Right-Wing Sock Puppets Pretending to Be Liberals Assault Progressive Websites

[MrScorpio]

by RS Janes
Sunday, 08 May 2011 20:52

Ignorant, peevish, narrow-minded, misinformed, livid, intolerant, they are an army of everything that's wrong with America, denizens of a weird trickster God who speaks to them with words they don't completely understand, or tints their natural interior wrath with righteous anger conferred by snake-oil preachers or haughty cable charlatans either crass or crazed, or just slyly in it for the money, or all of the above.

This minority wouldn't matter much except they are whipped into a frenzy and 'played' by cynical manipulators like Frank Luntz, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who, in turn, wouldn't have much impact without the billions of dollars spent to spread their fetid message from such right-wing corporatists as Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers.

But beneath the second-tier video fictions of James O’Keefe and Andrew Breitbart, and the hollow-headed bleating of the various ozone-inhabiting creatures who will never be president like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, and even in the shadow of the disingenuous theocratic mushpile that is David Barton’s twisted view of our history, exists a well-funded Republican netherworld of PR propagandists and marketing hucksters busy dreaming up unethical new ways to undercut Obama and the Democrats.

One of these is Doug Goetzloe, an anti-tax right-wing talk show host and former Young Republican who heads up Advantage Consultants.

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/5872-right-wing-sock-puppets-pretending-to-be-liberals-assault-progressive-websites

[MADem]

1. OMG this is a hoot--the last sentence is great!

It's a wee primer on how to spot the nitwits! I've seen a few of these here, mostly around election time. This is worth bookmarking for a later date, that's for sure:

....Some current 'tells' are when they don't mention the GOP at all, or claim both parties are just as 'evil,' or try to shut down the conversation with insults, or push readers to vote for any third party, or say that they'd rather vote for a Republican than a Democrat, or make statements with no factual basis, or refer you to a right-wing website to ‘confirm’ their assertions.

Incidentally, there is no comparable effort by the left: if you try to post comments opposing the GOP or corporatists at right-wing sites, in most cases you will quickly be banned from posting there and your comments removed. They aren't about to let the other side play their game on them, even if we had the money to fund such slimy baloney and the inclination to do so.

Our only protection against such ersatz assaults is to use our heads and common sense: if someone is a little ‘too’ enraged at Obama and the Democrats, be suspicious, especially if they never talk about Republicans. Ask them a couple of polite intelligent questions on the comment thread’s topic; if they respond by condemning or insulting you for questioning them rather than engaging you, they’re likely a sock-puppet troll; it’s in their nature to consider any question or disagreement as tantamount to treason. Also, if they keep reposting basically the same idea in one comment thread, they’re probably a sock-puppet troll; they’ve been instructed by their masters that repetition works. And don’t be swayed if they accuse you of being a ‘shill’ or ‘troll’ for questioning them -- they are trained to do that.

Finally, always remember: you can pretend to be a progressive, but you can’t pretend to be smart, and these paid ‘blog warriors’ decidedly aren’t.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[guruoo]

11. And then there's the ones who try to encourage progressives to 'stay home' nt

[dameocrat67]

13. They maybe sincere progressives too

just frustrated with the system.

[guruoo]

71. Welcome to DU. nt

[calimary]

151. Love those cat's eyes, btw!

:hi:

[October]

94. Irony

[bigmonkey]

104. But if you're a real progressive, you don't want to block progress.

Frustration with the system that expresses as "let it crash" is not progressive. The emotion I understand, but the exhortation to others to go home in a huff can't possibly help, IMHO.

[divvy]

140. show us some progress .....

[Tesha]

144. Why?

Progress can be slow and incremental or it can occur
suddenly, in response to some overwhelming stimulus.

It's more pleasant, of course, if it's steady and
incremental, but as we've seem for the last (say,
since 1973, just to pick a significant date)
38 years, sometimes there's no progress at all
and, in fact, a lot of retrograde motion, aided
and abetted by the politicians on "our" side.

Keep that up long enough and a sudden, more-
chaotic change becomes inevitable s a tipping
point is reached in people's frustrations.

The economy is driving towards just such a tipping
point now and we are approaching some "interesting"
times...

Tesha

[bigmonkey]

166. This "theory" is speculative, and the consequences if it's wrong are catastrophic.

If something was actually precious to the "theorist", that one would never risk it to such a radical, risky prescription for a cure. My surmise is that the outcome is currently not as important to the "theorist" as the rhetorical move that they prefer. Better to risk all on a no-sweat bet than actually try to turn the thing around. No getting dirty that way, much more "pure". Just have a smoke and a drink, jeer at everyone still involved for naiveté, and wait for the "theoretically" inevitable.

This seems lazy and cowardly to me. What else in their life would such a "theorist" treat this way? Their health? Family? Personal fortune? I bet not.

My position is you keep hitting, even in the face of setbacks. Don't give up, sit down, and ridicule those still trying. When splitting a stone with wedges, there's an analogous tipping point, a "sudden" victory, but it only comes after a lot of seemingly-fruitless pounding. Giving up the pounding before the victory forgoes it.

So my contention is, if someone wants to give up, that's their choice, but they should stop trying to convince other people to step off the hammering line - that's not their place, and it's directly counter-productive to the announced, supposedly shared, goal.

[Mojorabbit]

115. Yes, they certainly may be

I have been greatly frustrated lately. It is beyond me that anyone has the time or egergy to spend precious moments of their life trolling. I don't get it at all. Glad to have you on board.

[aquart]

139. No. Progressives are used to hard slogging work for tiny increments.

Not that I have any use for progressives, being a proud and out liberal. Not calling themselves "liberals" because the bad kids made fun of it?

As a kid, I always used my family nickname, not my birth certificate first name. Until some kid found out and began catcalling it and making fun of it. That's when I put away childish things and said that is my name and you damn well better use it. I've used it ever since. So I have no respect for people who change their name hoping to be more popular.

But liberal, progressive, conservative, tea party moron...there is NO excuse for staying home on election day.

[divvy]

141. so, not voting is not a valid vote? Show us a choice....

I have been a life-long democrat. This administration has me very discouraged. It really is not my fault. We had the votes, we had the momentum, and our party screwed it up ..... AGAIN. BIG-TIME

For the first time in my life, I will not be voting straight democratic. If our president gets re-elected, it will not be as the result of my vote. He is going to have to earn it back, and I just don't see that happening. He is much to interested in winning the republican vote at this point.

[aquart]

154. Well, I'm a Democrat. Big D.

I am a grown up not a petulant child. I say what I don't like. BUT I VOTE.

I was shouted down when I said I wasn't for Obama in the primaries. He pisses me off big time still. BUT THIS IS OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE. Unless we force him not to run again, he is what we got.

Democracy is majority rule. If the majority prefers chants to substance, we still have to deal with it. If the majority disqualifies valuable people for sex, we still have to deal with what's left.

How on god's earth can you look at Wisconsin and not understand what's at stake?

EAT YOUR FUCKING PEAS.

[joshcryer]

15. Huh, that's actually a damn fine line, right there. It gives one pause, for sure.

[freshwest]

128. Perfect. We need to remember those clues instead of getting mad at each other.

[TheKentuckian]

2. What I find interesting is that those that advocate long established right wing policy

are never suspect in these considerations.

It is never about positions but all about partisanship and the funny thing about that is that it is from the fans of bipartisanship and/or post partisanship.

The "good and true" Democrats are the folks pushing Reaganomics, curtailing civil liberties, imperial foreign policy, and who spit the word liberal and the "suspicious" or even declared "fake" Democrats espouse social and economic justice, putting a leash on the police state, socialized medicine, and are ardent supporters of the New Deal.

Seems like TeaPubliKlan projection to me.

[dameocrat67]

5. thank you!

if i was a right wing infiltrator i would push obama conformity even when he does openly reaganesque things.

[KittyWampus]

42. Well, this is about Ratfucking. It's attacking the Left FROM THE LEFT. And it works.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[October]

95. Why are you so angry? Plenty of progressives are here at DU

[CrossChris]

96. Not angry at all, just joking about the statement above mine.

Project much?

[October]

102. You do project much.

[Number23]

163. Well, that didn't take long

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=267746

:spray:

I'm sure he's activating one of his socks as we speak.

[Bobbie Jo]

170. +1000

...or another one. :rofl:

[SidDithers]

173. ROFL...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[creon]

110. Stay where you are

The most logical critique of progressive Democrats:

"You are being too idealistic. What you advocate cannot be done in the political climate of today. "




However,the fact that it cannot be done "today', does not mean that it cannot be done "tomorrow".

It is right and proper that you advocate here.

Because you can, by continuing to advocate, increase support for your ideas.

[aquart]

138. Opposition also makes you hone your arguments.

So you get better at making your case.

Trolls can be damn handy for that.

[creon]

143. yes

And:

Convince some people that your ideas are good ideas.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FLAprogressive]

36. +1,000,000

[FredStembottom]

39. Thank you for untying the knot!

You make it clear: why don't anti-progressive policy positions qualify one as a "fake" progressive?
How is being disappointed with the adoption of conservative policy positions and framing by Democrats... "fake"?

[KittyWampus]

43. It's about only ever attacking Democrats. It's about fueling outrage at Democrats constantly.

It's about never acknowledging any liberal progress or belittling any progress made by Democrats.

It's about demoralizing the Left FROM THE LEFT.

[FredStembottom]

69. Naw. It's sick, desperate people noticing that no help is coming.

And then speaking about it.
Nothing more.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[October]

97. Yes. It's about DIVIDING us.

Divide and conquer -- and it's been going on for some time around here.

[bluestate10]

116. "and it's been going on for some time around here". Exactly. Some bloggers

on DU are expert at it. And get boisterous amen chorus. It is all about Obama did this wrong and Obama did that wrong. Seldom do I see a a detailed analysis of republican policies and how those policies not only created the current difficulties, but if republicans are allowed to get control of all of government again, the nation will be destroyed. Fuck sockpuppets, I will fight the bastards here and wherever I find them.

[Union Scribe]

122. If "dividing us" means people accusing everyone who disagrees with them

of being paid operatives, then I guess it worked.

[October]

149. There is more in-fighting, less discussion

More opinions and attacks, less discussion.

That is what I meant.

Frankly, I don't think these operatives are (or need to be) paid. I think there are plenty who just enjoy disrupting (what used to be) intellectual discussions.

[Bobbie Jo]

155. LOL

Like a pretzel. :rofl:

[Bobbie Jo]

40. Except..

That's not how RW'ers operate. What you're describing is an idealogical-based approach, which would require a more rational and patient process.

RW'ers lie, cheat, and steal to gain an advantage, and frankly a campaign to denigrate and discourage Democrats makes more sense, and fits their MO to a T.

See: "Ratfucking." the oldest trick in their playbook.

[TheKentuckian]

153. If Reich wingers were capable of consistently articulating liberal thought

then they wouldn't be able to maintain their idiocy for terribly long without some serious cognitive dissonance or at the least displaying some rather obvious holes in issue by issue consistency.

The precious few with the intellectual capacity and utter lack of decency to deeply understand such positions but still vigorously oppose them aren't in the trenches of any "wars" on websites. Hell, they can't even get folks of that level to run for office.

They have shit to do like running multi-nationals and pulling the strings of their idiot politicians.

Yeah, they are ratfuckers but no they aren't that bright in significant numbers enough to be impactive in this area. The most significant threat regardless of source or cause is from posers with the same basic beliefs as the TeaPubliKlans or who at least see the world through the same lens be they elected or footpads in society at large.

[Bobbie Jo]

169. There is a real time example

On GD pg 1. It's simple... Copy/Paste/Dump.

The poster offers NO opinion or insight whatsoever. You may find the occasional shallow one-liner complete with the targeted talking point, but never any independent thought.

It's an obvious pattern, the mental gymnastics involved in arriving at your destination are truly gold metal worthy.

Correction: page 2, but it was in page 1 all day yesterday and most of today.

[TheKentuckian]

171. Such a feeble effort as you describe is not going to eat us away from within.

It is inept Bobbie Jo and eventually transparent. Certainly, the tactic you describe is exactly as I laid out, incapable of articulating liberal thought and definitely not going to stand up to vigorous debate.

You will also note that there is no shortage of the folks I'm worried about doing the same crap and/or snarky one liner but when they actually get down and write something, it is Reich Wing talking point city. They rely exclusively on rah rahing Obama and talking about how Gibbs or Rahm "gave it to those fringe firebaggers" with a liberal lion icon next to their name for credibility.
Maybe with an anarchy symbol or some such thing somewhere for flavor.

That mob is for sure pushing a school of thought that is going to conflict with Dew Deal thought based folks and we are going to react to it. The more of them there are and the louder they get the more push back there will be. We also don't cotton to politicians playing the same game and will reject them too.

I don't see any substantive basis for your concern, most critics of the President on here are able to articulate their issues in their own words, present an alternative vision, and are more than willing to go back and forth. I'm not dismissing it, I just don't see it as viable. Yes, they certainly try. No, the fraud cannot maintain the charade for long.

It is those that don't have to wear masks that it is most difficult to realize are in disguise.

No doubt the people you point to exist but the real way they divide the party is to serve just enough of an example to start the finger pointing. They don't have the brains or ability in any quantity enough to be a real issue on these sites.

The ones I'm worried about don't even need to be dishonest in their positions at all, their existence threatens the party and I have little more common cause with them than a Republican, in fact I'm not sure what the ideological differences actually are to traditional Republican positions, in many cases.

I tend to think their Teabagging cousins are too embarrassing to associate themselves with, they believe in choice, maybe they are almost log cabin types but want their rights acknowledged, might be pro-choice, or whatever.

I know it is usually not going to be fruitful when the person starts with "I'm an economic conservative" because that means we probably aren't going to have a lot in common. When it comes with "social moderate" the the klaxon's commence to blaring.

[Melinda]

57. Same with those continuing the now defunct DLC (reborn as the "Third Way") & their policies

Amazingly similar.

[CrossChris]

58. Yes, classic Rovian projection. nt

[Marrah_G]

67. Bingo

[CrossChris]

88. Third Way/DLC'ers don't have to change their ideology to sew dischord within the party.

They can just state their beliefs, point to their support of national Third Way politicians as proof of their inclusion in the Democratic Party, then attack the platform from the inside, in accordance with their mission statement.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

109. What a quandary. If you criticize Obama's anti-progressive policies

you're not a progressive. So the only choice is to go along with him when he extends Bush's tax cuts and threatens to cut our "entitlement programs". That doesn't seem very progressive.

[Le Taz Hot]

131. Nailed it!

That whole commie witch hunt thing never goes out of style for some, it just adopts new names. :eyes:

[Marr]

161. That about covers it. +1

[dameocrat67]

4. looks like an article designed to demonize greens as being

astroturfers. While they may not be welcome here since this is a democratic website, not all progressive websites should be purging them and they are not right wingers because they dont like neoliberal dems. There was only one accurate criteria there that could only apply to a republican troll and that is advocates of voting republican. The rest of criteria could apply to a sincere green or socialist.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. What self-respecting Green would "refer you to a right-wing website to ‘confirm’ their assertions."?

None of the ones I know.

[dameocrat67]

8. but a self respecting green might very well think both parties

are equally bad and would most certainly encourage people to vote 3rd party. The inclusion of 1 or 2 symptoms of true right wing douche baggery does not justify including criteria that would include people who are sincerely third party.

[SidDithers]

55. And they're welcome to do so...

at Green Underground.

Sid

[Le Taz Hot]

132. And when you're the administrator of this site

you can chunk all of us who don't worship at the feet of Obama so you'll be left with the nice little echo chamber you so earnestly desire. It sure as hell beats independent thought, doesn't it?

[BzaDem]

134. It's not so much banning independent thought. It's more that people come here to have a discussion

with people who are not Republicans or their enablers. There are plenty of sites for that.

And it also has little to do with who is the administrator of this site. The behavior in question is expressly prohibited in the rules.

[semillama]

62. Would any self-respecting Green never criticize the Republicans, though?

That's another major criterion in spotting a RW sock puppet.

[eridani]

117. Republican policy coming from Democrats is a far greater threat

In 2005, the bluest of blue dogs stood firm against privatizing Social Security. Now they're on board with unravelling it slowly.

[bluestate10]

118. I have seen some throw in weak criticism of republicans while they excoriate

President Obama. Don't fool yourself, those people see what work on DU and other democratic sites. They modify their tactics when a few astute members challenge them. The aspect of the dynamic that this poster finds most enraging is the almost mindless amen corner adherence of a large segment of DU, being led down a rabbit hole where everything they hold dear will be slaughtered.

[Warren DeMontague]

106. I think it's pretty easy to tell the genuine Greens from the phony, right wing ones.

even if Ralph Nader DID accept money from Republicans and Right Wing interest groups in 2004. :shrug:

[MrScorpio]

9. The problem isn't about those who are truly on the left`

It's about "leftists" who attack Obama from the left, to the exclusion of the attacking the GOP for the mess that they have made.

[dameocrat67]

12. and we should determine that just based on the few post we

see rather than an entire record which no one sees.

[MrScorpio]

16. Ones record will always speak for itself

No matter how sparse or extensive it is.

[dameocrat67]

17. The leaves to much to peoples prejudice

and agendas.

[MrScorpio]

18. Everyone has an agenda

What's the point of posting on a discussion board without one? I make no secret about my own.

We all have our own prejudices as well, including me. I make no secret of those either.

The point of the article is about people with HIDDEN agendas and prejudices and talks about how that which is hidden can be uncovered.

[dameocrat67]

19. many of the criteria used could be applied to real third party supporters

n/t

[MrScorpio]

20. If those third party supporters promote their agendas to the detriment of Democrats

Or would, in ANY way, benefit the GOP over us, I would have no qualms about telling those third parties about the most efficient way that they can utilize their own orifices.

[dameocrat67]

21. Thanks for your honesty

n/t

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BzaDem]

135. It might be wise to modify their policies to attract a majority of the primary electorate.

But fortunately for them, they already have that. In fact, Obama's approval among Democrats is the highest in 50 years.

However, they should certainly not pamper and coddle those who threaten to enable Republicans in the general election by not voting for Democrats. There is little meaningful difference between Republican enablers on the right and Republican enablers on the left. Of course anyone is free to enable Republicans -- we just shouldn't pretend that they are somehow different in any meaningful way. Republican enablers are the opposition just as much as Republicans are.

[Kall]

137. Yeah, we heard all about the great "Approval among Democrats" numbers...

... as fewer people self-identified as Democrats and Democratic support plummeted through Martha Coakley, the 2010 midterms, and going on now. That historic health care bill was also going to turn Democratic and Obama's approvals right around once passed, and save the House for Democrats. It didn't seem to work too well in those cases. Maybe trying something other than Republican health care bills, Republican Wall Street coddling, and embracing Republican austerity while repeating Republican talking points about government budgets being like a family's, as unemployment hovers around 10%, would make for better results. Because I can guarantee that independent voters in Florida, where Obama won by 2-3% against a ticket with Sarah Palin on it as the Bush economy was crashing down around peoples' ears, aren't going to be voting based on who won the message war on Day 8 of the Debt Ceiling Negotiation of July 2011, they're going to be voting based on the Unemployment Rate of November 2012 and how well Obama's articulated prescriptions that he's currently trying to sell for it worked out - more free trade deals and slashing spending.

Frankly, there are a lot of self-identified "conservatives" and "independents" who would have cheered for a Democrat who came out swinging on behalf of the little guy after Wall Street crashed the economy. They might say they're "conservative", or "independent" but they sure do like their single-payer government-run Medicare and Social Security, hate cuts to them, and like the idea of taxing the rich. But that path was deliberately not chosen.

I wonder if the Democratic Party that fell over itself to give a warmongering moron the green light to go ahead with Operation Fucking Disaster in Iraq qualifies as Republican enablers. Or one that puts Social Security "on the table" in a debt negotiation that Social Security doesn't affect by one dime, which Republicans have been dying to carve up, but couldn't manage to do even with Bush and Republican Congresses. If you're going to take a completely unnecessary tough vote on Social Security, "you might as well do it now", in a backroom negotiation out of the public eye with John Boehner, during a miserable economic period when the safety net is more important than ever.

No, no... it's probably all the fault of those nasty Greens...

[BzaDem]

142. Vast supermajorities of Democrats and liberals approve of HCR, approve of FinReg, etc.

In fact, it appears you take the opposite position on most of Obama's achievements than the vast majority of his party. He must be doing something right, considering the stratospheric and unprecedented support he has from his base.

Will there always be a few that aren't satisfied? Of course there will be. This has always been the case -- there are ALWAYS some people on the right and left who will NEVER be satisfied with anyone their party ever elects. This is nothing new.

[Kall]

146. Then by all means,

he should keep doing what he's doing. It's going great. Lost Ted Kennedy's seat to a Republican, lost the House in a landslide to a party that should have been banished to the wilderness in 2010, now running 8 points behind for 2012 in Gallup's poll. Why alter a plan that's going so well?

[BzaDem]

156. Have you considered that it might not be going so well for a DIFFERENT reason than you think?

In political terms, the exact OPPOSITE reason?

In 2010, liberals turned out in the same percentages as the past midterm, and they voted for Democrats at a higher rate than the past midterm. So maybe -- just maybe -- the problem isn't that a non-negligible army of liberals disliked Obama.

Maybe the problem is that independents think he is too far to the left -- rather than too far to the right. They are incorrect, but just because they are incorrect doesn't mean that isn't what they think.

[Kall]

159. The independents don't know what they think, for God's sake

They don't make their ballot judgments by studying the party platforms closely, and judging whether someone's position paper is too liberal or too conservative, and making an objective assessment. Even if they wanted to make that kind of judgment, they probably wouldn't have the right information to make it, with today's corporate media.

What they can do, and do, is to look around them at what's they can experience and people they know are experiencing in their personal lives, and make a judgment based on whether the person ostensibly supposed to be solving it is making it better or not. They may say that as positions go, they hate government spending in July 2011, but they're going to hate unemployment of 10% in November 2012 that slashed spending results in a hell of a lot more and that's when their judgment matters.

Independent voters may say they don't like big government, but they sure do love their single-payer Medicare and their Social Security, and hate cuts to them. This idea that there's an army of independents out there who make objective measurements and blow with the wind is nonsense.

[shanti]

174. spoken like a true

scorpio! :thumbsup:

[SpiralHawk]

26. You just can't fake smart

For sure

[Bobbie Jo]

35. This is true...

But some fly under the radar with basic copy/paste skills. However, when they enter into discussion they may give themselves away.

[October]

98. Oh yes. The koch-roaches are here.

So many "hot" threads with no substance -- no argument -- only anger.

[quaker bill]

22. Most greens I have known personally

have been bright enough to make a distinction between Democrats who are generally ineffective at passing good law and the Republicans who are quite effective at passing bad law. Folks who can't seem to figure this out and admit it are reasonably suspect as either RW plants, or so ideologically blinded to facts that their view of things is not relevant.

[KittyWampus]

44. A lot of supposed Greens either ARE Astroturfers or end up spouting crap that's effectively the same

kind of anti-Democrat half-truths.

[CrossChris]

60. What astroturf groups from the Green Party compete with corporate Dem & Centrist groups?

I'm asking this seriously, I'm very curious.

[Ignis]

81. And data you analyzed to reach this claim is...what, exactly?

Gut feelings? Chicken entrails? Confirmation bias?

[AtomicKitten]

7. GOP operatives are notorious for political dirty tricks.

In the internet milieu, the only difference between an actual operative and a barking anarchist is the pay.

[dameocrat67]

10. so you are actually justifying assuming all anarchists

are right wing astroturfers.

[AtomicKitten]

14. Excuse me?

I am not assuming, justifying, or saying anything anywhere in the ballpark of that.

[quaker bill]

23. Could be, but why would it matter?

poorly informed opinion is poorly informed opinion, regardless of the political convictions of the author.

[trumad]

24. Well actually all anarchists are douchebags

and so are most of the Greens.

Fuck the Greens, fuck the Anarchists.

[Tesha]

34. That attitude'll win their votes, yessiree!

Be careful who you fuck; come November 2012, you might
instead wish you'd convinced them to come over to your side!

Tesha

[trumad]

103. Win votes...

what---from a dumb ass Anarchist? Please.

[Tesha]

112. Do their votes count less? What 3/5 of a vote or something? (NT)

[bluestate10]

121. Zero vote. I don't count on Greens. I have not seen one Green that can connect dots.

I rather spend my time convincing democratic leaning independents to stay home and vote democrat, at least their group thinks before leaping.

[BzaDem]

136. Their vote counts just as much as a Republican vote does. Why should a Democrat court a Republican

enabler any more than they would court a Republican?

I don't think Obama is going to spend much time winning over the rightist elements of the Republican party, or those who do their very best to ensure that the rightist elements of the Republican party are in control of this country. There are plenty of people who are much easier to persuade.

[Forkboy]

150. Isn't bipartisanship "courting" Republicans as well?

Not asking that to be snarky, I just honestly don't see a difference between what you're saying and what Obama is doing when he keeps talking about bipartisanship. The whole point of bipartisanship is courting the other side to find some middle ground, in this case with Republicans. Obama is doing what you say is wrong, but he's getting a pass from you while you complain about the same actions in others.

There are plenty of people who are much easier to persuade.

Many of them are to his left, and he captured their votes in 2008 (almost every left-leaning Independent I know voted for him). Since then though those votes are slowly but surely bleeding off. Don't get me wrong, he's in no danger in 2012, but I do feel that the Democratic Party/Left Wing is weaker than it was 3 years ago, and it didn't have to be that way. We had our boots on the RW's throats after the 2008 election, and not only did we take it off, we reached out and helped them back up.

I think many of the RW votes he captured in 2008 were due to Palin. Just an anecdotal bit here, but my brother in law in a graduate of Bob Jones University. He's said some pretty racist things to me over the years (I bite my tongue for my sister's sake...not easy), yet he blew my mind last year when he told me that he voted for Obama. Not because he liked Obama in the slightest bit, but because of Palin, who he thought was a joke. He was all set to vote for McCain until he announced Palin for his VP choice. So I think Democrats can't count on many right leaning Independents each election. I think this was a rare confluence of circumstances. I think the best strategy is to reinforce our left flank continually, and then when it's strong we can move on to those right leaning people from a position of strength.

Democratic mailing campaigns should consist of Sun Tzu's The Art of War. :)

[BzaDem]

157. Obama is trying to act bipartisan not to actually gain right wing votes, but rather to gain the

votes of independents who do not follow or know much about policy and simply look to try to figure out how moderate and open to compromise the candidate is. They don't know who is right on policy, so they just wonder why they can't all just get along (and they vote for candidates accordingly).

As for people who are easier to persuade, I don't think he has anyone to persuade on his left. The vast majority of such voters will vote for him anyway (even most of the ones who claim they won't now). And as for the ones who won't, anyone who would even consider deliberately assisting in the election of a Republican probably wasn't persuadable anyway. The only thing that will persuade them is seeing the consequences of their actions (at least until we get a new system that allows for instant run-off voting or something like it).

You may very well be right that there won't be enough independents to win him the election. But that doesn't mean there would ever be enough far-left (defined by opposition to Obama) voters to win him the election. The point is that the only option any Presidential candidate has in this country is to aim to win as much of the mushy middle as possible. Getting enough of their votes is a prerequisite to winning.

"I think the best strategy is to reinforce our left flank continually."

I agree that this is what he should do in terms of policy. I would prefer he move to the left on policy. I just don't think that it will help electorally (for the reasons above). At best it's neutral. Optimally, he should continue to pretend to be a moderate while subtly enacting as much liberal policy he can in the executive branch.

[Forkboy]

160. Cool, thanks for your reply.

I do think that losses from the "mushy middle" (I like that term lol), can be replaced by left wing votes if a strong leftist position is articulated well enough. Honestly, I know a lot of Greens and other assorted leftists (that probably doesn't surprise you ;) ) that truly just want a more assertive Dem party. This is my biggest complaint as well, we're just a weak party with little in the way of clearly defined opposition to the RW policies. There's no way to appeal to that mushy middle without losing votes on the left, and there's no way to appeal to the left without losing some of the mushy middle. But this is a choice between attracting voters that are firmly in line with leftists ideals and trying to attract those who only share them when it's convenient for them to do so. We're bailing on some truly dedicated leftists to appeal to those who vote for their immediate interests only. I feel this is the biggest mistake our Party has made in the last couple of decades (if not longer, we've fled from the "liberal" tag ever since McGovern).

Enjoy your weekend. :toast:

[bluestate10]

120. I really don't give a shit about the Green vote and don't count on them

to help win tough elections for democrats. Democratic leaning independents are a much more reliable and sane bunch, efforts should be directed at them. Fuck Greens, they are a waste of time and air.

[SpiralHawk]

25. Republicon darkside OCCULTISM

Repubbies and their SuckerPuppets are really into the occultism thingy as a darkside tool in their Crusade Against America.

[DainBramaged]

27. We've talked about it here for some months

most ot them are EASY to pick out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x568892

Last year, a young man called in to a radio station with a problem. He’d recently attended a bachelor party, he said, and a friend of the groom-to-be, clueless of the unwritten etiquette of maledom, brought his girlfriend along, derailing what was supposed to be a weekend of gambling, girls, and general debauchery. The caller told his story with passion and verve, and then asked the station’s listeners for their advice on how to treat his clueless pal.

Or at least he would have, had this been a real conversation. The young man—who asked to remain nameless in order to protect his chances for future employment—was an actor, and the staged call an audition. A short while later, he received the following email: “Thank you for auditioning for Premiere On Call,” it said. “Your audition was great! We’d like to invite you to join our official roster of ‘ready-to-work’ actors.” The job, the email indicated, paid $40 an hour, with one hour guaranteed per day.

But what exactly was the work? The question popped up during the audition and was explained, the actor said, clearly and simply: If he passed the audition, he would be invited periodically to call in to various talk shows and recite various scenarios that made for interesting radio. He would never be identified as an actor, and his scenarios would never be identified as fabricated—which they always were.

[jpak]

28. Ya think?

:rofl:

[Bobbie Jo]

33. +1

No kidding. Sheesh....it' painfully obvious.

Yet, they're welcomed with open arms.

[Tesha]

38. If you are so sure of folks being trolls, just notify the administrators.

But I suspect that many of the folks you would "inform" upon
have been here longer than you have and probably have a long
résumé of hard work for the Democrats.

For example, you might be tempted to "inform" on me (because
I've certainly spoken loudly about my disappointment with Obama)
but what you probably don't know about me is that I'm a hard-
working loyal member of my small city's Democratic committee,
a multiple-time attendee of my state's Democratic convention,
and Mr. Tesha has spent many hours each even-numbered year
"walking the wards" on behalf of the entire Democratic slate.

But if you're so sure that (for example) I am a troll, just turn me
in to the administrators.

Tesha

[Bobbie Jo]

41. First of all....

I don't even know YOU. Secondly, the poster/s I was referring to showed up around 2008 and after.

Third...thanks for the tip, why didn't I think of that? :eyes:

[Number23]

123. Wow. Is that poster "protesting-eth too much" or what??

:spray:

[Forkboy]

125. ...

:eyes:

[Number23]

127. ...

:nopity:

[Forkboy]

129. See post #144.

I believe it applies here.

:hi:

[Number23]

162. edit

Thought you were referring me to one of your posts. Now that I see that it's in fact NOT one of yours, I'm happy to read it. :hi:

[Forkboy]

164. Try #131 then.

Look forward to your reply.

:hi:

[Number23]

165. Marvelous insight. Truly. You're a wizard with words.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KittyWampus]

45. Tesha, I know you've ripped into Republicans. That's the main difference.

[Tesha]

47. Thank you!

Yes, absolutely, I hate Republicans with the heat of a thousand
suns and fully understand that the Republicans are the folks who
are actively trying to take our country back decades, if not
centuries.

My main complaint about our Party, the Democrats, is that they
ineffectively oppose the Republicans and some of our more-
Right-Wing elected Democrats actually aid the Republicans.

Tesha

[tanyev]

29. Marking to read later.

[Bandit]

31. Here is my deal, I am for Progressive Taxation, I am for Universal Health Care

I am for Worker's Rights and Union Rights. I am against War unless an absolute necessity and that ONLY occurs when our country is attacked by another country not a band of raggedy cave dwellers.I am for Justice and very much opposed to tortue and other war crimes..I will oppose anyone that trys to destroy those concepts whether it be Rush Limbaugh or President Obama...I am an Independent and belong to no official Party so I have no Party loyalties. I am a solid Liberal and will vote (or not) accordinly..

[Aerows]

32. There are some that lurk around here

I do think it's a stretch to say that everyone who says "both parties are evil" is a sock puppet. There *are* corporate whores in both parties, and while you will find most of the truly evil people in the GOP, there are some in the Democratic party I wouldn't mind seeing retire.

By that criteria about 75% of the board would be a sock puppet, not to mention people in daily life that bitch about how convoluted things are in DC.

Taken as part of the criteria, yes, but that one alone shouldn't be used to judge people. Politicians occasionally do shitty things (like voting for even more war funding while talking about cutting Medicare and Social Security) and voicing displeasure over it is just that - voicing displeasure.

[MilesColtrane]

37. K&R

Oh, they're here all right.

Maybe they'll be easier to flush out on DU3.

[KittyWampus]

46. It's impossible to flush them out, IMO. It's easier to put on Ignore anyone who always trashes Dems

and never bothers with Republicans.

[TK421]

124. then we have to flush out all the Independents!!!! LOL!!!!! ELEVENS!@!#

[fascisthunter]

48. I See more folks claiming to be on the Left while espousing neo-liberal policies

inteersting how these articles say the opposite of what I am seeing here on DU.

[CrossChris]

51. Rovian projection 101. Get out in front of the accusation first.

Attack your opponent for doing exactly what you're doing, etc.

[Melinda]

61. **Nodding head in fierce agreement**

Thank you!!

[RandomKoolzip]

49. While I'm sure this does happen, and I'm sure there are some active on DU

I have a sneaking suspicion that this information will be used by centrist-types to dismiss the legitimate concerns of the more lefty elements on DU, esp. w/r/t to the President. "Oh, of course you're criticizing Obama for not closing Gitmo - you're probably being paid by some right-wing think tank!" As if no one actually can take a more leftist position on DU without getting paid for it.

Already we see this with the hysteria over Jane Hamsher. I have a feeling this accusation will be used against anyone who takes positions that are to the left of the Obamam Administration.

[CrossChris]

54. delete - wrong place

[Marr]

77. And I have a feeling it wil be tolerated.

On the other hand, suggesting that the paid shills on a Democratic site are more likely to come from the right (Third Way think tank sorts) will not be allowed.

This is about steering dialogue more than anything else, and you don't do that by just disrupting. I've no doubt the pure disrupters are out there, but I don't think that's the larger thrust of such efforts.

[Zorra]

86. Since the "Third Way" and the GOP have the similar goal of moving

the Democratic party as far to the right as they possibly can, I totally agree.

It appears to me be that the common denominator among the various types of RW trolls would be that they will rarely or never trash conservatives, conservative ideas and policy, corporations, or corporate hegemony.

I imagine that most will consistently trash prominent progressive legislators, because progressive Democratic policies are so counter to their core RW conservative ideology, and these progressive legislators represent one of the greatest threats to RW/corporate control of the Democratic party and hence our government as well.

[socialist_n_TN]

107. To paraphrase, by their policies will you know them

Since I'm policy based rather than team based, I WILL criticize POLICIES that I disagree with no matter WHO espouses them.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

100. well.... still up

[SidDithers]

52. K&R...

IMO, alleged progressives who do nothing but post criticism and sow division are probably right-wingers in disguise.

Sid

[blue neen]

119. Yep.

K&R, Sid. :)

[Melinda]

53. Dude - seriously?

Who da thunk? :rofl:

:popcorn:

[CrossChris]

56. Why would a person who's capable of articulating progressive arguments work for the GOP?

Seems more likely to come from the center, where the arguments are shared, doesn't it?

[Bobbie Jo]

63. No articulation required. Copy/Paste....

Lather, rinse, repeat....

[CrossChris]

64. True---I would definitely be suspicious of anyone who only copied/pasted, and posted links

No argument from me.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marr]

74. LOL.

:)

[Bobbie Jo]

105. Oh you can believe it, alright.

Caught your reference of "agreement." The problem is, your veiled reference can back up her links with her own thoughts and words. Unlike the ones who post a masthead and paste an article, only to follow it up with strawman admonitions.

HUGE, glaring difference.

[TheKentuckian]

114. That is laughable. The rebuttal is almost another blue link that is less pertinent than the last

Or "The List".

[Bobbie Jo]

145. What's "laughable"

Is the OP who doesn't read or comprehend his/her own posted article, and trip all over themselves when called on it.

THAT'S laughable.

[TheKentuckian]

147. True

[Rex]

93. I've never seen a troll able to articulate progressive arguments on DU.

They just shout at people without any real substance in their posts. Wash, rinse and repeat. They wouldn't know how to argue if their life depended on it!

[socialist_n_TN]

108. There are some that are more subtle........

From spending a long time on a web site that was general (not right or left), but mostly RW, I KNOW how RWers argue. And the biggest thing I see on here are the ones who derail threads by taking a small out of context molehill and turning it into a HUGE mountain WHILE NEVER SPEAKING TO THE MAIN THRUST OF THE POST.

THAT'S a RW argument tactic. Derailing threads with inconsequentials.

[Forkboy]

152. Natural instincts trip them up sooner or later.

Certain topics are flypaper to them, and they just can't help themselves. :)

[Amaya]

59. they are all over this place

i rarely come here.... DU is suckage.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scheming daemons]

68. The article is about people who attack Democrats FROM THE LEFT

You have it exactly backwards.

[Marrah_G]

70. I think I have it right : )

[scheming daemons]

72. Then you didn't read the article in the OP

[Marrah_G]

73. I did read it.

:rofl:

[scheming daemons]

79. Well your subject said "I Agree".... but the body of what you posted was in direct disagreement with

..the article in the OP.


I get it that you have a point of view.... but it is directly opposite of the OP. So you don't "agree" with it at all.

[Marrah_G]

82. ~whoosh~

:rofl:

[CrossChris]

84. I know you have it right. nt

[Aerows]

90. You have it right

*smirk*

[Bobbie Jo]

168. Of course it is. nt

[Autumn]

83. I have had interactions with a couple of them,

one who has given me links to trash a Democrat he hates from right wing sources. A very busy poster, and another who seems to support republican values. But are both extremely protective of Obama.

[Safetykitten]

75. HI! Lefty Sockpuppet here to destabilize your universe.

[Marrah_G]

76. Ooooooooooooo scary tree-hugging socialist .........

[graywarrior]

78. Well, well, well, ain't that interesting

:9

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Horse with no Name]

87. They're hereeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.......

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rex]

99. LOL!

[baldguy]

158. Actually, they're mostly in the gungeon.

[Kingofalldems]

101. They attack from both sides--sowers of dissension and chaos

[Forkboy]

126. Exactly. Anyone thinking it's only "the other side" is a bloody naive fool.

[chill_wind]

111. The arguments and rebuttals back and forth in the responses

there are a hoot. Why go there when we can read them all day, day in and day out right here?

:shrug:

[markpkessinger]

113. No doubt, but not all criticism is necessariliy for Astroturfers

On one or two occasions, I've been accused of being a right-wing plant here because I've been critical of Obama on certain fronts. It is for this reason that I have always made a point to post under the same user name (my own real name) on this as well as any other site where I am post political comments -- when it comes to politics, I think it's important to openly claim one's position. So, if you Google "markpkessinger," you will come up with many years' worth of postings on dozens of sites. If you begin to read those postings, you will find, I think, a fairly consistent progressive viewpoint. If you arrange them chronologically, you will see a gradual disillusionment with the current Administration (although I am not yet among those calling for a primary challenge).

I have no doubt that the right-wing plants are here, but accusing someone who is not a right-wing plant of being one is an awfully tempting way to dismiss valid criticism coming from within Democratic ranks. As a Democrat, I believe in thoughtful dissent, and in the importance of being willing to hear opposing views, even if I disagree with them. I would hope that a site like this would remain a place where thoughtful debate and dissent -- particularly that which is "within the family" -- can occur openly.

I guess what I am getting at here is to suggest that before accusing someone of being a right-wing agitator posing as a left-wing critic, do a web search on that person's username and see if you can get a sense of their viewpoints (a) on a variety of political issues, and (b) over a significant period of time. Otherwise, you may be ignoring viewpoints based solely on the fact that you disagree with those viewpoints, and not based on the reason you are telling yourself (i.e., "I don't need to pay attention to this person because he/she is obviously (obvious because he/she disagrees with me) a right-winger posing as a left-wing critic).

As for the right-wing poseurs, in my experience, at least, they are usually pretty easy to spot. Their arguments tend to lack nuance or sophistication, and are more likely to be hyper-emotional rants than anything else.

[SoDesuKa]

133. Get 'Em Talking

I'm never put off by phonies because whatever they are, they're something. Whenever people are talking, they're open to persuasion. Of course, I have issues with dogmatic people whether I agree with them or not on any given issue.

[bobthedrummer]

148. Kick, n/t

[stranger81]

172. It may be easier to believe that every Obama critic who posts here is a RW plant,

but it's not true. It's a fantasy designed to deflect any sincere criticism. It's also not helpful to Obama's reelection cause to smear those of us unhappy with the Administration's policies as right-wingers. You're not likely to win any converts to your side with that kind of talk.

But carry on . . . . I'm sure you will.