Paid operatives? On DU? Slamming candidates?

[Stinky The Clown]

There are some threads with titles that compel one to open them and read what's inside. Then there are threads that are as off-putting as a fart at a buffet table.

I'll call these: Fart Threads.

The fart threads often, but not always, are by same posters ..... over and over and over and over ....

The fart threads spew the same crap - almost entirely previously debunked or unfounded - over and over and over and over .....

This week, the targets seem to be Edwards and Clark. In recent weeks, the targets have been Clinton and Obama and Kerry. And others.

There's commonality among all of these threads. They dig up arcane quotes, often taken out of context. They link to fringe web sites with a clear bias or out of the mainstream point of view. They often cite some fact that has a background odor of 'conspiracy theory'. Or they just hurl personal invective.

Do the people posting these fart threads think they're making a difference for the person they *do* support? In my view, they're not. The fart threads are quite likely seen by most readers for what they are: Fart Threads. Meaningless drivel written by either misguided amateurs or paid operatives.

These threads are just noise.

If you want a good fight, go buy a kangaroo or an emu.

If you want fact, ask.

If you like farts, lock yourself in your bathroom and have at it.

[havocmom]

1. .

:popcorn:

[Karenca]

2. It's definitely: 'Let''s Get Edwards Week". eom

[rox63]

38. I'm a Kerry supporter - Welcome to my world

DU's Kerry supporters have been dealing with daily bashing of our candidate and on other sites for years now. You have my sympathies.

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. Wouldn't suprise me if there were

It also wouldn't surprise me that some are errrr....passionate volunteers for Candidate X. It seems the best way to get ahead these days is to shoot the competition but if that doesn't work then shoot the messenger that's supporting the competition.

*BIG sigh* I just wish we could have a break between elections.

[badgerpup]

35. "*BIG sigh* I just wish we could have a break between elections."

Yeah...a week would have been nice, but we didn't even get ONE...BLEEDIN'...DAY!!!

Returns weren't even all in, and...therrrrOFFF!
The Presidential Race for 2008 has commenced! :eyes: :banghead:

[Igel]

42. Indeed.

I expect the 2012 presidential race to formally start the day after the 2008 election, with some pundits in summer '08 saying that Pelosi or Obama or whoever don't deserve a second term and should be voted out ... before they're even voted in.

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. Some people just like to fight and sow dissent. But yes, there could be.

"Operatives" might be too strong a word, but look at evidence or even accusations of tampering by Republicans, at voting sites, in phony "democratic party" mailings, etc. So why not here? Morale counts lots.

Look to the Doonesbury comic last Sunday, about the WH "Science" advisor, whose job is to obfuscate and "load" the discussion so heavily that people just give up. Stonewalling takes many forms.

[babylonsister]

5. The people posting the 'fart threads' are very transparent.

I've seen these people often enough to know who they support; I'm ignoring them but think it's counter-productive to the Dem party to be eating our own. Let whomever wants to run, run, and may the best man or woman win.

[wisteria]

6. Oh, Kerry is always a target.-always. But, those of us who support him are glad

for the reprieve. We don't like anyone being attacked unfairly, but obviously we have no control over it, if we did we could stop the Kerry bashing threads. So, while we rest on the sidelines, getting ready for our next battle, we are a bit amused reading how someone else's supporters, defend their candidate.

[blm]

24. I actually don't like specific attacks on candidates, but do want to see REAL political

discourse of their philosophies and their expectations of the office they choose to fight for and the Democratic party they want to lead.

[Apollo11]

7. Enthusiastic supporters? On DU?

My potential candidate is better than your prospective candidate.

We're Slammin' and we hope you like Slammin' too! ;-)

EDIT - My sincere apologies to anyone I have offended on DU !! :-)

[welshTerrier2]

8. can an emu be housebroken?

i am disgusted at what i've seen this last week or so as the "primary idiocy" begins anew on DU ...

it is VERY LEGITIMATE to criticize a candidate on an issue but many of the allegations i've seen are wild accusations without substance ...

and let me make this point as someone supporting NO CANDIDATE: i will support and defend the individual actions of candidates when i agree with them and i will respond in kind to supporters of other candidates who attack those positions ... for example, Edwards called for 50,000 troops to be withdrawn ... i am glad to see him do this ... some attacked him for "doing the popular thing without providing any substance behind his arguments" ...

be forwarned - i intend to criticize your candidate's position more aggressively when you do this ... at that point, you're no longer attacking another candidate, you're attacking a position i believe in ... my goal is to strongly advocate for my own positions on the issues ...

to solve all this and spare the rest of us "primary hell", how about a new forum called: General Discussion: Candidates Pro & Con? ... let's kick the noise right out of the current GD forums ... if this persists, we might have to take a poll on that idea ...

now, about that emu ... do they get along with terriers?

[Stinky The Clown]

10. I have absolutely NO idea ........

..... regarding the interspecial interplay between emu and terrier .... or even between the larger groups of big birds and doggies.

[crispini]

13. Um, actually, GD : P is the leftover forum from the 2004 primaries,

and as such, is the once, and probably future, home of all of these candidate threads. So, welcome to primaryland! :D

[welshTerrier2]

14. kick 'em out!!

your point is true but we're certainly not obligated to retain the status quo ... the dreaded primaries are widely hated on DU because they turn many of our forums into garbage ... this thread is an expression of that sentiment ...

my two cents: kick' em out ... if candidate supporters want their own little playgrounds to be "protected" from criticism (i support that), let them have their own little place to have food fights too ... gd and gdp should have rules to protect its posters just the same way the candidate forums do ...

[crispini]

18. What would be the point of GD P ...

if it were not to talk about Politics? :shrug: Like it or not, the primaries ARE politics! :rofl:

I for one am pleased to have a place I can talk about the primaries this early in the cycle, and I haven't really noticed a lot of animosity on here, as I have posted several threads which were well-received, and have had cordial discussions in other threads.

[welshTerrier2]

20. GD and GDP

what is the difference between GD and GDP?

the original intent, was to isolate the heavy focus on the primaries from "general" discussion ... but, the forums have evolved far beyond the original design ...

for example, are there posts in GD about "politics"? of course there are ... and are there posts in GD-P that focus on issues and NOT on "politics"? of course there are ... while there is plenty of cross-pollination between GD and GD-P, neither forum is "dedicated" to just politics ...

i post primarily in the GD-P forum because I've come to know and appreciate many who post here ... i also prefer the forum because the threads do not disappear after 10 minutes the way they do in the high volume GD ... and no one is suggesting you shouldn't have a place to "talk about the primaries" - i would just like to see the great "food fight" moved to its very own forum ...

as for the "cordial discussions", and i have no doubt they are still possible, they will become very rare indeed once we are into full blown primary mode ... even the most innocent threads about a candidate will be attacked ...

let's give: GD-Candidates a try ... we can always change back to today's structure ...

[crispini]

23. Well, ask Skinner....

it's his sandbox, we just play in it. :D

[LoZoccolo]

9. I think you answer your own question.

Do the people posting these fart threads think they're making a difference for the person they *do* support? In my view, they're not.

There's no way a campaign would waste money here. Everyone's made up their own mind to the point where they can't even see that they're not compelling.

[tsuki]

11. Thank you. I am tired of the "get candidate X" threads pointing

out articles and lies that were debunked years ago. Like no one would remember?

I thought in November when we took back the House and Senate that the Republican operatives would invade. And they seem more frightened of some Democratic candidates than others.

[Nite Owl]

12. Seems more like my

candidate is better than yours than anyone paid. What really gets me about these threads is that it's just too damned early! We just had an election two months ago and we got a dem congress that we need to encourage to help us. I know some have already decided who they will be backing for alot of us that won't happen for months. I like quite a few of them, it's just too early to decide for me anyway.

[troubleinwinter]

16. Just minutes ago, I came across a 'fart thread'

The poster's name and style of candidate bashing seemed familiar, so I searched his/her posts.

What's interesting is that there are NO posts claiming "my candidate is better than yours", but only smears, innuendo, so-called 'concerns' (more smears) about several candidates.

Smears of Clark, Edwards, Obama, Kerry, a couple of others. No straight-forward advocacy of any candidate, just an occasional "rah-rah", so one can only infer that the person is a supporter of the major candidate that is conspicuously NOT relentlessly trashed.

I don't see this as a paid operative, just a puny, immature, amateur who has no real material to present advocating his preferred candidate and is afraid he might be challenged on his adoration of his candidate, so resorts to trashing others.

It is weak and childish, and dirties our room. These 'farters' don't seem to realize their transparency.

[Nite Owl]

27. Good research

and that does seem to be what they do.

[Dinger]

15. Excellent, & I See What You Mean, Especially Lately

I know one in particular that comes to mind.

[Connie_Corleone]

17. No. It's just Attack of the Candidates' Supporters.

It happened in 2003. That's why I didn't sign up on DU until after the primaries. I didn't want to get caught up in the primary wars.

Some people will tear down other candidates, even using right wing sources to bash them, just to get others to support their candidate. Then they get defensive if someone mentions something negative about their beloved candidate.

I admit, I get defensive too. But I try to stay out of most of the threads about my number one choice. I've got better things to do than to have a fit over some anonymous person writing on a message board.

[Cameron27]

19. You really have to have dinner

with my big, multigenerational, Northeastern, wildly opinionated, Democratic family.....you ain't seen nothin' brother:)

[GreenArrow]

21. it runs both ways

It's just as likely that there are operatives who come on here to push a particular candidate.

I don't have a candidate (unless you count Kucinich, ha ha!) so I personally feel no qualms criticizing any or all of the prospective candidates. You know, it's actually possible that people on here might have differing ideas about what makes a good candidate, what would make a good president, what's good for the Democratic party, and more importantly, what's good for the country.

It seems that the greater degree a poster has with a particular candidate (or more broadly, the party itself) the quicker they are to be offended by anything that casts their man, woman, or party in a negative light. It's as if you are attacking them personally.

But politics has always been about building your guy up at the expense of the other guy, and even if DU were to dictate some sort of "thou shalt speak no evil of any Democrat" regulation, the jockeying for position and favor will go on elsewhere as it always has.

[Zodiak]

22. We all define "fart threads" differently.

I do not care about candidate bashing. I wish to see more of it....let all of the dirty laundry out in the air. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and all of that. I'm a big boy and can decide what is garbage and what is gold and I know we are talking about politics (public figures)...something we all ostensibly came here to do.

What I consider "fart threads" are the ones that are specifically designed to sew discord amongst DUers. An an example of a good thread...someone starts a thread saying that Kucinich is only running to serve his ego. Okay...whatever floats your boat, buddy...I might post in there that by definition, anyone running for the Presidency is going to have an ego. I wouldn't be upset in the least even though I personally like Kucinich very much. It is not about me, but Kucinich, and the argument is pretty easy to deflect with reasoned debate.

What irritates me are threads that start out like this: "for those of you who STILL support Hillary..." or "What far-left DUers just don't get...". That is a fart thread because the target is not Hillary, but DUers who support Hillary (or DUers who don't). I can almost guarantee myself to be disgusted by the behavior of my fellow DUers by reading that thread (but I read it anyways because trainwrecks attract bystanders).

Another "fart thread" is the entreaty. "Please can't we all just stop bashing..." threads. No we cannot. This is an open discussion board and we discuss public figures who hold the future of this country in their hands. If someone has a beef, let them air that beef and then we will collectively vet it according to the facts. I do not consider it anyone's purview to demand that others pipe their criticisms up, even of my candidate.

I also think that the fact that we are not allowed to discuss specific DUers is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it stops a LOT of arguing and hurt feelings around here (a good thing). On the other hand, it allows overly prolific posters who display odious behavior to get away with a LOT of chronic, low-level disruption.

[unc70]

25. I am using the new Ignore option (blocking reply)

Don't yet know how it will work, but worth a try. I don't post a lot and have only had a couple of attacking replies myself, but I have seen a lot of that lately. I hadn't been comfortable using Ignore before and have used Alert sparingly. I am now starting to use just the new Ignore option so I will continue to see their posts while preventing them from incessantly distorting my position.

I am mostly using this for people I see in threads I have posted in, just as a preventative measure. For someone replying to my post, I usually make one attempt at clarification before going to the Ignore(4).

Maybe if we all were to do this we could maintain some balance while allowing spirited debate.

[Zodiak]

26. I agree on all points

I have used Ignore on perhaps ten people here, and I free them from Ignore after about six months. Those I have to put on Ignore again stay there permanently.

There are people on my Ignore from both "Wings" of DU (centrist and leftie)...the trigger is personal insults, bullying behavior, ridicule of other DUers, and stalking. I usually warn someone before dropping the hammer, but I put poeple on ignore for how they treat others, as well.

I have "Alerted" on only three occasions since I have been here.

I need to revamp my ignore list for the new rules. Sounds like the features will work well for me...I do not like shutting down debate, but I have a bad heart and can't handle stress well.

[Clark2008]

34. This I agree with.

I think a healthy "bashing," if you will, of a candidate's record is exactly what GD: Politics is for.

Bashing other DUers, however, is not productive.

[Eurobabe]

28. Those that start fart threads and bash Dem candidates go on my block list

I can think of one obnoxious person on my ignore list already....last week digging up stupid shit about Clark, acting all innocent, etc.

Paid operatives who come on here to disrupt the masses. Exactly.

Don't feed the fart threads!

[BoneDaddy]

29. Most definately

I think there are most likely people from many camps in here stirring the pot. DU is probably one of the most if not the most popular Dem site and I think any candidate worth their salt has, at the very least, someone monitoring the site for trends, popular opinions, critiques and at the most sending out negative messages about their opponents.

[ultraist]

30. It's very possible

But, I think in many instances, those who start threads to bash Democrats and obsess and whine about the past, are likely just lonely, bitter, resentful people who don't have a lot of positives to offer on their own candidate.

In other cases, I think they may be Republicans posing as Dems in hopes their words will be taken a little more seriously.

[lildreamer316]

31. No REALLY? I NEVER would have guessed.

I mean; they're so CLEVER and not OBVIOUS at ALL.
I'm not ever able to figure out what they are doing!!!!:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Anyone who can't see them is willfully blind.

[babylonsister]

32. LOL, 'Stinky'. Seems you've coined a new term!

:rofl:

[smoogatz]

33. Don't you realize you're feeding people's paranoia?

Estimated time 'til this thread gets locked: 12.3 seconds...

[Lex]

36. Reading through this thread, I see a lot of Fart Defenders. nt

[AtomicKitten]

37. Word.

But it's fun watching them pretend this thread surely must be about somebody else.

[geiger]

39. I wouldn't take them too seriously; I think most of them are still in diapers

they're just having their terrible twos; they'll grow up someday.

[Tom Joad]

40. oh my, out of the mainstream! Like those who opposed the Iraq

war when it began (or even worse, before it began, you know, when certain Presidential candidates were shepherding the IWR through Congress, with their great wisdom), and not when it was popular to do so?

or out of the mainstream, like those who thought Bush was a threat to the United States in October of 2001, when his popularity rating was hovering around 70%?

MY goodness, call out these people, they must be dealt with promptly!
We should also take care of people who don't have clown cartoons in their posts, or talk at length about flatulence!

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Good points all ..... but you miss the intent ....

.... and I'll allow the final personal swipe to go unrebutted.

[many a good man]

43. Is this a "Glade" thread?

[holboz]

44. Do we have a fart smiley? I think we need one! LOL! eom

[ncrainbowgrrl]

45. locking.

This is really not productive, and is essentially calling out other members of this site.