General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs DU a Liberal Message Board?
By your definition of the word liberal.
Bryant
37 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes | |
16 (43%) |
|
Supposedly | |
4 (11%) |
|
No | |
3 (8%) |
|
Shut up with your bullshit polls! | |
0 (0%) |
|
I like to vote! | |
0 (0%) |
|
It Used to Be | |
14 (38%) |
|
At Times | |
0 (0%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its in the name!
But you are welcome to start Liberal Underground.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:
Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!
After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.
We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office. So sign up today!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus
I know it's difficult for some to wrap their heads around...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)not hard at all is it?
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)"Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change... "
Indeed, not hard. Depending on where one is coming from, that is.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)It wasn't named "Liberal Underground" was it?
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)I do realize many have trouble beyond the superficial...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)or anarchist underground either for that matter. Some people oppose ANY govt.....I don't think this board is meant for them...do you?
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)It does reference "liberal," more than once.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office. So sign up today!
Do you have something against Liberals btw?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and WHO decides WHO is or isn't?
Shouldn't supporting Democrats be the overall goal?
Or is this the bash Democrats because you don't think ANY of them are Liberal board?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)well, I think that about sums you up, to be perfectly truthful.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I also don't think "purity trolls" should be encouraged...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to attack the Liberal Wing of the party, here on this Liberal Democratic Forum. 'Purity Trolls being one of their favorates. 'Reality Based Community', 'Purity Trolls', 'Malcontents' etc. I can provide the list, from one of their Think Tanks most obviously, if you like. People might associate you with that Right Wing of the Party which is what we are trying to correct, the Right Wing, Corporate infiltration into the Party of the People. They have their own party.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)so far? This used to be a liberal board before it was infiltrated by a contingent of conservadems and authoritarians. They seem to disrupt and prevent thoughtful conversation in a lot of threads. It is a shame really but it is what it is.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)And you seem to have an Anarchist symbol as an Avatar...so there is that...doesn't exactly make you a typical Democrat does it? But everyone to the Right of you is a "Conservadem" right?
Could be Wiccan I suppose....but you know what...73% of Dems support Hillary Clinton right now...are they all Conservadems and Authoritarians?
If I am basically a law abiding citizen does that make me an authoritarian?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)It is a religious symbol and not particularly Wiccan either. All the republican women both in my family and friends support Hillary as well. My republican sister wrote her name in in the last election. She has name recognition and no doubt would win if she wins the primary. I don't know what the authoritarians on this board and the percentage of people who support Hillary have to do with the discussion at hand. This was a liberal board and it is a shame what has happened to it. I still love this place even so.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Republicans, and since there is no one else running in a race that is three years from now, that means NOTHING.
I imagine registered Dems when polled would say 'yes' when they are given only one choice. It should be 100% right now to whoever the Dem is. And that means that even out of that 32% 27% do not support her with no opposition. When others enter the race and people have a choice, as happened when Elizabeth Warren was placed in a poll against Hillary, she won hands down.
Hillary will not get the Independent vote, those Dems who have left the party due to the Corporate takeover. Without them no candidate can win.
I doubt she will be running when the Party wakes up and realizes the voters are not kidding this time, no more going along because they 'have no choice'. Things have changed drastically over the past decade.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)George Zimmerman and the retired police captain that shot the guy in the theater are two strong authoritarians.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to have the Democratic Party infiltrated by Conservative 'moderate' Republicans. I can't imagine, and have never met yet, a Democrat who welcomes the Corporatization of the People's Party.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)I'll give you a few snippets:
I've been a registered Democrat all my life. I was a marshal in the second Vietnam Moratorium, November of 1969. I cut my teeth on Krassner's The Realist. I suspect my FBI file is longer than your diary.
I presume you know nothing about Ma Bell, Lockheed or the NFWA. I'd guess you'd research "Kick out the Jams, Motherfucker!" on the Martha Stewart website. Don't deign to lecture me on "corporatization" or "conservatives" or "moderates".
As it turns out, I simply happen to disagree with you on virtually everything. You have no grasp of history, no understanding of the political process, and a bizarre unicorn-infested view of the future.
I don't ever remember questioning the loyalty or passion of other Democrats - and in my time they included rich and poor, "corporatists" and (eventually) hardhats, veterans, Catholics, migrant workers, musicians and everyone else registered to the party. There was no fealty required on any issue whatsoever.
There were half a million marchers at that moratorium, including all of the above and we were, almost to a man and woman, a polite and organized crowd, understanding the need for order and dutifully avoiding conflict with the thousands of law enforcement personnel amongst us. Now, if I tsk tsk at half a dozen Occupiers who won't move a half a fucking block away to accommodate a city christmas tree dedication, I'm an Authoritarian, a neo-Fascist, a Centrist, a Moderate, a DLCer, a Third Wayer. Since I've contracted with Fortune 500 companies and the DoD, I'm a Corporatist and a Warmonger.
Speaking only for myself, I don't need to prove any bonafides to you. And I'm happy not to be one of your bullshit "WE".
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)two US Iraq Veterans. They came from different backgrounds, economically, politically and there was not a single person there who didn't understand the need to unite against the Corporate takeover of this country. No one was impolite, the crowd was organized, knowing full well what the 'law enforcement' contingency was capable of.
What is your point? There were hundreds of thousands of people marching in NYC against the Iraq War, half a million at least. They too were organized, polite, united, from many different backgrounds, politically, economically, ethnically.
I don't know you but from what I am reading here I don't agree with a singe thing you have to say. So the feeling is more than mutual.
The Corporate Wing of the Democratic party has contributed to the disastrous, historical inequality in this country today. There is no denying it anymore.
I don't give a tinker's curse what your opinion of me is. I'm not sure why you bothered telling me. I care about this country about the infiltration of the Democratic Party by Corporate funded individuals who have moved this country to the RIGHT leaving millions of Americans without jobs, without a future, voting against the Democratic Party Platform, and no matter what you say, it won't change the fact that Republicans have their own party. Since they began putting that 'D' behind their names, running on Corporate money and then voting for Corporate interests, the inequality has reached mammoth proportions.
As for your attempted slam regarding my 'political acuity' or whatever it was you said, I am NOT a professional political operative and never claimed to be nor do I want to be.
I am an ordinary person who shares the views of the MAJORITY of ordinary people and that's just fine with me. Political professionals have LOST TOUCH with the people of this country.
I don't know how professional you are politically, but you sure are not getting what the people of this country are getting.
So glad not to be impeded by 'professional' politics where 'brands' and 'tactics' are more important that facts facing actual people.
Thanks for the compliment, you could not have complimented me more.
OWS was merely a demonstration of the growing awareness of the people to the Corporate takeover of this country, that lasted way longer than was intended and spread far wider than planned, demonstrating the need to express the opposition of a majority of Americans to direction these Corporate Politicians on both have sides have taken it. Sorry seeing the people standing up for themselves at last, bothered you.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Desert805
(392 posts)Thank you for your (continued) passion!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Holy cow no wonder....NO Certain people MIGHT say that yeah....but I laugh at them. If you are calling me RightWING then YOU are the purity troll my dear!
MADem
(135,425 posts)They don't go for encroachment upon the rights of others, but they can take a difference of opinion, so long as said difference doesn't abrogate a freedom for another.
Not a fan of "My way or the highway" either.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am not the purity troll.....I support Democrats...I support the Democratic President...can you say the same?
MADem
(135,425 posts)electing more Dems and fewer R's to public office.
I am a fan of the POTUS .... AND Hillary Clinton.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Her lead is the largest recorded in an early primary matchup in at least 30 years of Post-ABC polling.
73% of Democratic voters...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm happy with divergent views. I have little tolerance for coming to a liberal message board and reading the same right-wing bullshit I inflict upon myself by trolling their boards. Further, tolerance does not equal acceptance - if you're wrong, you're wrong (and truthfully, if you're Right, you're wrong.)
MADem
(135,425 posts)About the only thing that one could take issue about is what constitutes "right wing" or even "jerkwad libertarian" views. I am not a fan of the "I got mine, so fuck y'all" attitude that the Paulbots shop.
And a "liberal" in Wyoming is a different thing than a liberal in, say, Massachusetts.
Where you stand depends on where you live...
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Being a big tent we tend to throw out principles we believe in when it comes to people doing things we don't personally like - which isn't really liberal but politics in general.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)for many posters. I also observe a restorationist attitude with a desire to turn the clock back to the 1960s.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)was a historic period where the people fought AGAINST an unjust war, fought FOR CIVIL RIGHTS and Women's Rights, not sure what your objection to that period of history might be. We don't see much fighting for those principles today by contrast. So maybe it is good to look back at history to see what works and what doesn't.
What I've noticed here is more of a right leaning turnaround by a small, but vocal group of people.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)I do have an objection to turning the clock back to when key groups in society had fewer rights. To look backward is the opposite of liberalism. Liberalism has always meant moving forward and conservativism halting progress or moving backward.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on the public, eg. Conservative policies brought back after years of fighting against them. SS under attack, with Dems on board unbelievably. All Social Programs so hard fought for, now all under attack, the Public School System among them.
This period has MOVED BACKWARD regarding Social Justice and The New Deal. Makes me wish we WERE Repeating the sixties when we had people actually FIGHTING these conservative policies rather than watching BOTH PARTIES on board with turning this country back to the point where old people were dying of poverty and young people were unable to afford to get an education.
I don't what you mean by 'moving forward' from what was a very progressive period when in fact we've moved BACK to before that progressive period.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)or the ability to collect every phone call. We haven't gone backward. Time doesn't turn backward, and history does not repeat itself, trite sayings to the contrary. No one had conversations with each other over the internet in the 1950s. Technology makes an enormous difference in society.
I think part of why people want to turn back to the 1960s because they want to recapture their youth. It's a phenomenon as old as time itself. While understandable in some ways, it is an exclusionary mindset. As much as baby boomers may think themselves center of the universe, it is less and less so every day.
I won't go back to a period when gay Americans had no rights or when women or people of color didn't have equal rights to work under the law. I don't accept a version of diversity that accepts subaltern groups only if they act and think like the dominant culture.
I know some here are nostalgic for that period. The hostility that toward perspectives of people of color and feminists reveals as much. In the end, it all amounts to nothing. They an rail on the intertubes all they want, but they can't succeed in turning the clock back, no matter how hard they try.
It's useful to have my theory confirmed though. I've been mulling it around for a while and it seems that it may have some truth to it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the very rights you claim to care so much about WERE FOUGHT FOR AND WON. Without the sixties and the people who risked their lives and their reputations and went out into the streets, some actually KILLED, thanks Nixon, there WOULD BE NO PROGRESS. Women and minorities would still be where they were in the fifties.
I have seen this before, this singling out of the sixties for attack, it's always been laughable to see those who hated that era BECAUSE of what was accomplished for women and for minorities and for the elderly and the sick.
Odd that you singled out the sixties, I'm familiar with the disdain for that era, but generally not on the Left.
Odd that you didn't say 'I don't want to go back to the FIFTIES, when we had McCarthy and spying on the 'Commies' and women were in the kitchen and 'belonged there' and didn't dare speak out for themselves.
No, you pick the period when all these oppressions were CHALLENGED. I would LOVE To have participated in that era. As a woman and a Democrat.
They had Television and Radio and Phones at that time, some people thought it was all that new technology that caused the problems with women and minorities thinking they had a right to raise their voices.
Technology has and always will be advancing since they first discovered fire.
We have done very little with all this new technology compared to what they accomplished in the 'sixties with the technology they put to so much good use. We need more people like those who were around back then. Before those who are here now take us all the way back to the fifties.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)and I have observed the sense that many would like to go back there, as you yourself just confirmed. I have no disdain for any period of history. I already told you that. Not wanting to turn the clock back is not disdain for history. That suggestion itself is strange one to me, since I am a trained historian. All historical time periods are important in different ways because in every time period people lived, loved, and struggled. Nostalgia is not history or historical understanding. Many rights were not won in the sixties but in the 70s all the way through the past few years for gay rights. What you express is precisely why I don't see this site as liberal or progressive. To look backward is to look to restore a period when the few had benefits over the majority. It is by definition reactionary.
Number23
(24,544 posts)That some here do so loudly, so moronically and so mortifyingly is exactly why I checked option "no."
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)works for racehorses, but it's not liberalism.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)That entirely distorts my point. I am a historian for God's sake. I look back more than most. What I don't seek to do is restore the past.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)If the entire social safety net were destroyed, you wouldn't want to try to revive the Great Society?
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)and turning the clock back. What I would do is do my hardest to make sure Social Security wasn't abolished. If it were, I would examine why and think about whether a better program could replace it.
The problem with turning back the clock to the 60s is that was a period when most of the population didn't have equal rights to education, jobs, marriage, property, etc. . . Turning backward is reactionary and exclusionary. It privileges a small segment of the population over the majority.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Very fucking few people fought against an unjust war. Very many people sat on their paisley-clad asses and opined that "war like sucks, man" and years later insisted that they were part of some great resistance.
There were real war resistors. Soldiers who refused to be deployed. Activists who broke into records. leaders who used their pulpit to lead against the trajectory - many of whom lost their lives over it. But the majority who claim this title of "fighting the war against the war" did nothing of the sort. They bought a bracelet, listened to some music, and hten voted for Ronald fucking Reagan "because, like, you can't trust the government, man!"
My problem isn't with the period of history but the entitled and self-righteous attitudes of the geezery old fucks, the lazy white bread middle-class suburban kids who demand handjobs for having metabolized glucose at some point between 1959 and 1970. These washed-out sellouts who think that because they had all the cream albums, they were part of some sort of "movement" and can lay claim to black empowerment, Stonewall, native rights, as if they were their own to take - and then sneer down their noses at the struggles of today as below their interest because "like, it was a purer time, man" - without ever acknowledging that it's their own dropping out, their own greed and entitlement, and their own fellows and political decisions that have made it so that battles from the nineteen-fucking-tens have to be re-fought.
I like the 60's, but most of the people who look back on the time and sigh as if they were a golden age can go get fucked with Barry Goldwater's withered zombie dick.
Tip on what doesn't work? Singing protest songs from the nineteen sixties. I like Joan Baez but jesus christ, singing at a problem doesn't cure it. Nor for that matter does drumming at it, waving a puppet at it, or any of the other self-masturbatory "protest" street theater tactics we inherited from this period. It's like Abbie Hoffman and Andy Kaufman got together one day to decide how to punk the shit out of everyone.
*INHALE*
...i guess my point is, people who go starry-eyed about the sixties make me chew my fucking teeth. Sorry for the rant but YEARGH
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)at all, or about ANY era. I am well aware that it is never a majority that makes the changes. If you go all the way back to the American Revolution, many of them had to be drafted to fight the Revolutionary War, many more were against it, even others remained loyal to the 'old country'. But a committed few managed to gain freedom from the Empire for everyone.
Same thing in the sixties. The major issues that were fought for and advanced were fought for by people who committed themselves knowing their causes were not popular. But you cannot deny, that they did change the course of history regarding Civil Rights and finally putting an end to a war, yes it was the veterans, same thing today, but others backed them up.
I don't know what your idea of history is, but it has NEVER Been the majority that changes things. I can't think of ANY historical changes in the course of history that happened because a majority supported them.
Most of the people I have met on the Far Right HATE the sixties. Because they would have been happier in the fifties. So defending the sixties accomplishments has become a habit with me after spending years arguing with right wingers who hate ANYTHING that advanced minority rights or protested a WAR which to them should be a permanent thing, killing people all over the world.
Sorry, but I react to someone who says 'I don't want to go back to the sixties' here on THIS forum, rather than 'I don't want to go back to the FIFTIES'. It's a reaction to eight years of Bushbots touting their 'heroes' who they THOUGHT must be all War Heroes, only to find out all of them were chickenhawks who SUPPORTED the wars, but refused to fight in them. Who oppposed
You are upset with that era because enough WASN'T DONE. THEY are upset because they wanted to stay in the Fifties. Rant away, it doesn't bother me at all and I agree, enough wasn't done, but some things were and Right Wingers will never forgive those 'hippies' for that.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I grew up surrounded by lost hippies and I swear to god if every memory they had of hte era wasn't cut directly out pf "easy rider" and "Alice's restaraunt" - also amusing to hear a bunch of furry white people declare themselves instrumental to the civil rights movement... then gripe about how "them n****rs is takin' everything over... there's gonna be a revolution!" - Ahhhh. southern-fried Hippybillies, gotta love 'em
...it's a nerve of mine, is all, and it's been worn raw on DU. so... hair trigger, I guess?
I would again draw exception to your characterization of the revolution - I would hardly call the result of feudal landowners and turf pirates slaughtering their countrymen in order to evade taxes and expand their personal holdings to be "freedom from empire" - particularly not for anyone even a shade down from rose pink.
Another point of argument? This idea that Americans had a say in ending the war. No. whether it's hippies slapping themselves on the back for it, or Birchers punching hippies in the head over it, it's a false narrative. protest and resistance against Vietnam was futile. By no means wasted - ethical gestures are always good - but they didn't change policy. The war ground on for nine years, protest be damned. It lasted until one side won - and one side did win, and it wasn't the United States. From what i can figure, both right and left have this stupid little patriotic suicide pact thing going where they claim it was the left in the US that ended the war - rather than nearly half the population of south Vietnam, bolstered by the North Vietnamese, who drove us the fuck out with an insurrection that should make even the Iraqis sit back and go "damn, y'all."
Like I said, I like the sixties. I admire the strides and achievements. I just don't like the people who are still living there, or who think simply existing made them part of "the movement" and worthy of fawning adoration.
Maybe it's just the nihilism of being on that narrow bridge between X and Y. Too young for the full grab bag of burn-it-down bullshit, but too old to pretend that the shitty state of things now is "normal."
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)what was or was not achieved. I know the protestors didn't end the war, we haven't been able to end all the ones we are now involved in either, and it's taken LONGER. But people tried at least, some refused to go, those are the heroes imo.
I haven't met the people you met, 'slapping themselves on the back' or whatever. The vets I've met are quiet, they rarely talk about their experiences so I have no idea what they did or didn't do.
As for the British Empire, you should read a bit about that empire, better yet, read about the places the invaded and the people they slaughtered around the world, the resources they stole. But that's the way it was then. I'm not sorry they were chased out of here. No one else was able to remove them from their land until they had stolen all they needed. Ironically we are pretty much doing what they did now.
Anyhow, rant all you want, everyone's experiences are different, but I wouldn't judge everyone from any era by the behavior of some. My beef with the sixties is the Bush Jr. Cheney Limbaugh types who glorify wars they avoided like the plague.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)See me talk about their postcolonial policies sometime!
Point is that the American revolution was a pretty severe step down for everyone who wasn't in that elite cabal of self-appointed Chosen Ones. when old rich white dudes pen laws that give only old rich white dudes the power to make law - and actually appoint power based on who owns the most brown people (remember, 3/5 of a person when determining congressional seats for each state, but none of the rights of a person, granting states with more slaves disproportionate power in the legislature!) - I just can't call that a liberation.
Aaaaanyway... i'mma go have a beer in another thread.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)was nearly forty.
Sounds like you'd like to be singing 'god save the queen'. I can't say I would. It's always better not to be anyone's 'subject' especially a second class 'subject'.
I kind of like the rights they gave to ordinary people, considering the times they were pretty radical.
Enjoy the beer.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You don't think you're someone's subject right now? Well. I guess that's what we're both angry about, innit?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a little after what happened here.
Ask South Africans eg, how they fared under Imperial rule, or India, before they took their country back, Ireland, or any number of nations where the Empire ruled.
As for being someone's subject, no, not so long as we have a Constitution and we know how they hate it, Bush was honest enough to verbalize it. Oddly enough that 'quaint' piece of paper is like a boulder in their way. Which is why they continue to chip away at it. And why the people are fighting back.
And if they don't fight back right now while they still can, then yes, we will be 'subjects'. But not yet thanks to those young guys from over two hundred years ago.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)Uh, incorrect: The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, The Haitian Revolution, The Mexican Revolution, The Chinese Revolution, Tupac Amaru II/Tupac Katari, and the Arab Spring. all come to mind.
Again, your continued distortion of my points is irritating. I do not and did not attack the accomplishments of the sixties, any more than any other period. I said I do not want to return to a period where people are denied basic rights, which was the case during the 60s. You can pretend turning the clock back is liberal all you want. It is simply false. It is to return to white male supremacist rule.
You want to go back to when married women could not own property, when it was legal to discriminate in hiring against people of color, women, and gay people. That may be many things, but liberal is not among them.
This idea of deciding some periods of history are good and some bad reveals a superficial view of history. Much of what you likely think are sixties movements began in the forties and fifties (Civil Rights) and continued well into the seventies (the Women's Movement). Gay rights movements scored their major victories far, far later. Your nostalgic view of the past also shows an outdated understanding of what history is, ignoring the fields of social and cultural history that date (among historians of the US) from the seventies and eighties.
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #111)
Post removed
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And when we kick off, we won't be tainting groundwater for decades with our 800-pound, pharmaceutically-mummified corpses.
So that's two things.
And face mullet? Now I KNOW you're just jealous.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)"Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!"
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)SKREEEEEAWWWWWNK!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Call me lowbrow, i don't fucking care.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Im bringing the whole phish-addled, mullet-minded brood.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Bring your latte
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)trust me, your industro-techno noise art 80s nostalgia doesn't come close to capturing the essential je ne sais quoi of the era. You haaaaaad to be there, brah.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)Is that my theory of a DU worldview has been confirmed several times in this thread.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but like many other things, that aint my fault.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Say it again!! And again!!!
I like the 60's, but most of the people who look back on the time and sigh as if they were a golden age can go get fucked with Barry Goldwater's withered zombie dick.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Not that I agreed with your rant, but that was hilarious
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Hmmm. personally I have no desire to go back to the 60s.... but, i do like to chillax in May of '77 from time to time.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There is certainly a liberal contingent, but there are more who are not liberal, more vocal and much ruder.
1000words
(7,051 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)it only seems that way since they *are* so vocal and rude. And some seem to be here only to put the place down, pissing and moaning within protected groups about the awful libruls who drove away so many brilliant posters...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the Anarchists?
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Promise.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Puglover
(16,380 posts)one poster actually opined that the reason 30+ posters had them on ignore was because they(the poster) was more loyal to President Obama then anyone else. Of course that's it dear.
I had a good laugh over that.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Thankfully they're easy to spot.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)group who are vocal and who appear to despise Liberal values, which is what this website advertises itself as. But happily those defenders and apologists for old Bush policies ARE a minority.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)why they support Bush's Massive Spying On the American People program eg. Or make excuses for his Drone Program. Or defend the Chained CPI, cuts to SS.
I point it out all the time directly to those who are supporting Bush policies.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Democrats are a heterogeneous party, therefore we have a wide range of opinions. Liberal is one part of the political spectrum represented within the Democratic party.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)moderate Republicans, until fairly recently. The Big Tent was intended to accept people into the fold who were generally not a part of the political arena, women, minorities etc. When did come to mean 'AND Republicans who get tired of the extremism of their own party'??
1000words
(7,051 posts)and they brought the GOP stink with them.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)simply because he was *nice* to Obama. Meanwhile, the big, bad libruls sat back thinking "chumps." Well, at least this librul.
And that's just for starters...
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)the margins are so thin in some of these states that we take who we can get.
That's life in politics, I'm afraid. *sigh*
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Of course, it's got room for a lot of varied opinions. Not everyone is going to view one idea as purely liberal as another. I don't think it's something you can nail down. I also think that most of us here at DU are accepting of other ideas and I also believe that many of us can appreciate a good spirited debate about ideas.
In the end, our common goals is what binds us together. We all want a better world that has no room for ignorance, racism or intolerance.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that worked so well for Republicans!
closeupready
(29,503 posts)And I'm about as liberal as it gets these days here abouts. Back in earlier times, I was sort of right-leaning Democrat.
It's still liberal, but not like it used to be, no.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am not one of those however...
Whisp
(24,096 posts)that I disagree with about 90% of the time so obviously I am seeing the question very differently.
There was a time that DU was a place of learning, now it's a ragefest and the rages are usually against the President rather than the fucking baggers or libertarians. It's come so far down hill it's in the swamp now.
GoCubsGo
(32,100 posts)Where I live, most people would consider pretty much everyone here a "liberal". Hell, a bunch of them are trying to run Lindsay Graham out of office because HE is "too liberal". It's all a matter of perspective.
And, I dare say that it depends on the subject. Some here hold very liberal views on some matters, but are less so with others. Kind of a mixed bag...
Laelth
(32,017 posts)As I've said before, DU is the premier internet forum for liberal American political discussion.
Those who want to claim the site for the Democratic Party (which is occasionally liberal) are now and probably will remain outnumbered by liberals (most of whom happen to vote for Democrats).
-Laelth
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus
Hmm ... no affiliation. Seems pretty clear to me.
-Laelth
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that doesn't make the least bit of sense....I'd say calling yourself Democratic...means you are affiliated with Democrats...don't you?
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I don't think I can help you here.
-Laelth
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I don't I am satisfied with it just the way it is!
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)adj.
1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.
2. pertaining to or characterized by political or social equality.
3. advocating or upholding democracy.
And of course...
4. (cap.) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party.
Think, it does a body good.
Cha
(298,019 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 5, 2014, 06:08 AM - Edit history (2)
because the Admins(Skinner, EarlG, and Elad) started it as an answer to the bush-cheney coup of 2000.
Actually it was official 1-20-2001
"Democratic Underground, also known as DU, is an online community for U.S. Democrats. Its membership is restricted by policy to those who are supportive of the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates for political office.[2] DU was established on January 20, 2001, the day Republican George W. Bush was inaugurated president."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground
And, I've read a post by Skinner that said he's a "strong Obama supporter".
So, no matter what it said.. we're right at home, VanillaRhapsody~
[font color=red]Edit:[/font] Corrected the date..
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)anyone supporting the Democratic President that and off this board apparently...there seems to be chronic complaints...
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Cha
(298,019 posts)Cha
(298,019 posts)"rude" according to those who want purification. Projection much?
Speaking of the Democratic President..
Opportunity for All: Connect-ED
President Obama visits Buck Lodge Middle School
James Richardson, principal of Buck Lodge Middle School, celebrates with his students and teachers after President Barack Obama spoke at their school
http://theobamadiary.com/2014/02/04/opportunity-for-all-connect-ed/
Number23
(24,544 posts)Though I had to chuckle at folks trying to pretend that DU is a liberal board and not created BY Democrats to support the Dem party. This bit in the About section says it all:
We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office.
Cha
(298,019 posts)I'm pretty damn Liberal.. You too, 23!
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.(Lots of Pizza!
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal
Semantics.. we are who we are and it's good to be here among the reality based community, Number23
23~
I've been a Democrat since 1982, and a liberal even longer than that.
I don't know about you, but I'm beyond tired of the never ending insinuations being tossed about, that some of us are "conservatives," "right-wingers, "Reagan Democrats," or worse.....because we don't march in lockstep with the chronically perturbed among us.
I don't have a conservative bone in my body, never have, and I'll be damned if
I'm going to let some raging nihilist refer to me, or other good DU'ers, as conservative ANYTHING. It's offensive, and a damn lie.
Keep doing what you do, Cha.
Cha
(298,019 posts)And, it's "rude".
Scuba
(53,475 posts)I've been a member for four years.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)I represent the more moderate-conservative side of the Democratic party. I voted Hillary in the '08 primaries, and I'll support her in 2016 -- and I'm in an increasing minority on this site.
DU is the home of the Elizabeth Warren/Howard Dean/Alan Grayson wing of the party -- and is getting more so.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Hillary supporters and Warren supporters should enter any dialogue with the following in mind:
"Either of these women would be a far better President than Ted Cruz/Sarah Palin/Mike Huckabee/Chris Christie/Paul Ryan"
and also keep in mind (as Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have both shown)
"There will be times that the person we elected will let us down and piss us off, and there's no way that they keep all of their promises"
If DUers could do two things, I wish that they would be:
1) Focus a lot less on fighting with one-another, and focus on the forces outside of DU that seek to make us subservient to the 1%
and
2) Focus more on what Barack Obama has done right than what he's failed to do.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Hillary would be better than Ted Cruz/Sarah Palin/Mike Huckabee/Chris Christie/Paul Ryan.
Elizabeth would be better than Hillary. Why settle?
Celebrate the good things Barack has done, criticize the bad things.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Hillary is far more experienced and effective than Elizabeth. However, I certainly agree with you on the Ted Cruz/Sarah Palin/Mike Huckabee/Chris Christie/Paul Ryan part.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)I also don't think Hillary can win.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)First and foremost, the banking/finance sector will offer record financing to oppose her. The "Indian Princess" thing will get brought up again, and she'll simply be painted as inexperienced (although she'll have the same experience Obama had) and lacking in foreign policy credibility.
Hillary: yes, Benghazi will be brought up, as well as the Rose Law Firm documents and perhaps Vince Foster. But Hillary has been first lady, Senator from one of America's largest states, and Sec State. She has unparalleled credentials. And Bill will campaign for her, and 70% of the public thinks highly of Bill, and he'll likely become Sec State or UN Ambassador (Chelsea will be hostess in chief).
Christie was the GOPs best hope. Unless they can convince Condi Rice to run (and she has her own baggage), I think the GOP is stuck for a viable candidate this time out.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)I even created a helpful thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024444708
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)There are people that call themselves democrats because they don't fit with the republican party any longer and the left has shifted so far to the right that liberals seem to be a dying breed.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)with several annoying "exceptions"
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Where there are always a lot of "he deserves to die horribly" posts.
Notafraidtoo
(402 posts)I think Democrats on this board are older but also not old enough to be liberal in the true sense, a lot of Gen X and Boomers who are more conservative then millennials on social and economic issues, but they are also more conservative then the greatest generation on economic issues.
There is far too much sexism, gun worship, Milton Friedman agreement, homophobia, support of privatization of schools, anti science talk, anti intellectualism etc. for this to be a true Liberal site but with that said its liberal enough not to turn my stomach and there is a lot of smart Liberals here.
I am sure you will call me a purist but i am just calling it like i see it, i love it here but it would be nice if we lost a few center righties and conservatives who stalk the feminist, Gays and pro gun regulation supporters on this board.
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)It sure as hell isn't anti-establishment or radical.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)(if you know what I mean....)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Laxman
(2,419 posts)Then I'm afraid I can't come here anymore!
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)that there have been hundreds of posters here complaining about Obama and the Democratic Party itself not being liberal enough and somehow being "center-right". In addition, I've seen tons of ideas on here that are not even part of mainstream politics whether it's raising the minimum wage to $30 per hour, making college tuition free, or election reform. There's no question that this place is a liberal bastion.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)are FAR right.
Fighting to cut Social Security... bankers uber alles... "free" trade deals... trying to reduce the corporate tax rate...
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)You might want to read it some time.
The Party Candidates, however, are a mixed bag, they are 40% liberal, 45% centrist, and 15% conservatives in there.
You can look at their leaning here: http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/legislative-scorecards/
pampango
(24,692 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I think most of us are now Liberals.
Ohio Joe
(21,776 posts)There are a number of member who openly and proudly profess points of view and opinions I do not consider liberal in any way. That they are allowed to stay, indicates to me that it is not a liberal site.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I would certainly allow some leeway but there would be limits.
Phentex
(16,334 posts)Some of the comments here are so anti liberal (I mean BASIC stuff and not necessarily bleeding heart liberal) that ya gotta wonder why they are even here.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)it is liberal in that it allows progressives, centrists, and even a few conservatives to post here as long as they follow the guidelines.
Rex
(65,616 posts)About Democratic Underground
Mission Statement
"Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:
Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!"
What do you think?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)I hope it is that. If it isn't, many of us should probably leave.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)There's progressive liberal, moderate liberal, traditional liberal, 3rd way liberal, freedom of choice of candidate liberal, and you will bump into problems when you post from one view or another...
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It's a Democratic board, and Democrats tend to be liberal.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)That's my question.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Perhaps they are perceiving a change in the atmosphere.
Perhaps some other people also perceive a change in the atmosphere.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)I was just asking people here generally.
An extreme example would be, say, a feminist posting on a MRA forum or a civil rights activist posting on SF.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I've posted on conservative boards before, a lot of DUers have.
Clearly the idea that DU was once liberal and now is not liberal has substantial support.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)And you are seeing people of all stripes on both sides of the issue, so it's not like the issue is slanted. I see pragmatists and purists on both sides of the vote.
It's possible the poll starts slanting against the liberals here, who actually come here because we like how liberal DU is, but who knows.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I don't even care about the politics so much any more, I'm here more out of habit than anything else.
DU as a refuge from the relentless pushing of right wing memes was dead quite a while ago, there really isn't anywhere to get away from it any more.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)And I think that's why a lot of people voted "used to be." There is a lot of crap our President does that we don't like, and we fight about it. The thing that bugs me the most is that the Obama defenders actually do agree that certain policies are crappy, but they still support Obama even when they disagree. So others claim that those policy positions are positions Obama defenders agree with. A lack of criticism for something does not mean an endorsement for it!
It just means people prefer to keep a shut lip than denigrate the President.
In fact, some of the biggest flamewars here are when Obama defenders cite certain things about the President's policies positively, when those policies are on the precipice of being a disaster. Syria comes to mind. When it was pointed out that Kerry was fighting hard for diplomacy and some Obama defenders correctly predicted that was the more logical route, they were put in the same camp as the extremely small minority that wanted to bomb Syria (we're talking 2 users I can name and maybe a dozen total, on a site with hundreds of thousands of posters).
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It may be unfair but it's human nature. Watching the sex wars recently has been illuminating, the only way to win is to refuse to play, anyone who wades into that is going to get splattered with far worse than mud.
The level of cynicism here is encouraging, people are really starting to pay attention more to deeds and less to words. It's also starting to dawn on people that ground is being given on the social issues in order to keep the economic ones out of the spotlight as much as possible.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)I've also found that the shut lipped people are also more politically involved and like political analysis more than those who are often so critical.
This is very much what I'm trying to say. I don't jump in those threads though I did comment about three or four times to clear up a misconception on the Woody Alan threads. I hold very strong opinions on that issue but it's just not worth it. That doesn't mean I endorse Woody Alan or Dylan Farrow, it means I just don't want to state my opinion. I see a lot of people I respect here on both sides of the issue. So I stay out of it.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Else what's the point of having teams?
But bear in mind that the desire for being on a team is like any other human desire, it runs on a bell curve. There are those who live, eat and breathe being part of a team, Schutzstaffel, say and on the other tail of the curve you have Ted Kaczynski.
I'm something of a minor guru on how to write OPs in GD that vanish without so much as a ripple.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024353051
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)But i've seen an uptick in people mentioning the formerly liberal board or the supposedly liberal board.
I think many people here have a narrow view of what it means to be liberal and exclude those who don't fit neatly in their category.
Bryant
wocaonimabi
(187 posts)If the Democratic Party wants to evolve into a more conservative party that is fine, the Democratic party was the Party of Racists and Bigots at one time many remember those days too but the GOP seems to have a lock on that now so I am not too concerned about that happening again but the Democratic Party Leadership is choosing corporations over people and that is a big problem long term and short term for the party. The ONLY reason the Democratic Party, as a whole, is preferred by most is because the GOTEA Baggers are batshit crazy and the Democrat wins just by being the lesser of 2 evils.
At some point being the lessor of 2 evils will no longer work. The Democratic Party needs to pick what it wants to be the Party of the people or the party of the Corporations and 1%.
They cant have it both ways.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)It is still the most active board that has liberals as a part of it. It is NOT a liberal board.
edit - I wish it were a liberal board. I wish our party was liberal.
I am a "Purity Troll" and damn proud of it. Get your pile of shit right wing politics back over to the Republican party where they (and you) belong!!!!! <<<< Generic statement directed at right wingers/infiltrators/trolls, not any any specific poster.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)A liberal believes that government should have a role in protecting the weak against the strong. I believe the vast majority at DU believe that.
Things liberals tend to support
The rights of the poor to be protected from the rights of the wealthy
The rights of racial minorities to be protected from the tyranny of racial majorities
The rights of religious minorities to be protected from the tyranny of religious majorities
The equality of the genders
Equality of sexual orientation
Things conservatives tend to support
Conservatives tend to admire and support strength and conformity. In this context, strength is used broadly. The strength of large landowners, or large corporations, and of wealthy individuals. Conservatives tend to value these people. They admire guns in the context that they represent strength. They value defense spending because it is important that America "maintain a leadership position in the world." Conservatives tend to value conformity and appearances, and tend too dislike and distrust people who think, look, or worship in ways different than their own.
Why we don't get along
Conservatives see the protection of the weak to be at the expense of the strong, and question why it is fair to protect the weak. A good demonstration of this line of thought can be seen in a discussion of bullying: a liberal will tend to immediately sympathize with the bullied, and criticize the lack of protections against bullying in workplaces or schools. A conservative will see the creation of a "victim mentality" and offer the criticism that the response to bullying is not to seek protection from authorities, but to simply fight back.
Odd exceptions
From the conservative viewpoint, abortion rights represent hypocrisy on the part of liberals. Given the view that life begins at conception, rather than birth, conservatives assert that abortion represents the ultimate tyranny of the strong over the defenseless. The liberal counter criticism is two-fold; a) the right of the woman to carry or not carry a baby is absolute and b) that conservatives seem obsessed with the rights of the pre-born, but seem (relatively) unconcerned with the rights of the born -- especially if the "born" happen to be the offspring of persons not conforming to their ideals.
The right to bear arms is, at its core, a liberal concept. It is, in fact, the rights of states and individuals to protect themselves not only against predators, but against tyrannical governments. However, today's liberals tend to see firearms as a tool of the bully, while conservatives admire firearms as a symbol of power.
Where DU unity tends to break down
"For just one reason": In the 70s, there was a joke that a conservative "...was a liberal who'd been mugged." Starting in the 90s, a similar axiom developed; a liberal was a conservative who had a loved one get sick. Many people are Democrats or Republicans not because they buy into a whole slate of party viewpoints, but they agree with one issue that is critical or crucial to them. Hence those who support gun rights or wish to end legal abortion vote Republican, even if they disagree with Republican views on issues such as marriage equality or tax policy. Those who support unions, want a national health plan, or who favor marriage equality tend to support the Democrats -- even if they disagree with the Democrats on fiscal policies.
..except for many DUers tend to agree with the things most other DUers ostensibly believe "except for". "I agree with the Democrats on everything except for the death penalty except for abortion rights; except for gun ownership; except for ...you get the idea.
Conformity and intolerance In what can only be described as irony, two of the values most often associated with liberals have begun to permeate DU. Conformity and intolerance. In this context, I'm speaking of "tolerance" in the sense that the founding fathers spoke of "religious tolerance." There was a notion that even if an Anglican didn't agree with a Catholic, there should be a tolerance of their differing belief. Increasingly, a vocal segment of DU is becoming intolerant of any faith based belief system. Those who express a religions belief are often shamed and ridiculed here.
Conformity is another growing trend here on DU. I'll point to post 24 & 29 in this thread:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024444708#post24
Increasingly, posters who don't buy into every single position of another poster are accused of being Freepers, DLCers, or Dick Cheney. There is a decrease in tolerance for the variances of opinion among what is, at it's heart, a community of Liberals.
The primaries Do I have to explain this? "Hillary" "Elizabeth" "Hillary!" "ELIZABETH"