2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf you are going to vote for the establishment candidate why are you on Democratic Underground?
The name Democratic Underground has two components, Democratic and Underground, a certain group always wants to only mention the Democratic part and forget the Underground part.
If this is just another establishment-supporting website then a lot of us have been in the wrong place for a long time because the establishment is and has been an ongoing disaster for America and the American people for at least the last thirty years.
After being here in 2002-2003 and reading the despair and anger over the Iraq war I have real trouble understanding how any DUer can vote for someone who touted, supported and voted for that war over someone who correctly voted against it. Cheering for war is the establishment position, standing up against war is the Underground position.
JI7
(89,262 posts)other than that it doesn't mean much. look at all the right wing groups with freedom in their names.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)JI7
(89,262 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)bjobotts
(9,141 posts)as much as we can to be more like Bernie. Hillary may not be your first choice but she's better than any republican
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)... the TOS said something about DU being "a sanctuary" from the onslaught of RW attacks on Democrats.
Now I can come to DU and read attacks on Democrats by "Democrats" all the time - some of them sourced from RW sites, authors, pundits, bloggers, etc. - links provided.
What many of us came here to be free of is now what this site is all about.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Some here seem to have changed sides.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)had stolen the election. All Democrats had been pushed underground -- and compared to Rethugs, ALL Democrats are to the left.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)And labels not withstanding not all 'Democrats' are to the 'left'.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's kind of like the Navy, the Air Force and the Army back in the fifties, to all the branches the Soviets were business, what they did for a living, but it was the other branches that were the ~real~ enemy, where they were emotionally invested.
Bear in mind my OP is just the mirror image of another OP currently active in GD-P, I would not have written this if there were not a constant drumbeat of loyalty oaths, some from posters who have been here a week.
It's my opinion, and I've discussed this with Skinner in his thread, that politics is about negotiation and declaring in advance of negotiations what you will or will not finally do makes negotiation pointless.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)about negotiation.
If Hillary gets the nomination, she will need votes from the general population, and she may be pressed to "run to the right" -- that is, to change her positions to please conservative voters. If everyone on the left has promised to vote for her no matter what, there will be no pressure for her to keep trying to please us. If she does move to the right, then once in office she'll have conflicting promises to keep and thus won't be under pressure to really keep any of them.
If we do not promise our votes to her, then she will have to keep us in mind while she campaigns. If she's consistent with her promises throughout her campaign, it will be easier to hold her to them.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I hope you vote for the Dem nominee who ever it is. If you do not want to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee than you don't belong here.
That is all there is to it.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)That's why so many of us here won't vote for her. Everything is always about her and not us.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)only works one way in the modern Democratic party. For some reason, that plan isn't working well and they don't seem to know what to do about it.
demosincebirth
(12,542 posts)freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)I was trying to discuss the consequences of taking a loyalty oath.
There's no need for you to tell me where I do and do not belong.
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #4)
sunnystarr This message was self-deleted by its author.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)from Underground Democrats are sort of built-in to the site.
BTW, right-wing, corporatist, 3rd-way, DLC "Democrats" are the ones deserving of the scare-quotes.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Every right wing source and crackpot has been pulled out to attack Hillary here. From Ann Coulter to powderedwigsociety. I shit you not. There are a couple posters here who pretty much do nothing but post right wing propaganda to attack Hillary. And they get away with it because there is nothing to stop them. The jury system is a joke. It takes a seriously blatant violation to get their attention as they tend to defer to the consensus of the juries.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)Stuff attacking Hillary that's downvoted to hell on relatively liberal reddit (that's NO fan of Hillary) is often Greatest Page material here. It's odd.
NEDem
(1,513 posts)Every time I come back to this site I leave wondering why I did. It really has devolved.
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)It really has "devolved", hasn't it?
When DU was launched, it was we Democrats against the GOP. We bickered amongst ourselves, but no one ever lost sight of the common enemy: the Republicans.
Now I see GOP-generated "facts" being posted here as though they were gospel, Republican talking points being touted as "valid viewpoints", and RW pundits, bloggers, and spokes-mouths being linked to for their insightful comments.
OPs that used to earn you a tombstone now get you to the top of the Greatest Page, and the Home Page reads like DemocraticUnderground is a satire site where dissing Dems is actually the objective, despite its name.
I really miss that gathering place for actual Democrats this site used to be. Now it's just "another political message board" where literally anyone is free to post without restriction.
Over the years I got busy with family and stuff, but always found myself coming back here and scrolling through the forums. Gradually I've seen the same as you. I keep thinking maybe it will have gotten better so I come back and scroll though it. It's becoming unrecognizable from what it was. It's a real shame too. It was such a great place to come and have intelligent discussions with fellow Dems, something those of us in the dark red states don't get to do much of. Now it's all yelling, nastiness and personal attacks.
I'll go back to lurking now and shaking my head at what things have become.
BTW, back in the day your posts were some of the best on this site. I always knew that if you posted something it was going to be great. Thank you for that.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Half of the democratic party moved left. The other half moved right. This place has gotten more liberal. Some get left behind.
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)... as a "sanctuary" for Democrats - ALL Democrats - at the beginning of the BushCo years and the ensuring onslaught of RW propaganda that flooded the MSM.
There was no stipulation that only Democrats of a certain stripe, a certain mindset, a certain leaning, a certain school of thought were welcome here.
It was a place for ALL Democrats to discuss their views and express their opinions.
Half the Party did not move left nor right. That is simply an oft-proferred excuse for the divisiveness that now gets promoted here - often by people who were never Democrats to begin with, but are now nonetheless permitted to post here.
I note that many of those self-declared, far-left, "progressive" posters these days are often the ones touting RW talking points when it serves their purpose, and are constantly affixing labels to people in an attempt to segregate those Democrats they deem to be "not worthy" from those deemed to be True Progressives TM.
It's laughable that DU has gotten "more liberal" when one reads the posts linking to RW sites as though they are the purveyors of left-wing idealogy, or when one sees RW bloggers, pundits and authors being praised as "having good points".
This site has been taken over by posters who promote dividing Democrats one from the other, who attempt to pit centrists against moderates, moderates against far-leftists, and encourage more liberal Dems to see the more conservative Dems as "the enemy" - while the Republicans get a complete pass in the process.
But, hey - don't take my word for it. Why don't you post in the ATA forum and ask Skinner if his purpose in setting up DU was to divide Democrats, and encourage them to "leave behind" those who don't meet your personal criteria. I'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing his take on the matter.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)It's not a personal thing, but you're not. Like I said, not a judgement, just a fact.
Millennial democrats are leaving the DNC and it's out-dated values behind. To them, anyone who is against full equality for LGBT people are idiots, anyone who is against decriminalization of pot is an idiot, anyone who isn't 100% for gender equality is, again,, an idiot, etc. on the death penalty, student loans and college expense, foreign wars, gun control, proliferation of the police state, the MIC in general, etc. etc. They have no tolerance for those things as they continue to be a battle today. In their eyes they shouldn't be a battle. It's obvious. Women should be paid as much as men. LGBT people should be not only accepted but welcomed. Student loans are predatory and college expense are egregious examples of extortion. And on and on.
The fact that some here think that it's ok to compromise those rights away, those positions away, receive adverse reactions by millennials. We are sick and tired of the "lesser of two evils". They're both still evil. Do you support the person that kills 50,000 people or the person that kills 500,000 people? Of course, it's not a real example, but it's the same idea. What degree of evil do you condone?
Sixty years ago Democrats stood for civil rights. We didn't stand for incremental changes that sort of helped people and were a "good step" in the right direction. We stood for all people are created equal. Not somewhat equal, not occasionally equal. Equal. And we fought for it. And we won. In 2003 in Massachusetts we fought for marriage equality when we could have simply and easily passed civil unions. We fought for it. And we won.
In the meantime, we as a party, in particular our leadership have lost that. Democrats are not supposed to be politicians. They are supposed to be activists. And there is a stark contrast between the two.
To continue, I don't actually care why the forum was set up. it's a silly statement and completely irrelevant.
People do not post right wing ideology.
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)... that people like you think you are the "decider guys" as to who is left, right, or anything in between.
You're not. That's not a judgment, just a fact.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)it is clearly established.
And I didn't say "the right" and "the left"... I said "more right" and "more left" in the Democratic Party.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)alfredo
(60,075 posts)"I'm not a member of any organized political party.... I'm a Democrat."
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)who aren't RTBs. "Being" is 1st. "Doing" is 2nd...always cause if you know who you are, you will know what to do.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)When this site came into being, the Bush crime family had stolen the election and ALL Democrats were underground.
I don't understand how anyone could vote for the NRA's position against the Brady bill, and for a bill that exempted gun manufacturers and sellers from state product liability laws.
But I don't expect any candidate to have a spotless record, so I could happily vote for Bernie if he ends up being the nominee.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)how anybody could vote for the Afghanistan war.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)There was adequate evidence of terrorist I evolvement from prominent terrorist figures in Afghanistan.
Unless you are 100% a pacifist then your answer makes no sense.
If you believe in evidence as a measure to go to war then your support of those that supported that war makes no sense.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)a pacifist, but you don't get to decide what is a proper retort for anybody but you.
A war with Afghanistan is just plain stupid as history can attest to. Both wars were unnecessary, Afghanistan was unnecessary and stupid.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Invading and Occupying an entire "country" because some tribal warlord had rented some land to some Saudis playing terrorist in the desert always seemed stupid to me.
If we had just dropped $100 Dollar Bills, Big Macs, boxes of Blue Jeans, and IPODS, we would OWN Afghanistan today....cheaper than what we have spent on the war.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)some of it ended up buying bass boats with lakeside cabins attached in nice little fishing spots across America. The Vietnam War also had its commercial side involving a lot of Air America flights from the CIA outpost in Laos via ports in southern France and Corsica.
That form of warfare also has blowback.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I am saying that that is ALL we should have done.
No CIA, no "bargains", no expectations, no blackmail, no deaths, no blown up weddings, no dead civilians.
Maybe give them some desalination plants......and LEAVE.
Bill Clinton, using International Law Enforcement, was able to capture, put on public trial in our public courts, and imprison ALL of the first WTC Bombers without starting a war, killing a civilian, occupying a country, or bankrupting the country.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Clinton certainly did not do without armed interventions, CIA, and dicey paramilitary partners during his presidency. Nor did we try all the WTC '93 co-conspirators, who included bin Laden in the Mary Joe White/Fitz indictments.
One of those SpecOps forces in Kosovo in 1997-98 was a US Navy Seal named Erik Prince. Prince went on to found Blackwater, which became a guilded retirement villa for the CIA CounterTerrorism Center officers who let the 9/11 al-Qaeda terrorists into the US in 2000-2001 and who let bin Laden escape across unguarded passes into Pakistan in January 2002. Small World. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/04/810764/-Erik-Prince-American-Bin-Laden-CIA-Asset-Money-Gunmen
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)at one time by someone named Bush or Cheney in 2001.
It had something to do with a pipeline.
stone space
(6,498 posts)The (supposedly improper retort) regarding the Afghanistan War was a retort to a comment about the Iraq War, which was itself a retort to a comment about the Brady Bill and the PLCCA, which itself was a retort to the OP about the Iraq War.
Now, I gotta say, I don't like any of them (Iraq War, Brady Bill, PLCCA, & Afghanistan War), but I'm not sure what makes the last one in the list suddenly "improper".
As to why a string of comments all leaning in the same direction are being used as "retorts" to each other, that's anybody's guess. I imagine that it has something to do with the Democratic Primaries, though.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)No business plan survives contact with the customer, let alone the product (which is us), unchanged.
DFW
(54,436 posts)The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." ( cited from Wikipedia)
The problem was not Hillary or Kerry or anyone else who was not doctoring intelligence presented to Congress. The problem was that what Bush (i.e. Cheney) determined to be necessary and appropriate was neither necessary or appropriate. There WAS no continuing threat, despite Cheneybush presenting "intelligence" to the contrary. No one expected a rerun of "remember the Maine!" but that's pretty much what we got.
Just to be clear, what Congress voted on was authorizing action IN CASE it was warranted. It was never warranted, but THAT is not what Congress voted on.
So the claim that Kerry and Hillary are warmongers per se is bogus. Few ever thought the White House would falsify intelligence in order to start an invasion that was neither necessary nor appropriate (I did, for the record, and I got rightly bashed for it at the time). Bernie voted against the resolution, and kudos to him for doing so, but to say that those who voted to authorize were pro-war, or pro-invasion per se is re-interpreting the language of what was actually voted on.
jfern
(5,204 posts)There are no excuses for those who voted to silence Robert Byrd and end debate on the IWR.
DFW
(54,436 posts)Different climates, though. There hadn't been a 9/11 prior to that, just "kommanists" and the Cuban missile crisis.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2015, 08:27 AM - Edit history (1)
The wording of the resolution had some ambiguity to allow some plausible deniability but every one with any awareness of politics or what was being asked knew it was a war vote. The slight wording ambiguity was only very slight. Everyone knew it was intended as a war vote. Both Hillary and Kerry and all the other democratic politicians made political decisions to not look weak rather than challenge the lies.
At the time of the war vote, there was opposition in the anti-war protests. There were also significant counter information to the Bush lies including challenges to the aluminum tube lie.
I can believe that he democrats that voted for the war believed that even though the evidence was manufactured, Saddam had WMD. Further, I can believe that these politicians made calculations that the war would be short and would not have the horrible consequences that it had. However, it is just spin that they did not know that the resolution was a war Vote and that Bush would interpret it as such and take us to war.
In Japan, honor is important, and such politicians would fall on their swords, real or proverbial. Even in this country, failure to be on the right side of such an important issue, would cause a politician to realize that the costs of such votes would and should be his or her ambitions. They could redeem themselves from these votes by becoming statespersons not by moving forward on the same political ambition that led to their voting wrong. However, these democrats do not have that type of honor. Instead ambition is everything and every wrong vote can be spun and justified.
Doma can be recast as a way to forestall a constitutional amendment. A vote brought by a war monger -- Bush -- clearly intended as a war vote can be recast and spun as being a diplomatic measure.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Thank you, the precision of your analysis defeats the spin, for anyone willing to be honest about it.
We knew at the time what that vote was about. I was literally marching in the streets with thousands of others who also knew what was going on. It is at times like that that politicians show us who they are.
The pro-war policies continue from thoe that voted for the war resolution. They are less up-front about it, but have continued to move along the list of countries whose regimes would be overthrown as outlined in the PNAC document. Recently, under Obama and Hillary's leadership, Libya and Syria have been destabilized (the real scandal of Benghazi). We supported the military in Egypt rather than what I saw as a true citizen's uprising. We worked and continue to work against populist moveements in south and central America, supporting strong-men who grease the tracks for corporate resource extraction rather then democratic populists who work to build good lives for their constituents. Business as usual. No more of that for me.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)DFW
(54,436 posts)And we are still there under a misguided obligation to "clean up the mess we started." After Cheneybush wrecked the balance of power over there, I would almost have been happy to just hand the place to the Iranians giftwrapped.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)We are refusing, after all of that war effort, to allow local control of the region's natural resources, and are thus stuck there maintaining conditions for corporate resource extraction.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)She was happy to go to war. Heck, she smiled in parts of it. Her vote alone might not tell you she was a warmonger, but she was, and remains happy to be one, and to constantly let people know she's willing to go on to new wars at the drop of a pin.
Bull fucking shit. Millions of us thought it. We weren't born after 2001, WE WERE ALIVE AND WATCHING IT ALL UNFOLD. We saw through the BS, millions raised their voices and proclaimed the President a liar and the war a war of aggression that he wanted, that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, despite a well documented timeline with administration staff going on tv HUNDREDS of times and lying about a connection.
Make your excuses for Hillary, but that's all they are, excuses, and pitiful ones at that.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)"No one thought a plane would be flown into a building" comment.
Doesn't it? A clever rhetorical device to escape blame. Nothing else.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Only the blind didn't see it for what it was at the time.
Bernin4U
(812 posts)Your representative will have voted for it, for one of two reasons:
1. They believed the "intelligence". (Were they a middle school dropout?)
2. Because it was popular.
There's a good reason we kept getting the "90% public approval" polling shoved down our throats. Did anyone believe those numbers?
The officials who follow polls voted "yea". Those who vote their conscious voted "nay".
It's simple psychology. People want the reassurance that their opinion is valid.
It doesn't matter that the popular thing, and the more correct or higher quality thing, are completely unrelated. People still make the association.
So polls play a huge role in people's perception. And if a poll is going your way, hype it to death. It's a great way to influence others. It truly helps to convince them that you're more "correct".
Voting based on the polls is never the right thing to do.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)His only difference was he would've tried to get more allies on board. That's it.
Sounds warmongery to me.
Skittles
(153,182 posts)and claim to not know to what end those warmongering bastards would go to get their war on
If *I* knew, why didn't they?
uberblonde
(1,215 posts)They've been chanting this particular mantra for so long, they've hypnotized themselves.
But thanks for trying. :>
bvar22
(39,909 posts)We all remember the day that Shock & Awe was announced because that was the day that Hillary stood on the Senate Floor and gave an impassioned speech exposing the Bush Administration for exceeding their authorization.
Boy was she pissed, and admitted feeling like a fool for trusting a Bush.....but THAT would never happen again.
In that famous speech, Hillary:
*publicly condemned the Bush Administration,
*correctly labeled the premature Invasion a "War Crime"
*expressed her fury at the Bush Administration for exceeding their authorization
*took responsibility for being a rube that the clown from Texas could so easily fool,
*and apologized to the Iraqi & American People.
Yes. Nobody will ever forget THAT day. Any righteous Senator who had been so thoroughly used as a fool would have done the same.
.
.
.
.
Unfortunately, that never happened, and if what YOU believe is true, then WHY didn't it happen?
It didn't happen because she was still too busy leading the cheers.
Everybody knew Bush was going to invade no matter what once he had that resolution. E-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y.
I certainly did, and if a dumbshit like me who barely graduated high school knew it, you know goddamn well John Kerry and Hillary Clinton knew it too.
JustAnotherGen
(31,869 posts)His playground - but I'm still supporting O'Malley.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's quite an interesting dilemma for him, if he bans everyone who says anything negative about Hillary then clicks here will decline dramatically, conflict drives clicks and clicks are income.
You see, we are Skinner's ~product~, and unfortunately the product has a mind of its own.
I pointed out recently how conflict drives posts, which drives clicks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251752601
What's the difference between the Religion group and the Interfaith group? Very little except no negative posts are allowed in the Interfaith group.
If you want GD-P to have as few posts as the Interfaith group just put in a rule that no negative posts are allowed.
Politics is about compromise between conflicting points of view, conflicting agendas, if conflict is not allowed then compromise will never be reached.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I've been aware of that from the beginning. I'm a Sanders supporter because his presidency would be the best for the country - or to be more precise, for 99% of the country. I could also work in support of O'Malley, or probably any other last minute, Democratic presidential candidate. But I will never give a dollar to or lift a finger for Hillary. With her personal millions and her corporate support, she won't need my time or money. Given the cast of possible GOP candidates, anyone the Dems run will win quite easily.
Should the primary winner be Clinton, I may vote for her as the lesser of 2 evils, but I will devote all my donations and efforts to Democratic candidates who are truly progressive - I have great Dems running for the Senate (male) & House (female) from my state, and also a state house candidate (female) who is excellent. I'm not shallow or vapid enough to vote for anyone based upon their gender. I only mention the gender of candidates I support to show that yes, I DO support women - but only when I determine they're the best candidate because of their values as demonstrated by past performance, not campaign rhetoric.
If Clinton wins the primary, I'll be long gone from DU & HRC's offensive supporters. I suspect most of the more recent member/supporters who joined to push HRC will also move on to other social media to push her case. Won't be any reason for them to remain on DU. Without Sanders and his supporters to vilify and attack, there's no real purpose or benefit for them in remaining.
Response to Divernan (Reply #50)
frylock This message was self-deleted by its author.
fbc
(1,668 posts)If Skinner supports Hillary Clinton, that's his business. I've seen no evidence that he has been anything but fair to all parties in his administration of this website.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)As opposed to Sanders?????
Andy823
(11,495 posts)So what happens when people have the "my way or the highway" belief system, that they and the candidate they support, are the only ones that are right, and if they are not the nominee, well they simply won't vote? I think everyone has a right to disagree with things they don't see eye to eye on, but we should simply agree to disagree and not go over the edge and post all kinds of things that are nothing more than flame bait, meant to alienate those who don't agree, and start flame wars, and I have seen a lot of that on this board.
Compromise is something we have to do on a daily basis, in work, and in our family life. It may not be exactly the way we want things to go, but it's much better than nothing getting done, or in making enemies of those who hold a lot of the same ideas that you might. I am supporting Martin O'Malley, but I have never trash either of the other two candidates. I don't see any reason to trash them, but instead I try and post positive things about O'Malley. I also try and ignore many of the more toxic threads that I do not agree with, simply because I know it will on lead to arguments.
Sometimes I think posters go to far with their dislike for the "other" candidate, and they cross the line and could get tombstones for what they say. Everyone should think about that before posting.
wyldwolf
(43,869 posts)"What is the background of the name 'Democratic Underground?' We were the "Underground" fighting against the Republicans, who were in power at the time. Ironically, it seems that many people took the name to mean 'Underground fighting against Democrats.' I was so naive. Back when I started this site I had no clue so many Democrats hated Democrats." - Skinner
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I know I certainly didn't expect DUers to wholeheartedly endorse Heritage Care or the Patriot Act among a lot of other surprises.
wyldwolf
(43,869 posts)... they're still naive.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Probably better called Democratic Establishment these days...
wyldwolf
(43,869 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)the street, 50 million people move from the middle class to poverty and near poverty, and respond by making the bank$ter/donors to his campaign wealthier than they ever have been, and denying relief to millions of working Americans so that he can pretend to a recovery and a lower deficit.
Talk about hating Democrats - that has hurt gtens millions, far more than a vituperative comment on some bulletin board.
But that's probably not the Democrat-hating you were talking about.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)What kind of SHIT post is this? Trying to tell people they can't be here? Establishment, establishment, establishment, bla bla bla...
FDR was the "establishment". Jack Kennedy was the "establishment". Enough of that happy horseshit.
There are OTHER issues besides the Iraq War.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... engaging the sinners and showing them the error of their ways.
Apparently.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)/s
Thank you for your voice here, Fumesucker.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)You are spouting TEA-left nonsense. But I won't try to stop you. Enough.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)try and censor people the most on here are supporters of the mainstream candidate... they actively police and ban people from their groups to make sure no contradictory ideas are allowed exist....
BlueMTexpat
(15,372 posts)banned from the Bernie group?
I have never said anything bad about Bernie - to the contrary. I had simply asked that Bernie supporters stop posting inflammatory things against Hillary.
But that was apparently too much. So again, who is censoring whom?
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
BlueMTexpat
(15,372 posts)and I have SO MUCH POWER!
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)I can't tell you about a specific thing, but I CAN tell you that in the conversation I was in myself and someone else were banned, and KOS has been banning and sanctioning Bernie supporters for a while... one of the reasons I joined DU btw.
I am sure there's bad behaviour from both sides to a degree, but there's a distinct pattern of thin skinned Hillary supporters using their power to silence pro-Bernie posters on multiple sites...
I have seen it. And suffered from it.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)Hell, at this point I'm barely a Democrat, much closer to a Socialist, but voted Democrat all my life.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)this place is only slightly better than Kos... I was already barred from a Hillary group for simply posting the truth, not bashing, and am routinely attacked for anything considered controversial about gun control... this place is largely mainstream...
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It's the least I can do.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)And she's not evil and maniacal looking to screw the 99% or whatever extreme mantra or paranoia Hillary haters like to insist. If anyone wants to be so rigid and narrow focused as to take an all or nothing view on a single issue that is their choice. But they will never be happy with anyone. It is impossible to please people like that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
tularetom
(23,664 posts)And yet a tea party type nutcase put him away pretty handily.
And you might want to check out how Clinton-supported "pragmatic and not purist" candidates fared in the 2014 midterms.
Pragmatic and not purist governance on the part of Democrats has helped put the country in the sorry state it's in today. And Democrats are beginning to wake up to that fact.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I'd like to see the hard facts on paper done scientifically.
No!?
I thought so.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The "pragmatic" Democrats have conceded that the Republicans have won the hearts and minds of America, and that there is no way to fight conservative politics. They have therefore concluded "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," and insist on supporting conservative Democratic candidates because it's more important to them to elect Democrats than it is to fix the government.
Abandoning liberal politics is not "pragmatic", it's cowardly.
Mike Nelson
(9,966 posts)...blame the propaganda pushers. We need to prevent another Presidency like GWB. Rights and freedoms are on the line... not to mention thousands of American lives and millions more, if we have another Bush. Another mountain of dead people is not something to sit home and make a "statement" about.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)they were victims. They were in positions of authority and they screwed up, and millions of people are still paying for it today.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Yes a lot of people did not hear or get exposed to contrary news. Propaganda and adverstising works. However, these "a lot of people, do not have jobs that are specifically about setting and voting on policies for the country. Politicians are not such pushovers, they are power and policy centers of their own.
Senators have big staffs, they are not just exposed to the pure propoganda of the media. Their offices get letters, emails, petitions and calls from all sides. At the time, there were massive anti-war demonstrations in the world.
At the time of the Vote, every informed person, knew that it was a race to war and that the Bush administration was not being factual. The Bush Administration was pushing for pre-emptive war in fact.
Democratic politicians who voted for the war, did so as a political calculation that the war would end up being popular or fast and they did not want to appear weak and thus thwart their future ambitions. I believe that they did not picture the consequences would be so bad, however, the votes of establishment democrats was not because they were fooled by the Propaganda Pushers.
This was one of the most momentous and consequential votes of the last 20 years. The consequences for voting on the wrong side should mean that these politicians take the political consequences. They should know enough to put their own ambitions aside and become statesmen and stateswomen to redeem themselves, not spin these votes so they do not derail their ambitions.
Speaking directly, Hillary's ambition is more important to her than her honor. Thus, her history of being on the wrong side of big votes are spun. DOMA becomes a pro-gay vote and the Vote for the Iraq War becomes a vote for diplomacy. Your spin is just a variation, she was wrong because she was fooled and everyone was fooled.
Mike Nelson
(9,966 posts)I won't make the same mistake as Hillary with my less significant vote - if she's the nominee, she gets it. And, I hope to get as many people as possible interested in voting for the Democrat... whomever wins the nomination.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)with no clout will fall off her radar, onto the floor, and be swept into the waste basket like donut crumbs after the elections.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)"Establishment" is not a dirty word. And it's not inherently evil. Saying it is a bad thing isn't so just because you say so either.
The purists here are no better than the tea party on the right.
Edit: Damned spell edit. I meant to say tea party, not real party
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Unless, of course, You LIKE being on your side of that divide, and want to be sure the Other doesn't cross that invisible line.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)It's you opinion, not an edict.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Or have you never studied history?
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Multiple, perpetual wars.
Raging income inequality.
The world's largest prison population.
Global climate change that threatens everything we know and love.
Republicans in control of both congressional houses, the result of years of establishment, corporate-funded Democratic strategies.
Mandated corporate health insurance.
A brutal police state to keep the lid on the blowback of poverty and disaffected citizens.
A vast and unprecented surveillance system that monitors prety much anything and everything an of us do, and records it for eternity, with access restricted to police and intelligence operatives.
Recent studies showing the complete uncoupling of what the public wants, and what legislation gets enacted, in a supposedly democratic nation.
I'm pretty sure I've left out some of the most egregious examples, just riffing off the top of my head.
In this context, establishment is the problem, and that establishment is the representation of corporate interests over populist interests, in both major parties.
We need a true "underground" political movement, not just victories for the corrporate wing of our party.
I wish it were not so and that I could just cheerlead for the team, it would be so much easier, but that is not even close to right action given our current context.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Excellent examples of the current state of disrepair...the 1%er will lead the race to the bottom...
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Sorry, but you must go to the ignore list.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)They don't exist beyond comic books and imaginations.
Help me understand exactly what you mean when you use the word "purist" to attack Democrats.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)And biting my tongue.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)When people voted for Nader instead of the "establishment candidate" in 2000.
Other than that, no reason.
the GWB years were horrible.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)it wasn't up to nader to not run, and it wasn't up to his supporters not to vote for him. It was up to gore to win the votes. also, of course, the election was stolen.
frylock
(34,825 posts)But I suppose those folks were entitled to their vote.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)is that not one single Senator stood up to join with the AA members in the House demanding to count the votes of AA voters disenfranchised by Republican voter caging efforts. Not one! The Republicans violated a federal restraining order against voter caging. Not one could stand up.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I think I muttered "fucking cowards" a little louder than intended at the theater during that scene in 'Fahrenheit 911'.
BlueMTexpat
(15,372 posts)seem to know more about Democratic Underground than at least one of its creators.
But I have been and will still be here because I understand that the true enemy of DU is the GOPer establishment and any candidates it supports. Anything else is as insane as the GOPer candidates.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Is Dianne Feinstein not establishment by virtue of her gender?
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)- NAFTA
- Gramm-Leach-Bliley (repeal of Glass-Stegall)
- The Patriot Act
- The Iraq War
Vinca
(50,302 posts)One reason to be a Democrat is that you are not expected to walk in lock step like that other party.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The latest one, the OP has been here about a week.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)The name felt apt when GWB was in office. We would have loved an establishment Democrat in those days. We would have been giddy to get one in office. GWB was so much worse than a center-right Democrat.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)But other people apparently have other things they're looking for in a candidate. I would rather have her than any of the Republican candidates though.
I would have rather had her than GWB.
DFW
(54,436 posts)I will not be told I can't vote for a socialist, can't vote for an "establishment (whatever that means) candidate," "corporatist (whatever THAT means," or any long shot. I'm from the South, I get enough of this "I'm right and you're not" crap when I visit the States.
I would never tell anyone there's a Democrat (or Democratic-leaning independent, as the case may be) they "can't" vote for. Who the hell am I to dictate votes to others? And who the hell is anyone else to tell me anything similar?
If we nominate John Kasich or Marco Rubio, THEN you can tell me not to vote for our candidate. If it's Bernie, Hillary or O'Malley, I'll be voting for Bernie, Hillary or O'Malley. Listen to the Republican nominee give their acceptance speech, and if THAT isn't enough to make you think twice about sitting the election out, then fair enough.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)For example, a candidate that sat on the board of directors of a major corporation, was legal counsel for a major corporation, overwhelmingly funds their campaign with corporate contributions, and pushes pro-corporate policies would fairly easily be recognized as a "corporate candidate."
DFW
(54,436 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)BootinUp
(47,179 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I'm just mirroring other posts that are starting to show up on a near-hourly basis now.
Thanks for making my point.
BootinUp
(47,179 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... pronounces their judgement upon the masses, finding many unworthy.
I get a real kick from these self righteous OPs.
The baptist ministers I encountered in my youth had nothing on you guys.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It does make me a bit sad though that you cannot understand the discomfort of others.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)A tool of the weak used to claim superiority over others.
And I'm very "comfortable" pointing that out.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)On Thu Nov 5, 2015, 06:41 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
If you are going to vote for the establishment candidate why are you on Democratic Underground?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251768569
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
No comments added by alerter
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Nov 5, 2015, 06:49 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If alerter can't come up with an actual reason I won't hide.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot reply to automated messages
BootinUp
(47,179 posts)The reason was clearly indicated:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
No additional information should be necessary for people with fully functional brains that should be allowed to participate on juries.
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)that's why it wasn't hidden.
Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)People should support whichever candidate they'd like in the primary - establishment or not. But if you're not willing to pull the lever for the person on the Democratic ballot during the general election (which is by default a vote for the Republican), this isn't the site for you.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Please be specific...
Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)We get two chances to vote for a candidate, either in the primary or the general.
If you are suggesting that nobody on this board should be voting for an "establishment" candidate (whatever that means) in the primary, that's a perfectly valid argument. It's also, however, not the point of DU. This board exists to elect more Democrats. Period. Look at the mission statement and read everything ever written by the site's founders. Obviously we all want to see BETTER Democrats elected. We also would want to rethink any "blind" support for someone who is a complete lunatic or someone actively undermining what it means to be a Democrat (i.e., Joe Lieberman or Dan Lipinski). If you're suggesting that any of the three current candidates for the nomination falls into that category, that's absurd.
The only other option is the general. If you're suggesting that nobody on this board should be voting for an "establishment" candidate in the general election, even if that person is the nominee, that DIRECTLY conflicts with everything DU stands for.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Or has he somehow been disqualified from his own site?
BootinUp
(47,179 posts)he/she is basically having a childish tantrum.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)If Skinner wishes to lose 90% of his traffic that's up to him.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I tried that for a while but conservatives are too easy and I got tired of trying to boogie in a honky tonk so I came back to DU.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Many are reluctant to post since when they do they are almost always pounced on by Sanders supporters.
GeorgeGist
(25,322 posts)You wouldnt have a job.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Fool me once, fool me twi.....ce, won't be fooled again
Thanks for the thread
Walk away
(9,494 posts)who are?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I don't know if you have noticed, but they are cleaning our clocks by working to advance their party at every level. I'll worry about more perfect candidates when we can actually organize against the REAL bad guys, instead of this internal fighting BS.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I dislike things like knitting needle abortions, low taxes on the rich, Transphobic laws, racist policing, etc. Little things like that.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,167 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)In 2000 they allowed bush to steal the election. While real democrats cried out!
Then they allowed the war budget to double from 250 B to 500 B.
Then they voted for electronic voting machines and the patriot act.
Then the establishment voted to invade Iraq.
Then in 2004 they allowed bush to steal the election again.
All the while they allowed oil drilling, fracking, and global warming to proceed, cities and the environment to crumble, and the M$M to consolidate its hold.
That's why the Democratic Underground has done so well: It was one place where we had a voice. Even today, we still have a voice that stands against the overwhelming power of the establishment.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)after this election DU will change its name, TOS, or both.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Who do you define as establishment? As far as I can tell, from the writings of the opposition brigade, Sanders is the only non-establishment candidate. Therefore in your little screed, you truly think this should only be a place for Sanders supporters. Laughable at best. The real neat trick is how Sanders has been working with the establishment for decades yet his base is simple to the point he just throws them red meat every now and then and they buy it up. This place wouldn't have a single post if we truly went with your metrics.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)Sorry, you don't get to lie.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)the first place. Profiteers wanted the war.
villager
(26,001 posts)...who imagine that somehow internalizing D.C. Think tank talking points makes them critical thinkers, on the American political landscape....
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)matches them up perfectly with their candidate of choice.
olddots
(10,237 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)According to the statement of purpose, loyalty to the Democratic Party is essential, based on the notion that electing Democrats is better than electing Republicans. In general terms, this is true, although there may be individual cases that cast doubt on the basic premise. Reforming the party to make it more democratic, not just Democratic, may or may not be in line with what the admins are thinking. I do know advocating not voting, or not voting for a Democrat, are considered grounds for removal, and go beyond the idea of reforming the party.
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)Those who voted for the war were cowards who only thought about their political future.
I'm still waiting on someone to be held accountable for 500,000 civilians dead in Iraq ?
Bush,Cheney rice, Powell, all get blamed but they got the green light from our congress and senate
jalan48
(13,881 posts)I had the same impression when I first joined but realized it is in no way related to that type of underground movement. It's really a Democratic Party website, which is ok, it's name is just misleading to some of us. For those who didn't experience the 60's underground media (news papers and radio at that time) let's just say Hillary would have been severely criticized as Humphrey and Johnson were.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)IHateTheGOP
(1,059 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)we are underground,and democrats,don't tell a soul.
plus this place would be soooo gd boring if everyone agreed with each other.I mean could you imagine?
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)greymattermom
(5,754 posts)But, I'm in Georgia, so my vote won't count in any case.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Someone's trying to re-purpose your site!
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it is the way of things
Stuckinthebush
(10,847 posts)And primary season is always the nuttiest.
Lord, the hyperbole!
It's like a year long full moon here.
dinkytron
(568 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,681 posts)It was started up in 2001.
dinkytron
(568 posts)the theft of 2000. I used to post under a diff. name.
stone space
(6,498 posts)It was started up in 2001.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)paul ofnoclique
(81 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)Everyone there who doesn't goose step to their drumbeat gets banned.
Political diversity is an important component of democracy. If you want a site where only one point of view is accepted, then start your own blog.
dem in texas
(2,674 posts)This is like the fundamental Christians who say if you don't believe what we believe, then you are not a real Christian.
I was totally against the Iraq war. When Hillary ran against Obama, I voted for Obama because she voted for the Iraq war. But that was 8 years ago and now we have a whole new ball game.
This time around, I will vote for Hillary. I just don't think Bernie can win in the general election and we have to get a Democrat elected President. The major change that is bound to happen is new justices in the supreme court. To me, this is the most important thing that the president will do during the term: appoint new justices.
Think about what will happen if a Republican is elected and appoints another Scalia to the Supreme. Do you want to see the right to abortion be taken away? What about the rulings for women? What about Voted ID to keep Democrats from voting? What about campaign finance, are we going to continue to let 200 families with all their money, control all the political campaigns? Yes, we have a huge problem brewing in the middle east, but I think Hillary learned her lesson when she voted for the Iraq wars.
Whatever happens, please stop trying to turn this site into an exclusive anti-Hillary club.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)"What is the background of the name 'Democratic Underground?' We were the "Underground" fighting against the Republicans, who were in power at the time. Ironically, it seems that many people took the name to mean 'Underground fighting against Democrats.' I was so naive. Back when I started this site I had no clue so many Democrats hated Democrats." - Skinner
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251768652
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,135 posts)I got banned by HRC & Bernie groups the same day for asking a civilized question.
It's not the GOP field I fear. It's the loudest and most prolific in here with a litmus test.
40RatRod
(532 posts)Perhaps a better question is why am I still on DU. I dislike it more each day.
I once thought this was a group that would support democrat principles and work together to elect the eventual nominee but
I now see that is not the case.
I doubt the GOP will have any qualms whatsoever about voting for their nominee, no matter which of the brain dead idiots are selected while half of DU's will sit at home, pout and not vote.
This attitude of those claiming to be dems, both on and off this site, will likely result in the GOP leading our nation for the next eight years and the destruction of the advances made by our current POTUS.
DrBulldog
(841 posts)... both houses of Congress will remain firmly Republican and thus NOTHING WILL BE DONE FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. But the brainless millions out there are still not getting it.
SunSeeker
(51,661 posts)Skittles
(153,182 posts)but I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee
alfredo
(60,075 posts)RandySF
(59,158 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)everything that made the place livable in order for them to feel safe. They selectively enforce rules, push out diversity and ruin communities.
p.s. RIP Seattle, Portland, Austin, et al
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)about this. And frankly, if we are , it would be only fair to tell us.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)much longer than you--in fact, from the beginning, and I don't intend to leave anytime soon. DU has always been a discussion board in which the goal was to support the election of Democratic Party candidates. As I Democrat, I intend to stay. Dividing us will not accomplish a single thing. Get used to it. People have differences of opinions.