Respectfully....

[ClarkJonathanKent]

I always thought being a Democrat had more to do with principles, not having a (D) next to someone's name.

I saw a person in another thread defend a Democrat by chastising the criticism of Democrats in general. They didn't defend the actions of the elected official. They didn't explain or try to enter into a dialog that would even attempt to find a resolution between two disagreeing parties. They simply repeated a variation of "DU is for Democrats."

Well, if that rationale is valid, and it is being used as a bludgeon to stifle the DISCUSSION of whether a particular elected official is living up to the promises they made...and/or the PRINCIPLES of the Democratic Party... and/or the principles of the Democratic VOTERS (because there often is a difference).....then that means being a Democrat is simply about having a (D) next to your name. It has NOTHING to do with principles or beliefs.

Is that what you want here at DU? Don't criticize people with the (D) next to their name?

If so, that's not any group that I would want to belong to.

[Skittles]

1. LOL

[hrmjustin]

2. People criticize democrats here all the time for different reasons.

This place has many different opinions on different issues. I assure you DU does not march in lockstep with the democratic party.

[JoePhilly]

3. Stick around and you'll see Democrats, in general, criticized as well.

On this site, you can criticize any Democrat you want ... or criticize Democrats in general, anytime you want.

And, the more you do it ... the more recs you will probably get.

Criticizing Democrats for not being good enough Democrats is in vogue currently.

Its so popular, its become more common than criticizing Republicans.

[leftstreet]

4. Criticize away - don't advocate voting against them

That's pretty much the rule

or

Vote The Bastards In !!

[LordGlenconner]

5. If you want criticism of Dems you've come to the right place

[kestrel91316]

6. As Democrats, we try to spend most of our time supporting Democratic elected officials and

Democratic policies.

Criticism of Democrats is fine as long as it isn't your sole raison d'etre. If it appears to be, we WILL notice.

[William769]

7. I have read you OP 3 times and I still don't know what your saying.

So you don't want to belong to DU or you don't want to belong the Democratic party because of what someone said on DU?

[Cronus Protagonist]

8. I did like Weiner's (D) principled stand

It was a very polished and strong presentation, with a turgid point. And the whole thrust of it, while clearly ambitious, was delicately presented even though impotent in actuality.

[n2doc]

9. The Democratic Party is not a monolith

I see a lot of criticisms of Democratic politicians, on all sides of most of the big issues. I guess if one takes a militaristic approach to it, then one can only allow criticism of lower level officials by higher ranking ones. Doesn't sound like a real democracy that way , though.

Best to ignore the critics and stick to your principles.

[Shrike47]

10. You can criticize Democrats here, but not for failing to be Republicany.

[Fumesucker]

11. This should end well

Welcome to DU!

[ClarkJonathanKent]

12. With the exception of the purposefully funny replies....

most of the replies to my OP were mostly irrelevant. In fact, they actually correspond to the types of responses people here loathe when they come from the right. I will offer a simple analogy:

1. Someone on the left posts a Facebook post about a gay kid getting bullied.
2. People from some right-wing organization immediately bombard the post with examples of straight people getting bullied by gays and/or examples of how conservatives are really bullied by the liberals into accepting gays and/or examples of gay people they know that have never been mistreated.

In other words, none of the posts actually addressed the awfulness of the situation, they just minimized or distracted from it.

That's what pretty much all of you did.

Yes, people can & do criticize Democrats here without getting booed or shunned. That doesn't change the fact that it does frequently happen. And a lot of the time, the person guilty of performing the unprincipled minimization or distraction is left alone, and the person trying to have a good faith discussion ends up defending themselves, rather than participating in a meaningful dialog.

I was concerned about people acting contrary to the principles of the Democratic voters. I was concerned with people actively stifling the conversation about our elected officials, and I was greeted with derision or disregard. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

[billh58]

13. Well now

aren't you special...? The name of this discussion board is Democrats.com, and if you haven't already done so, I suggest that you read the Terms of Service.

What do you mean by "people acting contrary to the principles of Democratic voters?" Do you presume to speak for ALL Democratic voters?

So far you sound very much like a condescending pompous ass who is bent on lecturing Democrats on how to meet your definitions and standards of who, and who is not, a "real" Democrat.

[ClarkJonathanKent]

16. Not really, Bill..

but I kind of figured someone would throw out that red herring.

I figured the stifling of conversation was against the principles of most Democratic voters. If you are for the suppression of discussion, then that is your business and I congratulate you on being bold enough to admit it here.

As for condescending and pompous, you could be right. Each person probably feels a bit differently about that and can choose as they will. Your observations about my person are somewhat irrelevant and off-topic however. That being said, a Christian fundamentalist relative of mine called me similar names when I suggested they have no right to force their archaic views on homosexuality on the rest of the country. Lots of people who are in the wrong don't like being called out on it, and instead of self-examination, they just lash out at the people who are calling them out. It isn't really an original pathology.

Thanks for your observations, though. Hopefully we can learn something from the exchange.

[billh58]

17. When you post an OP

which questions the motives of DU members and ends with a statement saying that if we don't meet your standards of purity, we are not the kind of group that you want to associate with, you might expect some negative feedback and derision.

If you are sincerely here to have a meaningful discussion and I have misinterpreted your motives, then please accept my apologies for the snark and post away. If, on the other hand, you are NOT being sincere DU has a way of dealing with that eventuality.

Ciao...

[ClarkJonathanKent]

18. "Expecting" some negative comments....

and DESERVING negative comments are two very different things.

That being said, apology accepted. Take care.

[billh58]

20. Your observation of

"expecting" vs. "DESERVING" as being two very different things depends on one's perspective, doesn't it? When I read your OP for the first few times, I fully expected some of the responses you received based on my experience with this community. My initial understanding of your remarks led me to believe that you deserved many of the responses you received simply because you did not take the time to fully explain why you were being so condescending to the DU community as a whole. Incidentally, fwiw I was not the one who alerted on your post.

To address your original OP, most mainstream Democrats that I deal with do indeed vote based on whether there is a (D) after the name, or not. I vote for Democrats exclusively as well. Even if the butthead that I vote for doesn't meet the Democratic purity standard, his or her victory may still give the majority control of a council, a state legislature, the House, or the Senate, to other Democrats who can influence Liberal outcomes favorably.

In a two-party system such as ours, choices are often limited to the least of two evils, and expectations seldom come to full fruition. That does not mean that we can't be activists and petition our elected leaders for more and better ponies, or hold them morally accountable through the primary selection process. We can bitch and moan all we want, but the American Democratic system of government only allows us full participation every two or four years.

I have always believed that the very things that make us Democrats, work against us in our efforts to unify our message. We are diverse in our opinions, in our expectations, and in most areas of thought about the "how" of getting things done. I also believe that we are unified in our desire to level the playing field for every citizen, and to oppose neoconservatism wherever it rears its ugly head.

Attempting to speak for all Democrats is as futile as trying to determine what species of animal hair Donald Trump's wig is made from. We are neither organized, nor do we march in lock step -- but we do occasionally win elections in spite of ourselves, and we have an obligation to make those winning terms as fruitful as humanly possible. An all-or-nothing attitude is self-defeating.

[ClarkJonathanKent]

21. Thanks for the dialog.

1. You are absolutely correct that one's perspective determines whether something is deserved. That being said, I am not a moral relativist so I do believe that some "perspectives" are superior or inferior. The "perspective" that gay people should be tortured to death, for example, is not simply a "perspective," but rather, a completely terrible and immoral way of looking at things and should not be considered equally valid in a debate between two rational people.

2. I am still unaware as to what this "alert" thing even is? Can you explain it to me, if you have the time?

3. I also know many Democrats that vote party line. I understand that it is a valuable method for the average voter, in the average voting circumstances. That being said, certain Independents and 3rd party candidates in local elections DO have a solid chance at winning, from time to time, so I do not think it is always a reasonable method.

4. You are 99% correct. On election day, we usually have to choose the lesser of two evils. 2 comments, however:
A. BEFORE a candidate is officially selected, we can (and should) support candidates that best match our beliefs.
B. Can I infer from your statement that you believe the Democratic Party is often not particularly great, but simply better than the alternative?

5. The Democratic Party is very diverse, but I would wager we could come up with a solid list of beliefs or stances that the majority of good faith members share. I don't necessarily care about the deliberately ignorant members that don't actually pay attention to anything. In 2008, for example, some people from the Howard Stern show went around interviewing people in New York asking them what they thought of Obama's running mate Sarah Palin, and a bunch of people said she was great. I don't really care so much about those people's opinion.

6. I don't think anyone was attempting to speak for all Democrats. I was simply speaking against the efforts of some to stifle good conversation, and the apathy or indifference of many others that surround/permit it.

Sorry for the delay in response. Work and all that.

[billh58]

22. Hi again...

If you will notice, at the bottom of every post are some buttons, one of which says "alert abuse." If a post violates the TOS or is a personal attack, or otherwise offensive, anyone can trigger the alert feature. Once that happens, it will go to a jury of DU members who will then vote to either hide the post, or to keep it. The jury is comprised of 6 members, so ties (3-3) are counted as "keep it."

I respectfully disagree with you about Independents and Third-Party candidates, primarily because of the ingrained two-party system. As we have seen recently, without solid majorities Democratic values are often thwarted by the lack of only a few votes. I not only believe that the Democratic Party of today "is not particularly great" -- I know it for a fact. I am an FDR/JFK style Democrat, and I fully blame Al From and his DLC traitors who attempted to impose Neoliberalism on the Democratic Party, and almost succeeded with Bill Clinton. Along with Joe Lieberman, the DLC was a promoter of PNAC and other neoconservative obscenities.

I don't agree with some on DU that constantly bash President Obama because they believe that he is just as conservative as Dubya or Reagan. I see the Liberal good that President Obama has done, and like many I am somewhat disappointed that he hasn't done more. I will not apologize for his actions, or his inactions, mainly because I had no expectations of Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rove going to jail for their crimes, or of the Second Amendment being abolished, or of marijuana being legalized nationwide, or any of a myriad of other Liberal wish-list items. I am disappointed about the NSA domestic spying situation, but I am reserving criticism until I know more. I believe that there is more speculation than facts in evidence at this point.

In the end, I believe that we have a good chance of returning the Democratic Party to its roots of American-style Liberalism, and that President Obama has opened the door for that opportunity.

[aikoaiko]

19. And the jury results are in....

Welcome to DU. :Hi:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
At Wed Jul 31, 2013, 06:07 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

With the exception of the purposefully funny replies....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3375923

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:

Not buying this one at all. Reeks of a concern troll here to school all us libs on how to discuss things on the internets

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 31, 2013, 06:15 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think the alerter is the concern troll here.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This place is getting ridiculous. We sound like a bunch of pussies.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: concerned jurist says hide.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Lame alert. You know, maybe some here need to be schooled in discussion and debate. There is absolutely nothing in this post that deserves a hide.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future

[Ruby the Liberal]

14. Welcome to DU

Where we don't march in lock step with the establishment.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. there is a small core of "My Party right or Wrong" true believers here - but you will see that they

are in the minority.