Cut and Paste trolls are out in force.

[onehandle]

"we’ll have no choice but to vote for a Third Party."

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_01_28_atrios_archive.html#116996243455469520

Paid GOP disruptors are amongst us. Believe it.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. Wow, great find, K & R, for staying informed about disruption tactics on the internets.

:kick: MKJ

[AnotherMother4Peace]

31. Notice that trolls are usually the first to apply to a thread, & hijack it quickly.

The tone is changed, one or two start responding to each other, and away it spirals downward. It makes sense to me that it is an organized effort.

Another tactic I've seen a lot lately is posters on nonpolitical discussion sites spouting right wing talking points, & inserting rhetoric. It's very obnoxious. This also seems to be part of an organized effort.

edit for grammar

[anitar1]

36. I Have noticed a lot of this activity lately and thought they were trolls.

This whole brouha the other day about Edwards was trollish. And people responded to it and seemed as if a lot of fighting was going on. I saw one of the same trolls? name on a number of the threads. He was one of the instigators--yet had a lot of posts racked up on DU.Too bad so many are sucked in by these posts.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Careful there .......

I had a thread locked a week or three ago for saying the very same thing ...... paid operatives.

[Morereason]

28. Did you follow the links. It is someone marketing a book......****************

It is someone marketing a book. Probably not an "operative". They are figuring that by posting like a blogger they will get lots of traffic. Also, when you make lots of links like that (to the book) you drive your search engine ratings up.

This is classic search engine marketing. Time to lower the tin foil hats a bit. DU is really getting paranoid at the moment.

[Zorra]

3. It would be naive and unreasonable to believe they weren't. n/t

[Rufus T. Firefly]

4. Paid to be online?

And they don't think people working at McDonald's/Wal-Mart should be paid a living wage?

I'm starting to think I should be paid for posting too...

Of course, there are always the "Make money from home" signs you see by the roadside. And the way they work is you pay whomever put up the signs to get your own signs, then people pay YOU to put up signs.

Or the "get rich" books, which make the person who wrote them a few bucks but you, not so much. If the "secrets" worked, why the hell tell anyone else? And why do you need royalties if you're so damn rich?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

6. At least we have somewhat of a headstart on the GOP operatives. They were ignoring

(or laughing at)liberal blogs during their heady years of absolute power and that gave us an opportunity to establish our voices, our views and our venues.

Now, we are on the cover Time magazine, :eyes:

I've seen some psy-ops kind of stuff, however, it can only be maintained for so long. For instance, we have identified the "concern trolls", a classic psy-ops of seemingly being on our side, but being so worried about "fill in the blank about the Dems" which is an approach that is designed to sow doubt and confusion.

As a matter of fact, did DU coin the term "concern troll"? It's perfectly descriptive. :-)

MKJ

[stillcool]

5. I think it's cycles...

and that it's me..those times when I can not believe the content on the latest page, or the absurdity of some posts. When I've had enough, I try to stay away and visit informative sites without discussion. For me it's a good thing...as I'm forced to seek and find information and digest it in a more thoughtful manner. When I venture back into DU, my patience and tolerance levels are restored...until the next time.

[blm]

7. Same old, same old. But they aren't only GOPs. CorpDem operatives worked AGAINST

our 2002 and 2004 elections, too.

[Le Taz Hot]

42. Thank you.

There are definitely paid operatives here and not all of them are GOP.

[Rebellious Republican]

8. Funny you should bring this up................

I just posted a simular thread in GD, and some seem to think I am a tin foil hatter, see my reply #14.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=63709&mesg_id=63709

But what would I know about republican trolls, oh thats right I used to be one.
:shrug:

[blondeatlast]

9. Sunday mornings have always brought them out of the squeaky woodwork.

I suspect Saturday nights don't go too well for them... :evilgrin:

[emulatorloo]

10. kicking so all will see EOM

[cilla4progress]

11. Confused

I'm very confused here and would like to request clarification. What some seem to be saying is that any dissent from some pre-ordained view is considered trolling or counter-productive or worth of "ignore"? Please tell me I'm not getting it..

[blondeatlast]

12. Not the case at all. BUT--this is a forum for supporting

Democrats and the Democratic agenda--a poster's claim that they will not support the 2008 Democratic nominee makes that person suspect in my book.

It's very clearly written in the rules--this sin't an all=purpose LW forum. it's a big D Democratic forum and I like it that way.

[cilla4progress]

13. But in the meantime...

there seems to be some oppression about negative views cast about the favorite candidate of the moment...say, John Edwards?

[blondeatlast]

15. Important difference here: the "cut and pasters" the OP refers to are

bleating the same rhetoric--"my candidate" or I will vote third party.

As I say, this is a Democratic forum--many were tombstoned in 2004 after the candidate was announced--and again, IMHO, rightly so.

[Bridget Burke]

40. There are far more people opposing candidates that supporting them.

Those who are already hyped-up about a candidate should, surely, let us know their reasons! Thread after thread--let us see their philosophy. Their views on the issues. Their past accomplishments.

I'm not sure what you mean by "oppression." Have any posts been deleted for being "negative"?

Suggesting that one not vote for the Democratic nominee--even if he or she is not one's first choice--will not be met kindly here. This is Democratic Underground.

[PresidentObama]

14. I will vote for the 2008 nominee.

But I think you are being unfair.

I know a lot of dedicated Democrats who just won't support Hillary. Just using her as an example. It doesn't make them less of Democrat, or even suspect in my mind. They just don't like her, and her positions. And where she stands.

I personally will support whom ever gets the nomination, but I don't question those who won't unless they give me reason too.

[cilla4progress]

16. Thank you

I agree - to me, it's about the tone of the discourse. As long as it is basically respectful, then all views are comers. The Dem party represents (as it well should...) a HUGE range of positions. Productive political discourse is what I am seeking - with the opportunity to learn and share viewpoints, even, and perhaps especially, where the views diverge. I'm hoping that's what I can rely on finding here...at least for the most part.

[cgrindley]

44. A lot of us CANNOT vote

I'm a loyal Dem supporter. I man phone lines for candidates. I put up lawn signs. I do whatever work I can for people, but I cannot and will not ever vote Democrat. I am a permanent resident of the US, I hold a Green Card, but am a Canadian and will never apply for US citizenship. I still want my interests protected and the Dems are the party that best represents those interests.

There must be millions of people in my boat. Not only "legal" resident aliens, but also all those poor undocumented folk.

So people should think twice before marching around shouting that DU is for registered democrats who vote democratic, because some of us are simply not allowed to vote.

[TheBaldyMan]

50. what happened to "No Taxation Without Representation"

seems awfully unfair when you pay for services but have no say in who administrates them.

[harveyc]

20. I would like to see ...

Sen. Russ Feingold as President. Realistically it probably won't happen. However, I will work for and support whomever the Democratic Presidential Nominee is.

I don't understand this dissing of nominees. The whole idea of the process is to listen to ideas and determine which nominee will make the best candidate for the Party.

However, that being said, the 2006 election for Senator in CT showed there is a problem and there is no big D Democratic forum.

One out of 3 Democrats abandoned Ned Lamont for that bushevik Iraqi war hawk Lieberman. Lieberman would have been crushed had we hung together as a family.

It was a very sad day for the big D family.

[Le Taz Hot]

43. I've been here since 2001

Am I a troll? I did not vote for John Kerry 2004. I WROTE IN the name of the person I thought SHOULD have been the nominee and WOULD HAVE been president had not the outcome been rigged for Kerry from the beginning. WHEN one of the DLC puppets get the nomination, I'll write in who I think is the best person for the job. I ask again, am I a troll?

Those of us who object to the Vischy Dems are not advocating voting third-party as THAT would be against the rules. We are advocating they exercise true Democratic values -- support labor, civil rights, women's rights, strong domestic economy, sound foreign relations, NO WARS OF AGGRESSION, you know, TRADITIONAL Democratic values.

And when Hillary is crowned with the nomination I shall, as I did in 2004, bow out of DU until the election is over so you all can sit around the proverbial echo chamber with no dissent. I'm sure it will be heavenly for you.

And you are incorrect about the rules:

2. Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

[LoZoccolo]

48. Yes, you are.

You asked, I told.

See you in 2008.

:hi: :nuke:

[Le Taz Hot]

49. We both have our

reputations, don't we? I'd rather be the one ensuring our elected officials are held accountable. I am not, nor ever will be a sheep.

That is all.

[Madspirit]

51. deleted because repeated n/t

[Madspirit]

52. write-in candidates

I am cutting and pasting my own post from another thread because it pisses me off too much to respond again. It is about people who vote for third party candidates or write in the names of people they think should have been nominated. I am not a sheep. I just happen to REALLY care.:

Only white, well-fed, middle class, insured, heterosexuals can afford these kind of armchair politics. Those not personally affected, day-to-day, by who is in the White House, are the only ones who can afford to play these games. If someone split the vote again, I would NEVER forgive them.

I would spit on Nader if I ever ran into him. Then I would goad him into pulling the first punch. I'm a leftist not a pacifist. I would kind of like to smack him around a bit. A lot of people have DIED...yes, DEAD, belly-up, bought the farm, adios Baby...because of what he did to the vote.

Real Lives depend on who is in the White House. This isn't some kind of philosophical game.
Madspirit


PS...(current thread)...so yes, anyone who writes in a name or votes third party....DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT REAL PEOPLE, ergo is a troll.

[Le Taz Hot]

54. My dear,

calm down. I wrote in a DEMOCRAT'S name in 2004 AND I live in California which is not a swing state.

All your other assumptions are WAAAAAYYYYYY off base but if it makes you feel better to think I'm a white, middle class, insured, heterosexual person, you go right ahead. I'm not sure where you're getting this Nader stuff.

And it's against the rules to call people trolls on this board. (Damn, people are taking things personally on this board.)

[Madspirit]

55. Really?

...because I see people call others on this group names all the time. It says in the rules no calling people trolls or Freepers or anything like that and I see it about every fourth post.

However, I stand by what I say about people who vote for third party candidates. I will change my wording, if you would like. They aren't trolls. They just don't give a shit.
Madspirit

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

17. It's precisely because there are so many points of views among us lefty, liberal, progressive types

that disruptors believe they can divide and conqueor.

As far as pre-ordained views, I guess these would qualify:

The installation of the cabal into the WH in 2000 was a coup by corporate interests. And, our democracy has been continuously eroded, attacked and threatened, ever since.

We support Democratic candidates over Republicans for all elected offices even if we're not happy, at times, with corporate meddling in our party, as well. (The republicans are much more friendly to those interests and mostly willing to corrupt themselves at the alter of money and power. Those interests have a slightly more difficult, although hardly insurmountable task with at least some Democrats)

I guess that's about it. Welcome to DU. :hi: MKJ

[cilla4progress]

18. Common ground

I do love the concept of finding common ground and working from there. I, like you, I'm sure, constantly think about what my philosophy of leadership would be were I in such a position. Right now my philosophy is that I think it's a balancing between staking out a principled position, and bringing it back to where can we find the common ground such that we can build some kind of consensus to move forward with action. What do you think? :)

[wryter2000]

19. Personally, I don't care if they're sincere or trolls

Nonsense is nonsense, no matter the source.

[LoZoccolo]

22. This is true; Naderists should be treated to a swift tombstone on the first offense. n/t

[TheBaldyMan]

39. Why? Anything wrong with being a Green Party member?

[conscious evolution]

41. nothing wrong with being a naderite

Just be one on naders site.This site is for members of the Democratic party.

[Le Taz Hot]

45. Wrong!

Please see post #43.

[conscious evolution]

46. I stand corrected

[Telly Savalas]

21. Let the witch hunts begin!

In this climate of suspicion and fear I suppose I'll be accused of being a troll for this little innocent thread in the lounge:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6117510

[blondeatlast]

23. Oooh, Telly, you've surely outed yourself with that one...

:nuke:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

37. HaHaHaHa, LOL. Ah yes. So many toes on which to inadvertently, or sometimes on purpose step.

:rofl: MKJ

[AnotherMother4Peace]

24. Lately quality threads are being hijacked by leap frogging trolls who effectively

use one liners to take discourse down a negative path. It appears that these posters are working in tandem to monopolize a thread. It makes a thread very tedious, and hard to stick with. Many of these one-liners can be found in Republican talking points. Go figure.

[mopinko]

26. and a few here seemed determined to

not understand the point of THIS thread.

[mopinko]

25. wow

kicking this. we all need to google things that smell like bs.

[Jai4WKC08]

27. How can you be sure it's a "paid GOP disrupter"

I don't doubt for a minute that such people exist.

But every blog comment this loony has made, all of which are alike and obviously cut and pasted (granted I only checked a handful of the 400+ that google turned up), included a link to some book called "America Deceived," available from www.iuniverse.com. It could just be someone trying to sell a book. I went to the link and read the first few pages of the thing, but to tell the truth, I couldn't make heads or tails of what the book is supposed to be about, whether from the right or the left. Looked sort of like something neo-nazi, if not fictional... or both.

[Morereason]

29. IT ISN"T! It is a book marketer - I am more concerned about the paranoia

See my post #28.

[Morereason]

30. Could it be the "Operatives" are the ones stirring the paranoia???

Seriously, either folks are getting hysterical or would that not possibly be a good way to disrupt? Get everyone to not trust there brother/sister on DU???

Just to be sure folks saw it, read my post #28. This is someone doing classic search engine book marketing. Get real folks

[onehandle]

32. To clarify my initial post...

This is an example of how certain trolls operate. The one discovered may have not actually been part of a GOP operation, but they Do have operatives among us. Interns or professional political players with a script and an agenda. Regardless, this isn't "Third-Party Underground."

The GOP was caught pushing Nader online in 2000 and other third-party candidates in other election years.

They know that they are already losing 2008. I predict a Lot of covert operations for the next 22 months.

[Jai4WKC08]

33. They were also pushing certain Democratic candidates in '04

I remember during the SC primary, right-wing bloggers were encouraging SC Republicans to cross over and vote for weaker candidates on the Democratic side.

Unless someone wraps up the GOP nomination early, they probably won't be able to get away with that in 2008. But I agree with you that there will be a covert effort to influence our primaries. In fact, I think we're already seeing it in the corporate media.

[Morereason]

35. Sure there are. Everyone understands that. But it's getting a little over the top

This paranoia where DU'rs start accusing those who's opinions they don't agree with of being "Trolls" and Operatives.

[GETPLANING]

34. Yes, believe it.

I have had a lot of fun on AOL political chats uncovering paid GOP consultants with AOL screen names entering the political chat rooms and pasting in volumes of propaganda. They operate out of "consulting firms" and are very well organized and interconnected. I have even been able to copy a few screen names and have been contacted by other paid trolls who confirm this. They are very well funded and are very proud of the fact that they are paid a lot of money to pose as regular people who just happen to know every GOP talking point in the book. Other firms specialize in things like hacking YouTube and Google Video, putting their political message clips on the top rated and top 100 videos lists. I sent an e-mail through YouTube to one of them pointing out the fact that their video was on the most viewed list but only had been viewed about three times. Their response? "Well, duh!" They aren't even shy about it.

[Quantess]

38. They work hard for their money.

Spending all thouse hours spreading their propaganda. You better believe they're on a payroll.

[ellie]

47. That is so why

I miss the public block lists.

[AtomicKitten]

53. no doubt

some are being paid to be the fly in the ointment ...

[Viva_La_Revolution]

56. some of them are even posting on this thread