Has anyone else noticed a change in this place?

I'm not sure how long I've been posting here, but it's been over 5 years. It used to be I felt at home here. Maybe the belligerence has been here the whole time and I just didn't notice?

Has anyone else noticed the change, or is it just me?

Once the democratic nominee is settled DU will unite behind him or her and go all out to defeat the repuke nominee. Or am I dreaming?

Meanwhile... channel this: Run, Al, run!

There was the same thing, but once John Kerry got the nomination, pretty much the majority of people threw their support behind him.

Prior to that, it was almost unbearable because the Howard Dean supporters were so....obsessive, shall I say.

Once Kerry got the nomination though, everyone did rally behind him.

I suspect there was a bit of pruning, or encouragement to 'self-prune', in addition.

for a new Democratic forum to join.

At least DU has moderators, so some of the worst of it tends to get filtered out.

Making life hell for us volunteer rabble rousers.

And just who are they?

:rofl:

Gee, they don't show paystubs but it has been in the news that it happens.

or maybe bored repugs...

DU is since I did that.

Lots of "spamm-ish" hatemongering posts from the same characters again and again and again......

The ignore list is a wonderful thing. I don't have that many on it, but I like to enjoy my internet experience and really don't see the need to have someone upsetting that.

ignore list.

So I put the OP on ignore, too.

:P

The people on my ignore list are clearly not major contributors to important discourse.......all they do is "spam".

and think we don't notice...
:evilgrin: :hi: :rofl:
BHN

Their spam posts in the lounge were still on the Discussion page. I think they were why the lounge posts now don't appear on Discussion, but just in the lounge.

None of those folks post on DU anymore, interestingly. They must have just changed their names and are still playing the same game.

Leopards don't change their spots and all that.
Thank goodness for the "ignore" feature.
BHN

as the country goes down, and the divisions between the "left" and "right" wings of the party are widening. This is reflected here on DU. But I don't know if this is necessarily a bad thing. Crisis brings the possibility of change.

The deep division between progressives and DLCers is reflected here.

I'm a lifelong dem, but am apparently not progressive enough for some on here. So I've regualarly been trashed, accused of spewing RW talking points, called a freeper, etc. It's really not very enjoyable to be personally attacked for voicing what is really just political discourse.

I like discussing politics and social issues from different angles, tossing out hypotheticals, maybe even playing devil's advocate on occasion. And I like to question assumptions. But man -- there are some folks on here who want strict progressive party-line agreement on all issues, period.

There are some very bright people on here who like to talk politics. And there are some on here who just have blind hatred and want nothing more than to attack those who disagree. Anyone can attack. It is a sign of intelligence to be able to debate and support one's position. I wish there was more of that on here.

They've sent Katty Kay on the Election trail and she brought it up.

too ugly and uninformative for me.

if you like DU.. stick around cause everyday is different.

Whoever gets elected is going to make our life a lot better.

now we have to wait till more hundreds of days.
and Then....

we will wait some more.

It was getting really trolly feeling, now it feels that it's shifted down to somewhat trolly feeling at times instead of all the time.

:shrug: MKJ

I always come back, tho, sick fuck that I am.

everyone knows that you just went away to sit in front of your teevee to ogle Keifer Sutherland's butt.

:rofl:

You made me all mirthful while I was cooking up some pissed-off stew regarding another thread.

Now you stay far enough way from that teevee so you don't mess up your vision.

Now I am officially ""down".

"I am down and I can't get up."

Maybe some Viagra might do the trick...

I will probably never get "up", again.

You will be hearing from my attorneys.

Conjugal crap and all that business.

I got nothing.

I think it started a little earlier this time, but if '04 is an indication, it's only going to get worse from now until we have a nominee (perhaps longer).

Then I hope that those who are commenting some very ugly and unfortunate things about her now, WILL rally around her then and support the woman.

Myself, my candidate is John Edwards, but if Hillary gets the nomination, then she'll get my FULL support.

I think this race is going to come down to John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, ONE of them I feel WILL become our nominee, and the other I would hope would become the nominees Veep choice.

An essential point to remember, and in the heat of passion, easy to forget, is that a democratic president, no matter who, should be easier to convince of my point of view than a republican, who il likely to be hostile to my point of view, no matter what.

Starting with someone who is at least a little more likely to be sympathetic can't help but be better than the opposite.

Going to be better than a Fred Thompson or a Rudy Guiliani.

That's what people should keep in mind....that if the 2008 Presidential Election comes down to being between Hillary Clinton v Fred Thompson or Hillary Clinton v Rudy Guiliani....then it's imperative to throw FULL support behind Hillary to ensure that the election isn't another close one and thus doesn't involve any of the sort of hanky-panky that often goes on in close elections.

If Hillary becomes the nominee, then she needs FULL support, to make sure she wins and wins BIG.

One would hope that the number of votes that can be stolen or discouraged would be finite, so a solid win would help eliminate the possibility of another Supreme Court decision or another Ohio '04.

Check the mentality displayed in post # 31....the Naderite 2000 Mentality is STILL in existence.

They seem to be happy to FU up 2008, like they helped to FU the 2000 Presidential Election.

Not all DUers are Democrats, and I don't mean trolls or Republicans.

I understand that not ALL DUers are Democrats, but I also don't appreciate that those who aren't Democrats take some odd delight in bashing our people, be it Hillary or whoever.

If you can understand my point about that.

On Edit: Added comment

My point kind of leads to yours. Many DUers aren't Democrats, so they don't feel any obligation to support Democrats out of party loyalty or whatever. Many of them think that all of the Democrats (except, apparently, Dennis Kucinich) aren't any better than the Republicans, so they have no qualms in saying so. To them, bashing Hillary or Barack or John is no different than bashing Bush or Cheney.

As bizarre as that concept is to me personally (anyone who thinks that Gore and Bush were equivalent, for example, is insane in my opinion), people profess belief in it all the time.

Methinks that denial isn't just a river.

This is a very important election, and I think we're going to need as many votes as we can get. People need to remember that the election isn't just about the presidency - we also have the opportunity to solidify the House and the Senate.

The Senate and the House need to be remembered as well, we especially need to solidify the Senate.

WILL NOT support her if somehow she becomes the nominee.

Last I checked, there wasn't a Corporatist Party.

And the Democratic Party has NEVER been a Socialist Party.

the Democratic Party opposes the recognition of society's responsibilities to the individual.

Principles of the Democratic Party and then read what the Socialist's have always wanted....the Democratic Party has NEVER been Socialist.

It's nothing to do with "societies responsibility to the individual", it's much more than that, read up on Socialism and you'll find that the Democratic Party has NEVER espoused a Socialist platform.

For instance, whenever have the Democratic Party EVER suggested to return ALL Industry into the FULL control of the Government ie. the State? Never, that's when.

Hugo Chavez is a Socialist....have the Democratic Party EVER espoused what Chavez espouses? No.

The Democratic Party are a Liberal Centrist party and always have been....we've never been a Socialist party....EVER.

Here read about Socialism and WHAT Socialism IS and what Socialists WANT....NONE of what they want has EVER been espoused by the Democratic Party:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

The MAIN thing Socialists want is REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, the Democratic Party HAS NEVER espoused THAT....here it is, in the opening paragraph:

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community<1> for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production."


WHOEVER believes in THAT, is NOT a Democrat.


Here read about The Democratic Party and WHAT the Democratic Party IS and what Democrats WANT....NONE of it is Socialist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29

And NOTE: The Democratic Party are described as:

Political ideology American Liberalism

American Progressivism

Social liberalism

Political position Fiscal: Centrist


NO Socialism OR Socialist included THERE either....as I stated, the Democratic Party are a LIBERAL CENTRIST party and always have been.



On Edit: Links

So, in the economic relationship between and individual and his/her society, the Democratic Party assumes society has no responsibility to the individual?

The Democratic Party have never been a Socialist party, it's NOT just about society having a responsibility to the individual.

This is the MAIN set of beliefs that Socialists have, and the Democratic Party has NEVER believed in Redistribution of Wealth and Redistribution of Property and State CONTROL of pretty much EVERYTHING, if people believe in the below, then they're not a Democrat:

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community<1> for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production."

From my link from earlier, here's the link again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

and I am more interested in exploring more organic ideas, not just what someone tells you to think. But before I leave the topic of your links, I call your attention to the phrase "broad array" and no matter how "often" something is characterized in a particular way, that doesn't make it **necessarily** so.

Leaving aside, for a moment, How a Socialist principle is made manifest, whether control is acquired by means of take over or through taxation, are you telling me that the Democratic Party rejects that society has any responsibility to its individual members?

The Democratic Party created the Social Security program, and we remain 100% committed to ensuring that the Social Security safety net remains in place and NOT privatized in ANY way.

But supporting the Social Security safety net ISN'T a Socialist principle.

That you don't want to read the links I provided is your choice, I'm also not sure how providing links that give the ACTUAL definition of Socialism and how Socialism has NEVER been ANY part of the Democratic Party....I'm not sure how providing links that give the actual definition is being NOT organic.

Reactionary politics never leads.

Taking over the means of production doesn't make something Socialistic. It's the principle that the group has specific responsibilities to its members that is Socialistic. How those responsibilities are defined and implemented can vary widely. For example, we live in a system of Corporate Socialism now. It's an example of how the responsibilities have been defined in certain ways for individuals who are defined as corporations. To the extent that the Democratic Party stands for the rights of corporations over the rights of individuals it IS a party that supports Corporate Socialism.

Why are there things like minimum wage?

Or OSHA?

Or unions that support Democrats?

Or child labor laws?

Or environmental standards (strengthened by Democrats, weakened again by BushCo)?

Or any number of other things that protect workers' rights over company profit? I'm not saying corporations are doing enough by any means -- but I'm thinking it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that Democrats put corporate "rights" over the rights of individuals.

Some can see how absurd it is to suggest that the Democratic Party put corporate rights over the rights of individuals.

as a socialist?

If so, I would suggest that you do a little research.

Read my links, because my links sort of explode the myth that he believes that the Democratic Party is a Socialist party....which as we know, the Democratic Party isn't and never has been.

Not too hard to figure that one out, hmm?

If Democratic = Socialist, why would Democratic need to exist?

Since you insist on being intentionally obtuse, there seems to be little reason to continue this conversation.

Good night.

I don't think I should apologize for being "obtuse" because you, apparently, can't handle a few questions about what you think.

You can't even handle reading and facing links that I provided....you asked ME to define what Socialism is, and when I provided links that defined Socialism for you, links which showed that the Democratic Party has never been a Socialist party....you admitted you never read the links, brushed them aside and continued clutching at straws and then also proceeded to try and move the goalposts.

You wasn't engaging in conversation, now were you?

I WAS attempting to have a sensible discussion with you.

the principle that society has specific responsibilities to its members.

Some people don't seem to grasp the concept that not all Democrats are liberals.

Liberal Centrist party....it appears some people aren't really even aware of what a Liberal or a Centrist even ARE.

That some people would think that the Democratic Party espouse or has EVER espoused Socialist principles, is absolutely baffling and rather bizarre.

Or would you prefer to tell us?

Explained this on two other threads.

why should I be bothered to go look those up.

What sort of national healthcare are you talking about?

I prefer expanded health insurance via tax credits for those people who are uninsured.

I'm against single-payer Universal Health Care.

These are both DLC positions as well, and I HOPE that I'm now not going to get slapped upside the head for saying that I'm not in favor of single-payer Universal Health Care.

I would though like to see EVERY child given adequate and full health insurance, I feel that there's a moral duty to ensure that ALL children have full health insurance.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

that no "Democrat" could support the principle that society has specific obligations to its individual members, i.e. be Socialistic.

If you re-read my comments, what I actually said was, that it was MUCH MORE than "society having specific obligations to it's individual members"

And as I said that it was MUCH MORE, I provided you with links to SHOW you that it was MUCH MORE....links that you decided not to read.

Well yes, it is also about the individual's obligations to society. And since those two elements are the foundation upon which everything else is built they are the essence of the Democratic Party.

ONE thing and IGNORING the things that my provided links up thread show what the bigger picture is?

It's MORE than "individual's obligation to society"

If you're unable to comprehend and understand, I'm sorry.

I don't go in for going around and around in circles, I've already illustrated my points adequately and logically, and also I took the time to provided links to fully back-up what I was saying....of course you admitted that you couldn't even be bothered reading said links that I provided, because they weren't going to tell you WHAT you wanted to hear, which was this myth that the Democratic Party is a Socialist party.

The situation, without wanting to be arrogant is, that what I said is accurate, and you're deliberately skirting around the entire issue and being deliberately obtuse, because I think that's all you've got....my links shot holes in your argument and you're now pretty much just clutching at your ONE straw, this thing that you keep obsessively mentioning.

Bottom line as ever, the Democratic Party has NEVER been a Socialist party and the Democratic Party has NEVER espoused Socialist ideals nor has the Democratic Party EVER included Socialist ideals in the party platform...NEVER in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the Democratic Party and we NEVER will either.

The Democratic Party are and have always been a Liberal Centrist party....I deal in facts, not fiction.

.... continuing to spend 25% of every health care dollar on administration makes a lot of sense.

They've apparently forgotten the Blue Dog Dems and some rather moderate Dems like Tom Daschle, Ben Nelson, or many of the Dems in the "red" states. They didn't get elected because they're liberal.

Find the Blue Dog Democrats to be alienating to me, however I recognize them as members of my party, as members of OUR party.

Oh heck, don't get me started on Ben Nelson of Nebraska, he's LITERALLY my least favorite Senator.

I mean, a Democrat can be a Centrist Democrat (economically conservative and socially liberal) and get elected in a Red State, ala Senator Evan Bayh, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Bill Nelson et al....WITHOUT voting 99% of the time with the GOP.

Bayh, Landrieu, Bill Nelson et al, are Centrist Democrats from Red States and they vote LIKE Centrist Democrats.

Ben Nelson of Nebraska on the otherhand, I dunno, his voting record is 99% Republican, he's the new Zell Miller as far as I'm concerned.

That's really my point. Some people believe that anyone that doesn't pass their own personal ideological purity test isn't a "real" Democrat.

In my opinion, anyone who self-identifies himself or herself as a Democrat (a politician running as a (D), a voter registering as a (D), etc.) is a Democrat. I don't have to agree with them (and I certainly don't agree with Ben Nelson on many, many things) to acknowledge that they're still Democrats.

About the fact that people really ought not to issue these personal ideological purity tests and Litmus Tests, where that unless a politician votes 100% of the time the way YOU want that politician to vote, you're immediately willing to declare said politician totally unworthy and are ready to just throw them away.

I was just saying, with regard to Ben Nelson, like with Zell Miller before him, I do have a really difficult time observing Ben Nelson's voting record, where exactly he's Democratic EVEN like 20% of the time.

I don't agree with the way he votes, and I personally think he's a weasel, but after living in a state that is roughly 70% Republican, and where Democrats are generally pretty moderate, I understand why he does it.

This may surprise you, but Ben's voting record is actually about 50/50. Unfortunately, he tends to vote the wrong way on a lot of big issues and that makes it seem even worse than it actually is.

Bob Kerrey's voting record similar to Ben Nelson's?

Sorry I have no recollection of what Bob Kerrey's voting record was like.

I'm not sure why/how he got away with that in Nebraska. Maybe it's because he was dating Debra Winger part of the time. :)

I really hope that he runs against Johanns in '08. That would be some race.

But isn't that strange that Kerrey and Nelson have such a radically different voting record.

Kerrey seems popular still, I bet he could beat Johann's.

It has all the makings of a high-profile, nasty, tightly-contested race. I really have no clue which way it would go. Kerrey's been out of NE politics for a while, but he was also very popular. Johanns has a more recent NE political presence, but he's also been out of town (in DC, of course) for a while.

It's either a political junkie's dream or nightmare. Not sure which!

Closeness to George W. Bush and the W Administration damage him to the point that Bob Kerrey could capitalize on it, to tip any election in Kerrey's favor?

Last time I checked, NE was still in the top five or so in support for Bush. He's still in the 50% range there, as compared to his ~30% nationally.

That being said, there has been a definable shift in NE. Bush's 50% approval is a significant shift from his 70/30 win in '04. A couple of (R) candidates that seemed to be headed toward easy wins in '06 had much more difficult races than anticipated. That shift could very well help Kerrey.

On that note, I need to call it an evening. Take care, and we'll meet again, I'm sure. :)

How after ALL of the mess Bush has created that he can still have 50% support anywhere, is just mind-boggling.

Hopefully the other shift in numbers might help Kerrey though.

Yeah I'd better call it an evening as well, it's been enjoyable having this discussion, you take care as well....and I hope we do meet again :)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

where have you been, dear? in the land of freedom and justice, the alter universe?

"Hillary isn't a Democrat" is a false statement.

If you believe otherwise, define "Democrat".

Here, I'll help you. Anyone who self-identifies as a Democrat is a Democrat. End of story.

does that make you feel better? not me.
I think others are better representatives of what Democrat really means. so far Kucinich is the only one I see.

Or perhaps "progressive"?

The terms are not interchangeable. I'm not sure why some many people don't seem to understand that.

Kucinich seems to have the interests of the people in mind -prog, dem, left, doesn't matter. Clinton and most of the rest are only concerned about their big donating members buying their souls and others they are supposedly representing, out a piece at a time (and getting Great stock Options to boot! )

They like us arguing amongst each other about things like abortion and gay marriage so that they can sneak those in power that continue to put in corporate personhood supporting judges, etc. that are all part of the Federalist Society up and down the judiciary. Even Rehnquist had more ethics regarding those sort of issues than the wonks getting put in there now! It IS a corporate takeover, and we can't just be blurring our eyes on "party lines" any more!

And when that Republican President tries to privatize Social Security and puts two more Right-Wing Judges on the SCOTUS, and when he starts wars with Iran, Syria and whoever else....then it'll be people like YOUR'S fault and responsibility....okay?

Sad to see, that the same mentality that voted for Ralph Nader INSTEAD of Al Gore in 2000 and HELPED to deliver George W. Bush to the WH....sad to know that you've learned nothing these past seven years and would openly help deliver ANOTHER Neo-Conservative into the WH in 2008.

Your face is going to look rather odd when you cut your nose off to spite it.

Maybe the Democratic party, rather than alienate the left from the center by nominating a polarizing baggage-laden windsock who isn't going to turn one red state, ought to get behind a candidate that will unite them instead. Don't blame US for bad candidates who chose to believe the worst president in history when lives were on the line.

I VOTED for Gore and Kerry. Both won, yet somehow, the Failure Fuhrer remained president.

I mean, are you trying to perpetuate the illusion that our vote COUNTS? Nominating a Murdoch-annointed pro-war, pro-free-trader corporatist against . . . another Murdoch-annointed, war-enabling, pro-free-trader corporatist with a (D) in front of her name is DEMOCRACY?

Moving to the right hasn't worked. At all. All it's done is caused more death and lost jobs.

And you DO know that 2000 and 2004 were stolen . . . right?

You DO know that America's money men were GOING to install their guy come hell or high water . . . right?

You DO know that our candidates had, and still do have, a mountain of complicit media, Republican-owned corporations and 50-something million voters who continue to keep believing whatever their televisions tell them . . . right?

You cannot blame the voter. EVER. Blame the candidate for not being convincing enough to GET votes and MAKE it a mandate.

Their side is going to vote for a shitbag no matter what, because they're fucking idiots who don't give a shit about their country; only about themselves and their precious "safety".

Our task is a little bit more complicated to fuck it up like we're currently in the process of doing. Allowing corporations to pick our candidate for us is disgusting. THAT is a wasted vote AND a wasted democracy.

Does she really think that putting together a money, influence and media machine to make her the Democratic nominee is gonna be good for our party? Does she really think that making her divisive self President is gonna be good for our country?

I don't see how, but I will put this in my journal so three years from now (or 14 months from now in the case of the party - I still think Hillary CAN win the White House, but that she will bring a Republican House and Senate with her.) I can either say "I fu$%ing told you so!" or be happy to admit that the iceberg I saw coming was not a real threat.

and show everybody how it's done?

Never mind that it deflects from the candidate's performance and puts the onus on someone who ISN'T a politician running for office.

I don't know, here's a start: I have that little common sense, just and peaceful notion of putting PEOPLE's needs before those of corporations. I think you can find at least several million people in this country who would want to govern that way. Why should I expect someone actually RUNNING for office and has experience IN the political sector to think the same way?

After all, there MUST have been an incredibly valid reason we plebes simply just aren't seein' to believe the worst president in history and vote for not only the green light on VietRaq, but potentially Iran as well.

I imagine that Hillary knows SO much more than me about the history of aggressive, bloody and genocidal conflicts against sovereign nations and how they almost ALWAYS end up a success for the aggressor. There's no question that a candidate should never have to apologize for setting in motion the pouring of gasoline on a billion dollars in tax money a month and lighting it with the smoldering remains of an IED blast; it means "you'll be SAFE!" and that's all you need to know.

The only thing I would show people "how it's done" would be "Fastest to get assassinated from Inauguration date". That's because my fair philosophy kind of wouldn't sit well with "the betters" and their Securitate.

about how to win.

Yet you're kind of saying it wouldn't work.

(And I'm not arguing with you about the rest of your post.)

It's practically DU "establishment." ;)

That is the problem.

to take your complaints where they will be appreciated

mainly because I believe she is too polarizing and is a risk to win. However, if she is nominated, I WILL work for her and vote for her, as I would for ANY DEM candidate this election.

Of course I'm not 100% in favor of Hillary, I mean I do have beefs with the woman, but heck, if she becomes our nominee....she'd be 100% BETTER than what the alternative would be.

It's IMPERATIVE that a Democrat wins in 2008....the world cannot take any more of the sheer lunacy and chaos that the Neo-Conservatives have inflicted these past seven years.

And a DLC avatar? You're a brave one! :hi:

Thanks!

I'm just trying to be logical and make some common sense is all.

It's like hitting your head against a brick wall though sometimes, especially when I read hateful and disrespecting and often inaccurate comments about Hillary for instance....good grief, she's OURS, she's on OUR side....whats so difficult to understand about that?

The DLC avatar, well, I'm DLC, and DU has the DLC avatar available for use, so I thought why not....I used to have the Louisiana State flag as my avatar, but I thought I'd have a change.

:hi:

Have you been hanging out in the Research Forum the whole time?

Then, I started posting.

lol

I trolled around for a year before posting.

:toast:

As you, no doubt, have heard to distraction: it'll get worse but lighten up for a year or so after Nov. 2008. Whether that comes from the departure of the really nasty advocates or the "mob" mind breaks down from the strain is still an open question.

When one can gain a little distance from the "madding crowd" it does start to resemble a mob, tense and bristling, with little explosions going off all over the place and a personality, ego, and direction all its own. The individual members tend to get swept along, even though they feel they contributed little to the ultimate destruction that seems to arise from mobs.

One can either jump in and play, accepting the results as one's own, or become a critic. I like to do both, when I can remember that I have more than one option at any time.

Taking mostly a break, rather than get TS'd due to my librul views and my willingness to espouse them while not tolerating RW or conservative bs.

You just have to figure out who to ignore -- either by putting them on "ignore," or just not reading their posts, which is what I do. It keeps my blood pressure down. :)

change. There is much less dialectic now and activity is focused on a narrow range of topics.

The Dean v. Kerry wars were interesting, too.

The thing is, we've got candidates who aren't white guys running this time around, so the opportunity to get hypersensitive on the one hand, or incredibly borderline (sexist/racist, name your poison) vitriolic on the other hand is an added aspect that makes some of the exchanges pretty fucking ugly...it's a long way to go until election day, I'm afraid.

Sometimes you can shame 'em by asking why they're so fucking rude, but it doesn't always work. I find that there are a shitload of super partisan folk who have little that they can say about their candidate (and this is likely due to their own hubris-laden, self-satisfied LAZINESS and failure to do any credible research, and no fault of the candidate they've chosen) but instead spend all their time trying to tear down the opposition, or post bullshit "concern" posts about the opponents. I guess they think that's easier.

Funny, as an undecided voter, I find myself leaning towards whichever candidate is taking the most heat here on any given moment! It's having the opposite effect on me....

Maybe I just don't hit the right threads, or maybe I just don't engage or maybe I don't take people seriously.

The only people I have a quarrel with are the ones who are here to divide Democrats for their own purposes.

But we should be tolerant at least to some extent for the development of true synthesis, not just "the middle of the road" where extremes cancel one another out, resulting in 0.

Monoculture is sterile. The trick is to cultivate, not just any conflict, but genuinely constructive conflict.

One can disagree and not be disagreeable.

What bothers me is when DU'ers act like rightists with their ad hominems and straw men. I get enough of that nonsense from rightists.

Of course these posters may be rightists, for all I know. <shrug>

it gets NUTS every time

too many vicious, intentional personal attacks on DU-ers. Before it was mostly nutso attacks on the candidates. Now folks are going after the candidates, the DU-ers who post about the candidates and everybody who wrote anything in support of the people who post about the candidates. And their mothers, too.

But seriously, yes, it has changed. Though it may be that people across the spectrum are getting more stressed out.

It's the only way to be when you live in the belly of the beast. Gotta be defiant to survive the right wing. Gotta fight fight fight to finally defeat the beast.

Don't let it get you down. When it gets too rough for you, sit your pretty self down, do your nails, and let the rough and tumble among us do the fighting. We'll clear it all up for you and you can come back when we get it all straightened out. Fair enough? :D :kick: :dem: :patriot: O8) :thumbsup:

I don't do my nails.

I go after righties. I don't want to fight with my fellow lefties.

And you're not new. It's always been nasty in GD...it is worse, yes, but it goes in cycles, usually getting nastier around elections because people think we're supposed to be sheep and support everything the party says.
Duckie

:-)

when it was only bush on the rail, it was a communitee. a common enemy.

now that there are some democrat electeds in power that take the same stance as Bush...
it's become a little 'more interesting'.

A lot of hardened, rigid positions; repetitive memes and catch-phrases; knee-jerk reactions on familiar patterns; and an awful lot of hyperbole!

Sometimes breaking it up and shaking it around can be a perverse sort of sport, though... :hi:

Right now, there are many options out there and people have some strong opinions about their picks. That can turn into mean-spiritedness pretty easily.

but don't take my word for it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=196554#197873

It is declared at least weekly in the lounge that "GD is a cesspool" or a loony bin.

Posts like that always make me rush over to GD to see what is going on.

and I've been here since February or March of 2001.

Between the primary wars and the unrealistic expectations some have of the new Congress, this is a really bad time.

Last time around, the worst of the Deaniacs took off and started their own place, where they spent most of their time bitching about DU. A lot of other non-Kerry types took off, too, to who-knows-where, so the place calmed down a little bit until the hysteria started about how Kerry didn't know how to run a campaign (and, by the way, Clark, Dean, or somebody else would have done a much better job...)

But, nmost of 'em, even the more annoying ones, tended to have some facts, articles, and other good stuff to back up their opinions. This time around it seems a lot more whiny.

Yeah, it just seems like nowadays more people are looking for an argument than actually believing in something.

i feel there is much more of the belligerent posts than my early days here. there was more working together and listening to each others thoughts and even in dispute it was a more amicable disagreeing. i feel this is indicative of our culture as a whole. i feel it permeated from the right, and the christian and the right politicians. i was proud of the dem that didn't allow themselves to merge in with that attitude. but it seems since about 2005 it has even grabbed hold of the dem. we weren't able to withstand the barrage of negativity and ugliness and instead of walking in the higher, we merged into the lower vibration of disrespectful discourse.

Well-said!

I would also say that we have all been driven nuts -- to one degree or another -- under the awful pressure of living in a militarist/security state/kleptocratic nightmare for so many years.

sw

and even though they look so very daunting in many respects, what i have always taught my boys and continue to teach, further setting examples, .... there is a higher in all things, even what may look to be the very worst.

so even though i agree that the pressures of living in this militaristic, fear fear fear society, ... i also see the opportunities to find the higher in these events. even if it is only a personal growth.

when addressing even the most belligerent of posts, i have the opportunity of expressing, respectfully yet aggressively in love. now that is a fun thing to learn and do. so, though i do see the ugliness of the board, it doesn't bother me per se. just indicative of the course we chose, when given the opportunity to truly grasp a huge step forward in evolution, or a step back in our Neanderthal self, wink. kinda like the opportunity with 911. the gift we could have received in love, yet chose in hate instead. collective conscience.

That seems about right.

Six years of corruption and theft have worn everyone out.

There is a very good reason why one of my international friends refers to the US as a "once-great country".....:(

that's the terribLe twos, a midLife crisis, and your creepy uncLe asking you for a Loaner aLL wrapped in one. no biggie.

after the 2006 elections. The 2006 ballot boxes weren't even cold before DUers started posting "Who will you vote for for president?" polls every damn week.

During the 2004 primary season DU eventually became so unbearable to me that I quit hanging out here altogether, starting about 3 or 4 months before the November election. And I didn't come back for almost a year and a half.

I still don't post anywhere near as much as I used to. In those heady years of 2001-2003, DU was really a very different kind of place, imho. It has seemed to me that the noise to signal ratio on DU has, in many ways, steadily grown worse over the past 5 years.

There's so much more chaff to sort through to find those lovely nourishing kernels that have ALWAYS been the finest feature of DU. And I think that the quality of the few clear thinkers and articulate writers -- who have graced DU from the beginning -- has not diminished. It just takes alot more effort to find them -- much less manage an intelligent conversation.

My biggest angst over DU has to do with the spreading pool of shallow thinkers, who overwhelm the discussion space by their sheer numbers. But this has been an ongoing trend for years, and not particular to this election season.

As for this election season in particular, it probably IS the worst ever. But these days I am much less inclined -- what with the lingering efffects of PTSD from 2004 -- to jump into the fray, or to even care overmuch.

sw

I am grateful for the kindred spirits here-so what if there are some trolls.

oh ye of little words..
Not that that is a bad thing

There are some incredible people, which makes it more disconcerting when the flakes set out to ruin it.

I've been working hard to get to 1,000 though.

Kind of the nature of the beast around here. I don't like to see the divisiveness either, but it does die back quite a bit once a candidate gets the nom.

Republican'ts are sheep that hate ambiguity and need to be told what to think.. they are easy "look at the shiny thing' works for them.

Dem's are more like cats... just try herding them in one direction(!!!). They tend to think for themselves, argue, debate, fight, and THINK. I LIKE IT!


PS - a lot of the really divisive ugliness comes from a few posters w/ residences under bridges.

please return it. $1.35 is missing from my tin cup.

I recently hit my thousandth post, which took about 3 and a half years. During that time, I saw some nasty ebbs and very supporting tides, depending on what thread I joined, and if the moon was in the 7th house.

When you think of it... it's a lot better taking your chances getting the occasional mean spirited individual here than driving the parkway with a bumper sticker. ;-)

It's only words (and words are all I have to take your love away....)

And then I had some great exchanges with people, although the best one I started (a blanket apology to Christians, if I offended them) got locked down.

There was a French Revolution-like period where I got accused a couple of times of being a lurking Freeper (the insult of all insults), and it seemed to be "off with their head". That was no fun.

And then there was Israel's invasion of Lebanon where openly admitting that I'm Jewish drew all kinds of meanness and epithets, not to mention inexplicable deletions of some of my posts.

For my first couple of years I felt right at home. From then it's been, regretfully, downhill.

I can pick a fight with rightists any time I want to. I don't feel I need that kind of thing here.

When I looked at your profile, I saw you were officially here in a year and a half ahead of me. You probably drew more comment based on your possibly having more original subject matter. I have had only a few original posts, a lot more reaction to OP's.

Maybe it depends on who lurks and joins this forum during what time of the election cycle, or current events. Times keep getting weirder and weirder. Some people feel they should inject themselves whenever it appears there is a democratic response (what should I call them, trolls? paid infiltrators?)

If I had to guess, I think there are a lot more trolls and infiltrators on DU because... oh, I don't know- combating scary, individual thought pays better?

:o ... "Heaven forbid!"

The ugliness isn't necessary.

Yea, its the corporate bunch come to visit.

but i also have MANY people on ignore, so it keeps the bullshit level down.

For obvious reasons.

We thought we'd clean house after 2006, and nothing much has been done, and the crimes keep happening...

Here's a funny thing: the most contentious things said at DU can easily be proven to be false. They are based on mainstream media falsehoods being repeated over and over again.

Let's look at two of the most divisive memes heard at DU--attacks on Congress and attacks on Hillary Clinton.

You hear bitter attacks on the Democrats in Congress every day. We've all heard the "coward" meme at least a trillion times.

Yet a quick look at the record proves that the Democrats did not cave in to the administration at all:

"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/documents/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

Likewise, you hear over and over that Hillary is a corporate Democrat, little different from the Republicans.

But once again, the meme runs counter to the facts:

The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, the percentage on the left is right is Obama's score. Sources: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php
===============================================================================================================================Hillary Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%

DUers are advised to observe a strict fast from the corporate media, which is designed to demoralize Democrats and set them against one another.

Belligerence, bad manners and outright rudeness are becoming the norm sad to say. After the elections, I mentioned that if the dems who took over power went into their usual submissive role of doing nothing to stand up against the current idiot in the white house, we would lost any credibility we have. Bingo! I got one answer agreeing with me and the rest were just plain insults and name calling. I dont expect everyone to agree with me, but please disagree in a civilized manner. We are beginning to resemble right wing talk shows!

That's exactly what I'm saying.

only visit a couple of times a week and rarely post. Still a great place to catch up on the latest breaking news....I just don't get too bogged down in actual discussion of such.

stuff that they wouldn't dare say to anyone's face . . . it's that Internet anonymity thing you always hear about -- makes these bottom dwellers big, brave, and nasty . . . personally, I just ignore posts like that . . . bad for my digestion (burp) . . .

to my face, they would instantly regret it.

it's still home

Two few informers and uniters posting any more.... but plenty of "dividers" have emerged. It's hard to find good reading anymore with all the "I hate Hillary" thread titles. BORING.

I don't know if there is a constant trend so much as an ebb and flow to things, from the types of posters who dominate, to subject matter, to attitudes, etc. Sometimes, there is so much content, on one or two topics, all with the same attitudes--from the Iraq war to trying to get Al Gore to run for President--that I don't even bother to check the website sometimes; but that was always the case at times. I remember some years ago when I joined, there were endless threads fretting about something that the asshole Rush Limbaugh had said, with reply after reply about how "we" should "fight" it--who gives a fuck? That isn't even a topic.

There were several women who used to post here a lot, who are now apparently gone, and that lessens the interest for me--if you don't have a large group of feminists participating, the whole thing suffers. One thing that suggets, for me--and as others have commented on this thread--is that sometimes, the problem isn't that there are bitter fights, if there is also a great amount of interesting discussion; the real threat comes when there are no intelligent, thoughtful threads with real subject matter, research and argument; like reading a book.

The kinds of posts that are always boring and annoying to read are the ones that come across as "professional" and pre-planned, an advertising campaign just waiting for an audience and an opportunity. This is the case, as long as I have been here, with the obnoxious and organized "D"LC, Inc., which always introduces its own ugly tone, I think. Anyone who fears Hillary Clinton's multiple corporate ties, or public statements that may threaten programs that the poor and middle class need, is called--all together now--a "Socialist," "ideologically pure," "litmus test," and always with this "superior," jeering treatment, and worst of all, with groups of "D"LC egging each other on, laughing. Thrn, as now, they actually feel comfortable using language directing others, "too liberal for America" perhaps, that they do not belong in the Democratic Party and should quit, as if THEY own it! This language used to confuse me when I first joined DU--at one point, I actually thought that DU was possibly owned by the "D"LC because of its throwing-its-weight-around behavior with no consequences, (of course, some of those early "D"LC orders-givers have been banned since), but now I realize that this is only the cut-off behavior of the rich corporate club, making no effort to ingratiate itself unless it wants votes. Apart from that, it is a memorized program of attack lines, and it is infuriating and boring. They are never honest about what they want to do.

There have always been outrageous attacks of hostility against women, Christians (I am both), etc., here, but people have fought back, large groups of them. When the large groups of good people no longer fight back and are just gone, so that there is no longer a great range and depth of discussion, then it will be over. The website has to keep attracting adults from the real (non-"framing") world who are honestly expressing themselves, and not re-using the same jargon and attitudes, or there will be no content or meeting-place.

I'm sick of being called a corporatist shill (My left-right score on the Political compass is -8.25 and I'm getting called a corporate shill?) because I have a sense of decency and have no use for the hateful crap based on right-wing memes piled on Senator Clinton and Speaker Pelosi. I am sick of being viciously flamed when I state that I an skeptical that impeachment will work, I criticize Cindy Sheehan for her ridiculous remarks on the Democratic Party, and laugh at the latest stupid conspiracy theory. Obama was right when we complained about the smallness of our politics.


Oh, and why aren't the tombstones hauled out when people start attacking the Dems and threaten to vote for a spoiler like Nader?

competitor's camp. In the past DU was smaller and you had that many fewer people to bounce off of. There was a time when you would be a supporter of a nominee and only run across you real world friends and colleagues. And all of these people know you as a person. Now it is almost anonymous and we keep bumping up against each other.

but then again, I have been showing my iggy list a lot of love and am back in my happy place now.

:hi:

As a result, I spend less time here.

Those are three problems here that come to mind immediately. People should educate themselves very clearly on the issues, from all sides to know what is going on. And not everything is a conspiracy theory. And three? Just because someone slams Bush it doesn't mean they are worth worshipping (Chavez, Keith Olbermann to name 2).

there were long stretches where I did not come here at all, but I think things were more hostile in the past than now. I know people are divided over who to support, and the state of things in general, but there are many reasonable people who seem to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. I'm very happy with the way it is now, even though I of course don't agree with every post.

I apologize

:grouphug:

No one is forcing you to read those freeper asscarrot posts.

:-)

your post is an example. an harshness not necessary, regardless of your right to express in the manner that you chose. as i may respect your right, it says something about the manner we chose to interact with one another. which was exactly her/his point and i think you reinforced her/his post even though i doubt that was your intent.

I replied back that I wasn't going to take the bait. The poster made another rightist-like ad hominem. I again said I wasn't going to participate and solicited a substantiative answer from the poster who then promptly disappeared.

I think my crime was that I said that I was realist, or something like that.

I didn't take the asscarrot comment that way. In fact the asscarrot comment seemed to me to be more friendly advice, to not let the flakes bother me. There is much wisdom to that suggestion but I don't see the harm in complaining about the asscarrots either.