EVERYTHING Obama does.
Both are illogical BIAS!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"People like you, IMO, are as bad....as people who complain about EVERYTHING Obama does."
"People like you" seem to go around judging other people. I mean focus on an issue, disagree with someone. The attempt as psychoanalysis is hilarious.
"Both are illogical BIAS!"
The condescension is so RW, and the self-righteous middle ground is nothing but a red herring to justify a silly comment.
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Agreeing with the President and supporting him has nothing to do with silly theories.
Oh yeah, you like the President... You "hurt the cause"
Absurd!
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Waah, waah. Change my diapey, someone dared be critical of our divine mandate!
Response to Hydra (Reply #91)
Post removed
stillcool
(32,626 posts)I haven't been around here in years, but it's like yesterday. Is nothing ever new?
Hydra
(14,459 posts)
DisabledAmerican
(452 posts)Personally I have no problem with agreeing to disagree if one side doesn't think like I do it's ok. My on problem starts when a side tells me I'm delusional because I actually saw a different point. This I mean in the people telling us who believe Obama won the debate. I do not believe a lie is a win no matter who says it. The first to lie loses in my view point.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Thank you for saying this! You are absolutely correct. And, I have been guilty of this, myself, but have since changed my tune. Glad you spoke out.
Progressive dog
(6,904 posts)You have not been censored that I have seen though the comments on your SS posts may not have been to your liking, but the DU'ers who do not buy your predictions of the future and those who don't attach the importance (considering the choices available) to your criticism of the President also have a right to have and express opinions.
You could do something that would make sense, start a petition to the President; join AARP if you are old enough. There is even a group to protect SS run by an FDR descendant.
Do something constructive and Post about it.
We have a stark choice in this election, there are people trying to completely take over the government who (in my opinion) would destroy SS, medicare, and medicaid; return to torture, preemptive war, and tax cuts for the wealthy and too many other bad things to list here. They don't need help from us.
So don't expect that we will be silent or maybe even civil, when you choose antagonize us by criticizing the only choice we have, based on snippets of speeches and things that the President has not yet done.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I never claimed to have been silenced, although the talk of banning upthread certainly suggests that some would like that goal. I said that there is a disturbing trend of DEMANDING silence and arguing that it is somehow good for the party...when nothing could be further from the truth.
My posts in this thread exhort Democrats to tell the would-be silencers exactly what to do with that request, and why.
blue neen
(12,321 posts)"Tell the would-be silencers exactly what to do with that request."
"My posts in this thread exhort Democrats to tell the would-be silencers exactly what to do with that request, and why."
"Tell the would-be silencers."
"Tell..."
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)"Do something constructive and Post about it."
I agree, wholeheartedly.
I'm a member of AARP, and I endorse President Obama's healthcare plan.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)You mean Gov. Romney's healthcare plan, since that's what it basically is, and even Obama (after the thing was passed) makes this claim. Or maybe I'm not supposed to say this on this site? Ha ha...
Myself, I wanted Obama to stand up for single payer. If he couldn't get single payer, he needed to try to get it first, loudly and publicly, then and only then compromising to the best possible solution given political realities. If he had done so, he wouldn't have legitimized the Heritage plan (and by extension other Heritage policies), he would have educated the public in his fight for WHY single payer is the real solution to this nation's health care problems, and he would have placed it squarely on the table for the future.
None of this happened. We were told, on this site, by many of the more centrist posters, not to demand single payer, or even the public option, to trust that Obama was cleverly manipulating his way towards that end with the public option, which he had actually removed from the table while still adopting the insurance industry's demand for mandated purchase.
Good enough for you, perhaps. Not good enough for me, and not what I believe the nation needed.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You mean Gov. Romney's healthcare plan, since that's what it basically is, and even Obama (after the thing was passed) makes this claim. Or maybe I'm not supposed to say this on this site? Ha ha... "
Mitt Romney is a despicable liar, and unless people are trying to box him in politically, they should know he never supported the major parts of the legislation.
RW desperately embracing RomneyCare? Time to pull the rug out from under Mitt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021430496
Mitt is a heartless bastard.
As Governor, Romney Disapproved of Funding Multiple Sclerosis Services
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021489032
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)which is fine but your post was a response to mine, not a response to the OP, so some relevance would be appropriate.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)...and you want me to join some group to voice my disagreement with that as long as I don't do it here? Fuck that.
Perhaps you can tell me why cutting social security is in a deficit reduction plan. I've never heard anyone explain that.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The President has committed himself to cutting social security"
When did he say that?
How President Obama and Mitt Romney compare on preserving Social Security for America’s seniors
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488868
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Since you decided to show up, perhaps you can tell me why cutting social security is part of a deficit reduction plan.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)"The title of the article is “What’s Next for George W. Bush?” and the idea of his being put on trial for crimes against humanity is, of course, never mentioned. Under the article title are words designed to bathe Bush in the sunlit glow of virtual sainthood. To quote Editor Nancy Perry Graham’s introduction: “At this relatively mellow moment in his life, George W. Bush, the 43rd president of the United States, wants nothing more than to be a good friend and neighbor.”
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)and The Dems in power now are not helping to fix that in any spectacular way.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)after Jan 20. Only by reminding him what real Dems believe can we hope that he will actually govern for us instead of the DINOs.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)Another desperate attempt to garner attention - because apparently your last OP (to which you have conveniently provided a link), despite its many replies, simply wasn't enough to satisfy that bottomless pit of neediness.
Sad.
FSogol
(45,488 posts) dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I have had posts deleted here for, I believe (they never told me) not being a loyal enough soldier of the corporate policies being championed by our party. It was incredibly insulting, it felt like completely unnecessary censorship that should have no place on a forum such as this. Obviously plenty of people here disagree with this, they'd rather stifle dissent in favor of strength through unity.
I prefer strength through working for the people as opposed to working for corporate interests, and that's what I always thought the Democratic Party was supposed to be about. The party is in a long painful process of losing its soul, and I think it's our duty to reverse that process.
Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)I think we have a right to criticize..and there is a time for that... But not now! Now its crunch time...we have to be careful criticizing the quarterback during the Superbowl..the team is set and the plays are in motion....now is the time to work together as a team to win.
But that doesn't mean we can't criticize ANYTHING.. During election season, I think the criteria should be this; Does the criticism help Obama or hurt his chances of getting elected.
Speaking for myself, I was one of Obama's fiercest critics after the debate...and believe me I caught hell from some..accusing me of being a closet Republican and more....I am still pissed at some of the really nasty remarks....but my criticism was not from the standpoint that Obama was incompetent or a liar or something similar but from the standpoint of feeling that his DEBATE strategy was wrong and if he did it again he would lose..and many others felt the same way.
I never called him stupid or or accused him of hiding something or misleading the public because that would be hurtful to the cause..but only said he needs to attack more and defend himself better..
So my point is..IMO we should watch what we say during election time and confine the criticisms to those things that we think would make him stronger..and save the rest for another day.. its the fourth quarter and this is one hell of a fight!
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)And you're laughing?
DisabledAmerican
(452 posts)how many of them I'm sick of Obama is perfect people are laying in wait here just waiting to strike at the right moment. To them it doesn't matter if Obama wins or not no matter what he does he will never be good enough in their eyes.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I put their sorry asses on ignore and move along with my day. I'm to old to sit down shut up and have no patience for silly propaganda.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)and to label it for what it is, which is a tactic....even if those repeating it aren't always aware of it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488072#post73 It is an incredibly destructive meme that uses social pressure to encourage political silence, and it's important that we are clear about how antithetical to our political process it really is and encourage powerful rejection of it.
Some years ago, I think most Americans would have been aghast to be told by ANYONE, much less a party representative, that it's necessary to shut up or refrain from discussing certain policy during an election. We were taught from grade school that elections were THE TIME to become politically vocal and involved.
I think we should be concerned that this ridiculous demand is becoming so commonplace now that *campaigns* can get away with saying it.
IMO it's time for a refresher course on what representative government means, and what it demands from citizens *and* parties.
*But I respect your control of your DU experience!
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Our power and our responsibility is in our voices"
...One group believes that fighting Obama and Democrats is the best way to effect change and the second group believes stopping Republicans is the best way to continue making progress.
People get to choose how they want to express their support for progress. They can do either or both.
Some people seem to believe their way is the best way. Some people believe it's righteous to see Democrats as the lesser of two evils.
Some people believe that there is no difference between the parties, and that supporting Democrats makes one less progressive.
Hey, to each his own, which is why this OP is full of irony.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)…. One camp believes that we have to force our elected representatives to represent US, and the best way to continue making progress is to fight Conservative Polices where ever they appear.
..the second camp believes that any criticism of elected Democrats is "fighting Obama and Democrats"
. the third camp believes stopping Republicans is the best way to continue making progress.
People get to choose how they want to express their support for progress or to hinder it. They can do what they will.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"…. One camp believes that we have to force our elected representatives to represent US, and the best way to continue making progress is to fight Conservative Polices where ever they appear. "
...that first you have to elect representatives who give a damn about your opinion. I mean, you can fight until you're blue in the face, when Republicans are elected, you get conservative policies. See 2010.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Constant criticism, some of it irrational and unjustifiable, including right up to the election, maybe.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)
To the exclusion of ANYTHING else.
When "criticism" is your one and only calling card, and when some of the tactics involved in presenting this "criticism" are demonstrably misleading, it's no wonder credibility becomes a valid point of contention.
...and no, I won't shut up either.
It never ceases to amaze me that some who read and post on a POLITICAL board can be so completely naive about all things political.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)faith woos science
(66 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021483594
David Axelrod, responded not with a clear position, but instead by trying to halt the conversation.
“I’ll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table, we’ll have that discussion,” he told the panel.
....
Axelrods response was factual, congress decides this issue and Obama can veto or not. The only thing I have heard Obama say, he will strengthen S.S. Maybe you should see where congress stands on this issue? They are the ones with 10% approval you know?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)LOL.
faith woos science
(66 posts)Edit:
Found this over here by woo me with science http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021483594#post52
I could not agree more with woo me with science, this is our system exactly we each have representatives, mine is Bruce Braley he says
Source: 2006 House campaign website, www.brucebraley.com, “Issues” , Nov 7, 2006
Now go see what your representative says? If it is not close or identical to the above, well maybe you should spend some time like I and others did to elect a representative who believe the same way.
littlemissmartypants
(22,692 posts) faith woos science
(66 posts)
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Look at the screen name. He/she's been around awhile.
Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #227)
littlemissmartypants This message was self-deleted by its author.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)screen name is just an unfortunate coincidence.
littlemissmartypants
(22,692 posts)now you can see all the new members and welcome them just like i do...thank you. LMSP
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Response to fascisthunter (Reply #243)
littlemissmartypants This message was self-deleted by its author.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)or is faith just woo woo?
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)but I'm pretty sure my post would be deleted.
I'll just kick and recommend instead.
IndyJones
(1,068 posts)that my opinion "did not go unnoticed by the powers that be" as if big brother was watching that I disagreed with the guy. Grow up.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Really? The powers that be? Huh. I just farted in the general direction of the powers that be.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)K & R and I couldn't agree more! Patriotic citizens ask questions of their elected "representatives" and hold their feet to the fire. Sheep follow blindly those with the right letter next to their names.
I will not be a sheep. I have a brain. I have a mouth. They're there for a reason.
Thank you WMWS for posting this. It needed to be said.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Good grief
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1490020
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
So now discussing issues VERY important to us is a "bunch of crap?" We are "victims" because we want to know where our candidate stands? Is it okay to insult and belittle people for asking important questions?
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Oct 7, 2012, 04:56 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't like to censor anybody, even this. Whining can be called out -- so can this. Hiding posts should be reserved for offenses that are seriously offensive, not just disagreeable.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Pointless alert. The post is appropriate.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: But Pro Sense got it exactly correct, the thread is full of whine.
Not even close, if "Fuck Obama" gets a pass here now.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Rather than alert on this post, the alerter should have responded in thread. I see no violation whatsoever of DU's terms of service and think ProSense's point contributes to the debate.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Evidently, someone who approves of this OP thinks censorship is cool if you disagree with the OP.
Made my day.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Still, what I find ironic is that there is plenty of whining to go around in this debate. I generally agree with the OP, but I don't think censorship is cool and I certainly don't think it was called for in this case.
Not sure where "Fuck Obama" got a pass though... I must have missed that post.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)While I am hesitant to be overly critical of the Obama administration right now - I still don't refrain from speaking my thoughts. There are many areas of policy where improvements should be made. Indefinite detention and the push to keep this a sort of "Presidential Power" is one example. The DOJ and their continuing crackdown on medical marijuana facilities... the failed war on drugs overall. The hopes of the American populace for a better health insurance system (Such as a strong public option) which seems to have faded into the background.
There's still a lot of really bad stuff going on that our own party is at least partly responsible for. While I'm all for solidarity... there is always room for constructive criticism - there are always changes that can and should be made. At election time, more than any other time, we should evaluate these things and determine how we can best move forward.
Overall, a great post as always Woo - I've always loved reading your posts.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Heh. Heh Heh. Heh.
Agitators like you should be put in jail forever, with no judicial recourse. Like the NDAA gives our President the right to do.
Regards,
Third-Way Manny
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)it will be a quick drone strike. 
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)The consequences are on you, though. Be sure that you're ok with sapping enthusiasm for the candidate that, regardless, is probably still your best option.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)I respectfully disagree. I do not think that pointing out flaws in our own party - in our own administration... I do not think that that will sap enthusiasm. Rather, it could very well build enthusiasm for progress, for change for the better. Perhaps if we are more critical of the right things at the right times we could get more accomplished.
I definitely think Obama is by far the best candidate, but I'm not going to shut up about things I find important - and neither should anyone else!
Speak up if you've got an issue with something, offer criticism and be constructive - share your ideas so we can make our Country a better place. Nothing good is ever accomplished through holding our silence about important issues.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Never be quiet! But no need for rude, offensive(subjective) statements directed toward OUR candidate! Rude, aggressive offense towards ones opponent is the human way of dealing. In the case of mittytwit and lyinaynryan, ok full speed ahead. Let's direct our anger at a system that allows, lies, generalizations, hiding tax returns because of probable criminal intent, flip flopping and general contempt for the american people from candidates that are evil. 
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I join these 119 DU Democrats,
and Kudos to everyone who stood up by
Recommending this post.
There is NEVER a "wrong" time to Stand Up for Democratic Party Principles!
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being."-- FDR
Please note that FDR specified the above as Basic Human Rights to be protected and administered BY our Government of the People,
and NOT Commodities to be Privatized and SOLD to the American people by For Profit Corporations.
When Standing Up FOR the above Traditional Democratic Party Values is somehow construed as being hurtful to the Democratic party,
then we have a BIG problem.
--bvar22
a Mainstream Center FDR/LBJ Working Class UNION Democrat.
[font color=firebrick][center]The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR. [/font][/center]
[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Great post! Worthy of it's own thread.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
Bake
(21,977 posts)You're going to anyway. This is only DU. An internet forum. Fire away.
I for one am sick of the word "meme." A statement is either true or it is not. Being a "meme" doesn't make it otherwise. Let's start a meme? No. Let's tell the damn truth, and let the chips fall where they may.
In the marketplace of ideas there are no "memes." There are only statement--true and false ones.
Bake