GOP infiltration of Dem groups is a standard tactic and was used here at DU since the 2003-4 cycle.

[blm]

This tactic was first started in the early 70s by infiltrating VVAW - Vietnam Vets Against the War. Why? Because it was determined that they were the most effective messengers. Planted operatives attended meetings and began urging violence to make their points. It worked on some, but, pushed some longtime members away.

I don't believe the math holds up that Nader caused Gore to lose Florida in 2000, but, it is true that GOP operatives targeted the left, yet again, with the goal of splitting the vote to favor Bush.

Here at DU in 2003-4, there were constant over the top attacks being made against the Dem party and all the candidates from some posters usually posing as Kucinich and Dean supporters who were later revealed to be GOP operatives. seventhson and his pals made DU their playground. My fellow DU long timers will remember that clearly.

Then (post2012) GOP strategists running the stealth operation via the internet were given HUGE BANK ACCOUNTS ($100million) by the RW machine to guarantee a 2016 WH win. They determined early on that HRC would be the nominee. If they had concluded it would be Sanders or O'Malley then THEY would be the most targeted.

http://all-len-all.com/the-gops-long-game-to-bait-the-left-into-turning-against-hillary-clinton/

>>>>
When Mitt Romney lost the election, the GOP looked at the potential field of Democratic candidates, and determined that Hillary Clinton was most likely to be the Democratic choice for 2016. Beginning then, a number of conservative groups, including American Crossroads–created by Karl Rove–and America Rising, set to work to develop messaging that would damage her with voters on the left.

The effort to vilify Mrs. Clinton could ultimately cost several hundred million dollars, given the variety and volume of political organizations involved.

Because the Clintons have been in the public eye for so long, and have weathered so many scandals (many of them having proven to be nothing but empty political attacks) American Crossroads knew that they’d have to create and test messaging that would break through to the public. To that end, they gathered focus groups of voters they consider susceptible,

……...
an all-white mix of young men, low-income adults, married mothers and politically moderate women….They showed the voters, who received $100, sandwiches and soft drinks for their time, more than a dozen 30-second ads.
The ads highlighted Mrs. Clinton’s deleting of emails from her private account, tried to tie her to President Obama, portrayed her as distant from middle-class Americans and sought to persuade women that they do not need to support her because of her gender.But many, essentially, struck the same theme, depicting Mrs. Clinton as untrustworthy.
……..

They gathered responses from these paid testers, and with the cumulative information, determined that the words “untrustworthy”, “corporatist” “out of touch with ordinary people” and so forth, should form the basis of their attacks.Using the keywords they discovered had sticking power, they used them in every publication, ever utterance by talking heads, every press release, etc., and they have become wallpaper now. The left has eagerly joined in using them. But perhaps even more insidious, they have created tweets and other online content that appears to originate from the left, and have sent them on to be retweeted and forwarded widely.

For months now, America Rising has sent out a steady stream of posts on social media attacking Mrs. Clinton, some of them specifically designed to be spotted, and shared, by liberals. The posts highlight critiques of her connections to Wall Street and the Clinton Foundation and feature images of Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, interspersed with cartoon characters and pictures of Kevin Spacey, who plays the villain in “House of Cards.” And as they are read and shared, an anti-Clinton narrative is reinforced.America Rising is not the only conservative group attacking Mrs. Clinton from the left. Another is American Crossroads, the group started by Karl Rove, which has been sending out its own digital content, including one ad using a speech Ms. Warren gave at the New Populism Conference in Washington last May.

In the fast-moving online universe people read, share and pass on information, often without checking the source. Thus, criticism of Hillary created by right-wing superPACs gives the appearance of originating on the left. Certainly, the keywords mentioned above, and the use of Elizabeth Warren–for one example–to discredit Hillary, has been frequently seen here and elsewhere on the left.Sometimes, errors are caught.

The tactic is making for some awkward moments online. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. sent to its more than 60,000 followers an America Rising tweet praising its president, Richard L. Trumka, for a speech that was seen as challenging Mrs. Clinton on economic issues, only to take it down a few hours later, saying it was a mistake.

>>>>>>>

BOTTOM LINE: Check your sources, and police ourselves.

Sanders is a great man, a great candidate, and can win WITHOUT any of us being tools for Rove's GOP operatives and THEIR quest to keep some of the left swallowing and spreading their propaganda.

Hillary supporters - they are using you, too, to frame Sanders and his supporters as out of touch commies. Stop helping them. I'd come to your page to say this, but, you blocked me long ago for basically asking you to use caution in your frames.

[leftofcool]

1. Hillary supporters are well aware of GOP operatives.

We discuss and keep an eye on those in a different forum. DU is not our concern. We don't own DU.

[HooptieWagon]

4. The PUMAs for example?

[blm]

14. Yes - Some of those PUMAs were here and turned out to be GOP operatives and interlopers.

This is NOT a conspiracy theory. Now it is a HEAVILY FUNDED OPERATION that means to have a successful result for 2016.

Not quite sure why you claim this is not a real undertaking by the GOP. You think they went to reform school?

[HooptieWagon]

18. The only organized online psyops active so far is Clinton's Correct the Record.

If the republicans are currently active, they're too busy bashing each other to mess with us. They'll turn on the Democrats in the fall I'm sure.

[blm]

21. Get real. Since you claim GOP is NOT spending $100million on this operation, then show me

the report that proved it to you to the point that you would base your certain belief that there is NO GOP OPERATION in place THIS 2016 election cycle. And certainly not here at DU. Right?

Produce the evidence you saw that informed your belief.

[HooptieWagon]

25. You made the claim. Up to you to prove it.

Where are all the GOP secret agents? Which DUers? Do you "have here in my hand a list"?

[blm]

27. I posted the article about the funding decision made by GOP after 2012. DU has had operatives here

in past election cycles - this is a fact. You think they decided to fund a larger operation this time around and SKIP over DU? You know Limbaugh mentions DU on air quite often, don't you?


So - you said there is ONLY ONE operation here and that it is an HRC campaign. Show me what you used to conclude that the GOP no longer targets DU as part of their internet trolling operations, and why you are so certain that the operation referenced in the article is mere conspiracy theory? You must have SOMETHING that you based your conclusion on, right? Or is it a feeling you have that GOP just wouldn't do that anymore?

[HooptieWagon]

34. Let's be logical.

DU has a few hundred active posters, several hundred more lurkers. 99% of us have already made a firm choice of candidate. None of us are going to vote Republican. So what influence would the GOP hope to have? What are they getting for their $? Nothing. Nada. Zero.

[blm]

35. Your logic:GOP ops were here in 03-04, and 07-08, but decided to not get involved in 2016 because

they have no reason to come here during our primary.

It's not a matter of getting us to vote Republican - it's to foment such discord and division that they can hope for a depressed vote or, even better, a riot at the convention, like Trump's magazine envisioned in one of their opinion pieces. After all, they can benefit with the public whenever the Dem party shows any visible chaos. Nixon ended up in the WH the last time.

My logic: The GOP has been infiltrating Dem and left-leaning groups for over 40 years and we know they did it here in previous election cycles, so why would anyone think they would stop now for THIS election or, perhaps, suddenly decide to draw the line when it comes to DU?

[PatrickforO]

2. Well, with over 95,000 posts, you've sure been around long enough to

have seen quite a few COINTELPRO type operations. I've often wondered who on here may be under the pay of the dark side. LOL, I've long since been banned from that same room you mention as well.

[blm]

5. Longtimers here also incorporated MWO (MediaWhoresOnline) into our daily circle. It had

a take-no-prisoner approach to the corporate media and to the increasing presence and influence of RW propaganda media sites.

Yeah - we were all pretty keenly aware of who was who behind the scenes..

[HooptieWagon]

3. Conspiracy theories, now?

You are completely ignoring the fact that the Koch brothers funded the DLC from '85 on to move the Democratic Party far to the right, and a large number of liberal Democrats have been fighting this RW takeover for 24 years.

[emulatorloo]

8. I was here in '04. It happened. A few outed themselves on election night.

They took a victory lap.

Others just disappeared.

Constant attacks on Kerry from the left by conservatives and operatives pretending to be leftists. It isn't a conspiracy theory.

[HooptieWagon]

11. I was here in '04 also. And in '08 when the PUMAs were outed as republicans.

But the Sanders supporters aren't GOP operatives as the OP is insinuating.

[blm]

12. Baloney - I never said that. Only stupid people would claim that ALL supporters are operatives.

Why is it important to YOU to pretend I am making that claim? I'm a Sanders supporter and some of my close friends here at DU are Sanders supporters - why would I smear us?

Stick to what is SAID, not what you WISH I said so you can fight the fight you WANT to have.

When the operatives were outed in 04, did ONE member here make the claim that ALL Kucinich and Dean supporters were GOP operatives? NO!

In 08 did ONE member here claim that ALL Clinton supporters were GOP operatives? NO!

In 2016 why are you claiming that this post means that ALL Sanders supporters are GOP operatives?

Your claim is utter horsepoo.

[emulatorloo]

13. It would not surprise me if there were a handful of fake Bernie and fake Hilliary supporters

RoveCo etc are all about divide and conquer and pot-stirring.

Call me a CT on this, that's fine. But that's what these operatives do.

I see some threads now and again that are essentially carefully crafted content-free flamebait. Then all the sudden we are at each other's throats.

[wildeyed]

28. Now and again?

I feel like I see them all the time. Taped together messes of innuendo, unanswerable logical fallacy and dodgey sources. And what is really sad? Watching legit posters do poor imitations.

I made a random phrase generator on a free site that does a really good HA Goodman imitation. It is that easy to spot, but people are falling for it hard.

[blm]

9. What are you calling a conspiracy theory? Be specific.

BTW - I volunteered with FAIR in the 90s, and the RW propaganda machine is very real - why are you wishing for it to be considered mere conspiracy theory here at DU?

You also contradict yourself - why is it only true to you that Koch Brothers funded the push to the right of the Dem party in the 80s, but, the GOP operatives spending big money on internet trolls for this election never happened? Can you square those two views? I see both. You claim one is conspiracy theory. What blinds you to the spreading of RW propaganda so much that you dismiss it as conspiracy theory?

[Zorra]

60. What a shock, huh? Another smear attack from the camp now defined

by its repeated smear attacks on Bernie supporters.

[blm]

65. Zorra - Did you read the entire post? I'm one of the first Sanders supporters banned

from HRC group.

Whether we like her or not doesn't change the fact that we KNOW the GOP is doing this. It is NOT a smear at all against Sanders or his supporters. In fact, the same strategy is being used against Sanders - some faux HRC supporters blasting RW propaganda to agitate his REAL supporters.

[emulatorloo]

6. I'll never forget "The Great Reveal" on election night 2004

Thanks for the solid post laying out what's going on with these right-wing superPACs and operatives.

ON EDIT: I see you're getting attacked for your post as if you made it all up. That's unfortunate.

[AZ Progressive]

7. Hillary supporters logic: Don't agree with Hillary and the DNC = possible Republican

As if its impossible that Democrats and other liberals wouldn't truly have grievances with the party.

[blm]

10. If that is your conclusion, then you're wrong.

I'm a Sanders voter. I was also the number 1 critic of Clintons here at DU for well over a decade. I did it almost daily without using even ONE source that was RW propaganda.

Now that I live in NC my focus is on GOTV - it's a purple state, and every vote matters.

If it is your belief that GOP is not spending this large sum of money this way and does NOT have a large group of operatives working the internet then tell us what reports you read on the subject that inform your belief?

[wildeyed]

48. Oh please.....

*I* disagree with the DNC and the candidate sometimes, even though I support the candidate. And check my journal to see how much I hate the two party system. No one ever accused me of being a Repub who wasn't supporting a Sanders.

blm is critical of Clinton and actually supports Sanders. Not RNC. Pretty certain of that

You can have grievances with the party or a candidate. You can debate those grievances vigorously. That is one reason this site exists. But don't use RW source material to do it. Back in the day, doing that would earn post deletions and possibly a ban. These days we can only point and laugh. But it will earn you intense distrust from many of the regulars here since we have been around this block before. Fool me once.....

[wildeyed]

15. "Check your sources"

YES! Great post. There are plenty of legit ways to criticize another Dem candidate that does not involve using RW sources. Or their should be. If someone needs to stoop to that, then they are either suck at debate and need to be schooled or playing for the other team.

I really hope the rule banning those sources comes back in some shape or form after the primary is over.

[blm]

17. Yep - The old DU would have stopped that RW bullish!t in its tracks within minutes.

.

[wildeyed]

23. Those were the days.

Better not post some craptastic blog post or a link to Tucker fucking Carlson's site when the dreaded "link please" finally came. Because that was game over. Expect to get figuratively knifed and bleed out on the GD floor while people just pointed and laughed at you. I try to keep that spirit alive, but it is hard these days....

Oh wow, seventhson. I forgot that one. I was still new then, but that was awful.

[blm]

37. MWO, bartcop, DU - you could try, but, odds would be against you.

; )

Only during the primaries did they manage to sneak through……for awhile, anyway.

[Skwmom]

16. The Democratic Party has been infiltrated with Republicans. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

19. i agree with that.

[blm]

20. True….but that doesn't mean that we should start being tools for RW propagandists, Skw.

You know this is real. You even said the other day that someone brought RW crap here. I see it here everyday, too.

It's not who WE are. We can expose the wrongs of the Clintons without it - many of us have done that for years, (you KNOW I did it) and we did it WITHOUT posting and linking RW propaganda sites.

[Vogon_Glory]

22. I Don't Deny For A Minute That Some Of the Posters Here Are Paid Republican Teabagger Disrupters

I don't deny for one minute that some of the posters here are paid ####-monkeys working for Republicans, Tea-baggers, Karl Rove, or the various Koch brothers front groups. However, I see no particular reason that these people have chosen to give Saint Bernie a free pass. I very strongly suspect that many are also pretending to be Sanders supporters throwing mud at former Secretary of State Clinton.

As an exercise for amateur detectives, whenever someone joins the bandwagons trashing either Senator Sanders or former Secretary Clinton, I would not only check number of posts that person has made, but also how long that person has been on DU. The shorter the membership time, the more likely they might be paid ####-monkeys.

[blm]

24. If someone who's been here about 2 weeks has 1000 posts and almost every post bashes Democrats or

one of the candidates and uses RW propaganda to do it……they just might be an operative…..and getting paid by the post, too.

Sanders is NOT a commie and Clinton is NOT a criminal of the highest order……but….RW propaganda wants us fighting each other as if they are.

Why people here accommodate the RW machine like that is beyond reason, imo.

[Vogon_Glory]

29. Indeed

Indeed. In these times I feel that learning to read between the lines is an essential part of an informed citizen-voter's political education. Don't just read the poster's commentary, but check the sources, check the join dates, and ask who benefits.

Alas, I have more paranoid thoughts. I suspect that there might be some operatives that have registered here months, weeks, and even years ago. They might have opened an account--say, perhaps after the 2014 election, make token posts at least twice a month until back in September, and then suddenly go hyperactive as their bosses tell them to get with it.

The newbie #### monkeys might be easy to trace. I don't have any ideas as to how to expose and bar the long-term sleepers.

[wildeyed]

30. I wonder if they get paid by the post?

And how much. It is skilled labor if done well. But I swear they are either outsourcing or using child labor 1/2 the time.

[UglyGreed]

32. But going on the attack because

someone posted something that references corruption or questions why politicians receive money from unsavory sources as right winger is just too much. Or pretending to be able to read people's mind and label them from a post or perhaps a mistake is outrageous. I for one find it just as bad and disgusting as some of the right wing bullshit that is out there.

[blm]

36. That's why I always say: Check your sources.

Read the wording for overthetop charges - check what other stories and headlines are on their sites.

I think most people here are pretty tolerant of mistakes or awkward wordings (something I struggle with myself), but, constant targeted postings that include RW propaganda as the source, well, it becomes highly doubtful that it is a mistake.

Why would anyone WANT that to be tolerated here, anyway? Then we would be Discussionist, not DU.

Plus - some of us long timers remember patterns of the previous operatives. They never really go away - they just take other identities. And they fool some….for awhile, anyway.

[UglyGreed]

39. I don't care how long anyone is anywhere

that does give anyone a right to slander, label or call people names. I have never had any posts hidden here until I spoke up against Hillary Clinton in GD P. Just because I don't trust Hillary and did not like the fact that Bill Clinton helped bring the democratic party to the right does not make me a fascist. Or that I question anyone accepting funds from unsavory sources does not make me a right winger, sexist or whatever meme is out there. You yourself called me a right winger because I would not post an article from talking points memo for fear of getting another hide. (BTW a couple of my hides were from CNN and Mother Jones) You said I was going to right wing sites and I was lying about what I wrote about my fear of another hide. That IMO is Bullshit and I not afraid to say it.

[blm]

41. If the source wasn't a RW propaganda site, then why fear posting the source or the link?

People can't have special rules where they are not required to produce a source or link if they make a claim or charge that they want accepted at a political forum.

Sorry you don't care for that approach, but, it is pretty much how boards like this operate with thousands of people popping in.

In political discussions, sources for charges or claims are essential. Perhaps it wouldn't be as uncomfortable for you here if you were more comfortable with your sources and the accuracy of those sources.

[UglyGreed]

42. Right there

in your first sentence I won't even bother reading on since I explained why already.

[blm]

43. Point being - there is nothing to fear when referencing legit sources.

That is the bottom line. It always will be.

Simple.

I didn't CALL you a RWer - but, people do mistakenly post RW material and that needs to be pointed out when it occurs. Those who do it often are not doing it by mistake.

[UglyGreed]

45. So when I did not post any link

that gives you the right to choose what sites I visited, and surprise!!!! You claimed it was right wing sites!!!!!!!




I bow down to your superior psychic abilities

[MariaThinks]

26. i believe it. It happens on several topics. You speak out and posts get hidden

ostensibly because they are deemed disruptive - with no real reason.

[valerief]

31. One can't use the Forever Ignored button often enough!

[MaggieD]

33. Ironic that this turned into another smear Clinton thread

No proof necessary. Just the same innuendo. LOL!

[Wednesdays]

40. I didn't get that from this discussion.

[PowerToThePeople]

38. There are many moles on DU currently.

They (imo) are on camp weathervane side. I think it is easier for them to fake third way than liberal Sanders supporters, not as much distance to travel.

[zappaman]

44. Uh huh.

If you say so.

[Armstead]

46. Undoubtedly truth in what you say....But here's where I have a problem with it

If the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is saying shit that actually may be true -- or have elements of truth -- does that make it off limits?

[blm]

47. Then there would be another source to use if it were true.

Parry has been blistering and he never had to frame his criticisms the way RWers do to entertain their audience based on expectation. Everything becomes an impeachable offense to them. Or a plan to destroy America. They turn something that has a germ of truth into something unrecognizable.

Like Benghazi - RW propaganda: Hillary refused to send help as she watched video of the victims screaming for help. Truth: Benghazi was a covert CIA operation under the direction of Gen Petraeus who had dozens of agents and operatives on the ground there before, during, and after the attack.

RW propagandists don't tell the truth because that is not their job. Why link to THEIR version of anything?

[wildeyed]

49. But when you use that material

then you BECOME part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. You are amplifying their message. Their MO is to repeat and repeat and repeat until people accept untruths as common sense because "everybody says so" and "people are saying".

Why would you willingly become their tool?

As mentioned, there are plenty of legit reasons to oppose Clinton, right? Or is your case so weak you need to resort to using RW propaganda? To me, when I see a RW source, I just assume that either the poster is not bright enough to make a real case and/or the argument is so weak that they cannot make a real case. Or that they are not who they say..... Sometimes I take time to debunk, but mostly I just roll my eyes and step over the steaming pile.... There are so many.

[Armstead]

50. If the RW says the sun rises in the east, I'm gonna agree with them

It's pretty basic stuff. Not going to tailor arguments to avoid any overlap with what the RW might be saying,. That's ridiculous.

So the RW calls Bernie a socialist. Plenty of people here use that as a reason not to nominate him. Is that "resorting to RW propaganda too?"

[djean111]

51. Oh, that only goes one way, doncha know.

Gleefully repeating RW stuff about Bernie is called "helpfully showing Bernie's supporters what the RW would attack him with".
A fact is a fact is a fact. And HRC is not a special snowflake. That business of ordering us to never say anything negative, even when true, because the RW will use it? Total bullshit.

[wildeyed]

54. When Clinton supporters do that

I am LOUDLY and EMPHATICALLY critical. And I will vote to hide anything that even whispers antisemitism.

Don't use RW sources. Easy.

I never said ANYTHING about not making arguments that overlap. This is a discussion about SOURCES. Understand?

[djean111]

57. Do you understand that ignoring something that is a true fact, just because someone does not

like the source, is ridiculous. It is a form of censorship. Whether you personally are LOUDLY and EMPHATICALLY critical is not the point - being critical AFTER something is posted is too late. And your authoritarianism is showing. As I understand it, we can all express opinions, we cannot tell others what to do. That doesn't work, anyway.

[wildeyed]

58. You're funny.

And you don't know me.

You can express any opinion you want. It is not authoritarian for me to ALSO express mine. Which is, right at this minute, that you don't understand what censorship actually means

[djean111]

59. When Hillary supporters stop bringing the garbage that spews from David Brocks' piehole

over here, as "news" or whatever, then we'll talk. 'bye.

[wildeyed]

61. I doubt that we will.

[wildeyed]

52. You can make whatever argument you choose.

Just don't use RW sources to back it up. If it is a good argument, then you should be able to find legit sources. If you can't..... Well there it is.

[Armstead]

55. You might tell that to Clinton supporters who post opinion and analysis from...

conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute as if that is the gospel and legitimate criticisms of Sanders and his plans

[wildeyed]

56. I would if I saw them.

I do not read GDP all that much. The threads I look at are mostly by posters I know on topics that seem interesting. The partisan stuff gets old on both sides....

But yeah, I'm not a huge fan of AEI.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. So, who's "villifying" her here?

[merkins]

62. K & R !!!

[Impedimentus]

63. Paranoia can be a very dangerous and destructive thought process

Let's hope this place doesn't start mirroring the X-Files.

[blm]

64. Not a matter of being paranoid - we've experienced it here firsthand in past elections -

what makes you believe the GOP strategists ended that practice for THIS election? The report clearly stated that this standard GOP op is being heavily funded for this election cycle.

If you have seen evidence that GOP stopped using this tactic for this election cycle, then please share it with us.

[Impedimentus]

66. I'm always suspicious of people who make vague claims and then demand proof to prove them wrong.

If you want to lose sleep over it fine, it's your sleep. Dirty tricks have been going on for decades and any intelligent person should not be so naive as to think they don't. I'm sure some clowns from the Free Republic post here on occasion, although their stupidity often gives them away, and there are trolls everywhere. I remember the PUMAs here in 2008 - they got chased away rather fast.

However, I have more important things to worry about like paying the mortgage or keeping the pets fed. Enjoy your paranoia - "The Truth Is Out There" - not. Even better, just ignore the occasional village idiot posts.

[blm]

67. I don't lose sleep over it & I know exactly how GOP operates. Limbaugh targets DU for a reason.

Last edited Sat Feb 27, 2016, 08:38 PM - Edit history (1)

You feel differently, so certain that GOP would never run an op like this here…..good for you. Don't bother replying to threads you think are conspiracy theories - report them as conspiracy theory.

We've been through a few election cycles here - we know what we're dealing with when it comes to the GOP.

TaTa.