Someone who disagrees with you?

if you disagree with it then there really is no difference between you and, say, Seb Gorka.

(Sorry this is necessary, but:: SARCASM!)

Aren't you being a bit defensive?

How can we discuss your question if we don’t first define what an anti-Democratic Party Democrat is? Please define the term for us so we can have an open discussion.

liability insurance for owing a weapon and requiring permits, background checks for owning weapons are violations of 2nd Amendment rights - you just might be speaking to a Russian bot.

I'm all for clarity.

If, however, someone questions the effectiveness (rather than the legality) of any particular policy does that also make them a bot net?

poster jump in on really controversial and divisive issues, it could be a red flag...but not always.

Are you arguing that I’m a sleeper agent? As to me participating in a controversial subject, did you ever stop to think that recent events have galvanized me to become more active? Don’t you want to get the politically inactive involved? How can Democrats win elections if we don’t? Isn’t a knee-jerk attack on newcomers counter-productive?

Or it could be that "controversial and divisive issues" stir long time lurkers to finally post.

To answer the OP, as a long time (and I mean LONG time) lurker, the main way to discern if a post is a Russian troll is whether or not you agree with the content of the post. Of course that is bullshit, but that seems to be the prevailing logic lately.

new posters the benefit of the doubt..if was tough for me being new.

done very defensively by some on this very thread....new poster.

Why do you suppose you didn't?

Botnets are becoming the crisis actors of the left. Every time someone offers a differing viewpoint it"s botnet, botnet, botnet. I understand the appeal since it is good mechanism to avoid self-examination but it does it become tiresome.

I am a mainstream Democrat. I have issues, like everyone else, but I am above average in both intellect and mental health in spite of numerous attempts by internet posters (Russian trolls and anti-Democratic Party Democrats) to convince me that I have mental issues.

I am a 58 year old mainstream Democrat who lives in North Carolina and i'm being accused of being a Russian troll, undoubtedly working from some nondescript office building on the outskirts of Moscow. What other conclusion can I come to other then my accusers are paranoid?

Anyway, I'm not going to worry about it for the rest of the weekend. I just got some wine and burgers at Fresh Market, got bread pudding ready to go into the oven (made with brioche, dried cherries and chocolate - yum!) and Bladerunner 2019 on Amazon so I'm going to step away from the keyboard and just enjoy the day.

Have a good weekend, and I sincerely mean that.

I have no idea who you are and I don't care. Not that it matters.but I didn't have you in mind when I started this thread. It's not.about you. Honestly. It's not about anyone in particular. So you're being defensive for no good reason.

But if you are badmouthing Democrats you should knock it off.

You are being paranoid.

You earned approval from cavers. That's interesting.

I’m going to bed, I gather you think this all significant but it isn’t. It’s just a website - not real life.

but definitely something that served legitimately as a flag.

I would add date of membership as another. A poster that just became a member today or yesterday is something to question when the post is clearly divisive or spreads rumor, conspiracy theories or right-wing talking points. Again, not perfect, but ....

back to not changing the regime thats killing enough people to make gun violence the second or third highest cause of death for children and teens because anything else will not work. What we have now most certainly is an abject failure.

I used to believe I should be allowed to own any sort of weapon I wanted, that if I could keep myself from attracting the attention of authorities what law was I really breaking. However it seems that most of these gun asses have created a situation where I am more than willing to forgo my assumed rights to own a weapon because the ownership of them has become a public health and safety issue. My right to the pursuit of happiness trumps your assumed 2nd Amendment right to own an AR-15.

I wonder how all those "militia" members firing off however many thousand of rounds over the years felt when the Russians interfered with the integrity of our elections without a shot fired or that President Cheetolini has still not done a thing to guarantee the security of this coming November's election?

What's your 2nd Amendment rights doing about that?

Or why is personal "safety" so freaking critical that children have to die daily and weekly just so you can maintain a perceived 2nd Amendment right to own a weapon who's sole purpose is to kill humans, for the excuse of "self protection" in a period of thirty years of decreasing crime???

Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2018, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

just a different approach. I work in government, and am involved in policy making and implementation, and the one thing I have learned in 30 years that incremental change that is supported by a large number of people is the route to success. There are many proposed gun control policies that are widely supported and have a chance of success, but attempting to do all in one fell-swoop is a recipe for failure.

banned. How much time does your state need to digest that?

I also live in reality. The repubs have gerrymandered this state to point where it will take a decade at least before we can even consider any sort of meaningful gun control. National polls don't count for much when it comes to getting legislation passed at the state and local level.

Read the Heller case

We are in total agreement - guns can be strictly regulated, as cited in Heller.

the party, I somewhat agree about JPR. At the same time, keep in mind that many of the people posting negative stuff about the Democratic Party and Democrats at JPR are also very open about not being Democrats.

I love it when the JPR site had so many pizzagate threads going that they admins had to step in

I go to that site to see what Putin is pushing this week

Democrats in office, and Democratic candidates than they spend embracing and promoting core party values as articulated in our platform might be called an anti-Democratic Party Democrat.

A person might be an anti-Democratic Party Democrat if he or she isn't aware of what's in our platform or of legislation that has been introduced by sitting Democrats in the current session of Congress, but nonetheless criticizes the party for not embracing policies that are intrinsic to our core principles and values and at the forefront of our legislative agenda. (HR 676 is a good example.)

seem to find that any Democrat in leadership ever does anything right.

that our leadership often lets us down?

or otherwise does things we do not like?

I certainly know that I voted for Obama - three times, but at the same time one of his earliest moves was to extort my state to pass a primary seat belt law. NOT something I am AT ALL happy about even years later.

Then there is my former Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Running for re-election about the only thing she talked about was - bringing a casino to Wyandotte County.

For myself, I am not that big on gambling our way to prosperity. Perhaps that makes me a bad Democrat. Then the economy went south and revenues started dropping. Sebelius took tax increases off the table, broadcasting the Republican talking point that "a tax increase would hurt Kansas families". Then, later, instead of running for the Senate in 2010, she abandoned Kansas to work in Obama's cabinet and the KDP suffered the electoral massacre of 2010, as her Lt. Governor, you know, the former chair of the Kansas Republican Party that she picked as her 2nd, refused to run for Governor leaving the party scrambling to get candidates for the top of the ticket.

Then too, in that regard, there was the Honorable Dennis Moore and Senator Jean Carnahan, two Democrats running for re-election in 2002 and using their advertising money to tell the people of the KC metro area that they "voted for the Bush tax cuts".

Are we supposed to pretend that leadership never does anything wrong? My party, right or wrong, love it or leave it?

strange when people say they are Democrats but have more negatives to say than positive.

I mean disagree with Obama about the seat belt law means this is a big tent and you don't agree on a policy but can still work together.

You've got one disagreement with Sebelius too.

They haven't done wrong, but disagreed on policy. You can't agree with everybody all the time.

I know I got tired of the attacks when Pelosi became speaker. It's like DU suddenly forgot that Bush was still President and that Pelosi was to blame for everything, even though Republicans still controlled the Senate. I finally switched my icon to Pelosi to show at least some support.

I can remember some other BS attacks. Time after time I have tried to correct people on DU who insisted that most Democrats voted for the invasion of Iraq. I can remember some BS attack from Sirota that I fought against too. Then about a year after Obama was elected it seemed to me that there were a whole bunch of low post long term accounts who suddenly got motivated to post an OP about how "they took their Obama sticker off their car today" and posted pretty much the same old list of all his supposed abuses and usurpations.

Heck, maybe some of the people posting "the list" really were disgruntled Democrats, but perhaps being played by other people who formulated and circulated the list in order to make Democrats disgruntled and discouraged. It was funny to me though, how a whole lot of animus seemed to go away once Obama finally got rid of DADT.

And, yes, some mean-spirited ones eager to believe malicious lies.

I read that 21% of registered Democrats in a 2017 national poll believed that Hillary Clinton had sold weapons to ISIS when she was secretary of state.

How COULD they?! And who doubts that most those lazy, stupid, horribly irresponsible idiots believe that politicians let THEM down?

both because they have been belted and because the adults have been belted and couldn't pitch around in a crash and injure a child. (I realize some adults don't care about their own risks. Tough.)

And how can you talk about the economy going south when that recession began in the last year of Bush's administration, and Obama had to fight the Republicans for every economy-saving action he took. And despite their obstruction, he was able to turn it around.

From the CDC:

Most drivers and passengers killed in crashes are unrestrained. 53% of drivers and passengers killed in car crashes in 2009 were not wearing restraints.

Seat belts dramatically reduce risk of death and serious injury. Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%.

Seat belts prevent drivers and passengers from being ejected during a crash. People not wearing a seat belt are 30 times more likely to be ejected from a vehicle during a crash. More than 3 out of 4 people who are ejected during a fatal crash die from their injuries.

Seat belts save thousands of lives each year, and increasing use would save thousands more. Seat belts saved almost 13,000 lives in 2009. If all drivers and passengers had worn seat belts that year, almost 4,000 more people would be alive today.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html

Big Brother must force us to buckle up. To hell with liberty, sacrifice it on the altar of safety.

Even though most of the time my risk of a bullsh*t traffic ticket is far far greater than my risk of an accident.

The economy going south was just background to my point. A Democratic "leader" was up there using her bully pulpit to spread the Republican talking point - tax increases would hurt Kansas families.

who got unnecessarily injured because of not wearing a seat belt (along with those who would have gotten injured regardless) -- so everyone on CHIP, Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare with a supplement.

Maybe you're not in any of these categories. But requiring seat-belts was a cost-effective and life-saving measure for Big Brother to take. Sometimes all of us have to take one for the team, even if it means wearing a seat belt though you don't feel like it.

of motorcyclists killed in an accident weren't wearing a helmet.

I'm all for wearing seatbelts, but I scratch my head wondering why we have seatbelt laws yet motorcyclists have the choice of not wearing a helmet if they so choose. Weird, huh?

Only two states have no law.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/helmetuse/mapmotorcyclehelmets

I do know that the government had a study for years, involving survey takers out on the roads, to determine how many people were wearing seat belts as they drove. So they knew what the percentage of use was in each state, how the death rate and use rate compared in the states, and how much improvement there was after the law went into effect (a significant improvement). And lives were saved.

But it was done scientifically. They didn't just decide on a hunch that seat belt use would save lives. They had data before they passed the law.

They had to have something like $10,000 of medical coverage. Which, of course, covers about 1/4 day in ICU.

I worked in a hospital, in administration. Clinical folks referred to un-helmeted motor cyclists as organ donors.

I cannot believe people on this board are advocating for no seat belts.

and our elected officials. Things like, going after Obama for a child safety seat-belt law, for instance.

The OP did not propose a dualistic situation like you state, an all or nothing viewpoint.

Democrats have never demanded manifesto lockstep agreement - that would not work, as it's a group of different coalitions.

The hyperbolic argument doesn't give one credibility.

I think the question about when someone is more of a critic than a supporter of the Democratic party is relevant. It seems that some believe that unless the Democratic party marches lockstep to a particular lefty manifesto, they are "corrupt."

is that you would need to get their position on a wide-range of issues before you could determine if it were true. Making the determination on a single issue is not enlightening since there are many Democrats that may disagree with a particular position but support the party on everything else. Sometimes on DU the claim of botnet gets thrown around just because there is disagreement on a single issue, which gets back to my point of in many instances an anti-Democratic Party Democrat is someone with whom someone disagrees with.

Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2018, 10:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Ran her campaign poorly & didn't excite people enough.

But those who demand a precise definition know better than we do. They have used their obtuseness ploy too often.

But I don’t understand that reference.

And it's a Democrat who lies about other Democrats.

But even worse they barf up "conservative" lies and smears and engage in some variant of the "both sides do it" lie.

If they prefer to criticize the Democrats and forget about the Republicans. Geez, if a Democrat is a "corporatist" then a Republican would surely be moreso.

Democrats in office, and Democratic candidates than they spend embracing and promoting core party values as articulated in our platform might be called an anti-Democratic Party Democrat.

A person might be an anti-Democratic Party Democrat if he or she isn't aware of what's in our platform or of legislation that has been introduced by sitting Democrats in the current session of Congress, but nonetheless criticizes the party for not embracing policies that are actually part of our core principles and values and at the forefront of our legislative agenda. (HR 676 is a good example.)

There are those who may hate mainstream Democrats...then..there are some so obsessed they would rather help the GOp win, win, win and win again because they think at some point, they will take the reins of the party, and they will win, even though they never figured out how to win in the firts place, which suits the GOP just fine. There are many shades in the spectrum.

So the distinction between them is moot. I swore to defend the U.S. Constitution from enemies domestic and foreign. The Rusky trolls worry me more because they are attempting to disrupt our democratic process. The locals are the usual scummy suspects that have been around since 1776.

Anti-Democrat leftists are very real, not just right wingers. Many not only don't have the insight to realize that about themselves but have no idea what the Democratic Party stands for. And some are registered Democrats. Everyone has a right to sign up, after all, and feel fully entitled to start spreading their lack of appreciation, ignorance and disaffection.

I wouldn't worry about whether they're malicious intruders, or sanctioned Democrats. It's all the same harm in the end. First come the whiners and criticizers, undermining the conviction and confidence of others, THEN the Russian trolls go to work multiplying their messages.

Instead I suggest regarding hostile, whiny, and dishonest comments as opportunities to speak up for Democrats.

We're the descendants of the Enlightenment, after all, the people who've taken over the GOP its deniers. Remember, reason, science, humanism, progress?

We're America's anti-fascists. Fascism is an archconservative form of government.

We're the originators and the defenders of America's principle of equality of all people and the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness thing.

Or more prosaically, pick an issue, any issue you care about, and stand on it. We're the anti-Republicans.

There are plenty who a leftist but not in the party. You can't be in the party if you are against it in my opinion.

when a badly needed Democratic sweep of special elections had most of us cheering, maybe even a few crying with relief and new hope?

Some here were depressed, even angry. Some went to a satellite forum to express their unhappiness with a freedom not allowed here.

Some approved the attempt of a faction in Virginia to cause the Democratic candidate for governor to lose by announcing on the eve of the election that they decided just couldn't endorse him because he was just too awful, even though it decided that long before. Maybe it picked that tactic up from Comey.

In any case, by all means use your own terminology for that type. Some political columnist called them rule-or-ruin Democrats, but by any name they're just as real as the whiners who spread their weakness and defeatism like a slow-acting poison, and both are the local material Russian trolls use.

...but I still vote for them. Am I an anti-Democratic Party Democrat?

What do you need me for? Not sure. Maybe my willingness to push for more rather than settle for what someone else deems possible?

...the Democrats fit that bill for me. Doesn't mean I don't wish they'd do things a bit differently.

I've been a Democrat my entire life, but have become increasingly frustrated with my party, to the point where it might be said I "dislike them" on some levels as they currently operate - but I'm sure as shit not going to join any of the others, which I dislike even more.

If the Democrats most closely represented some newcomer's point of view, but they wished things were a little different, what would you have them do ? Would you advise that they 1) Join our party + STFU and be happy with what we offer, 2) Join our party and advocate for the change they seek within, or 3) Join someone else ?

organization, you won't always be 100% pleased. I have always found the more you put into something the better you feel about it.

I think that's your answer.

So we all ought to be opposed to anti-Democratic Party Democrats. Right?

And there's no reason Democrats ought to be offended by the term if there is no distinction between anti-Democratic Party Democrats and Russian trolls.

when there is reason for said criticism. But I don't see how someone who is anti Democratic party can consider her or himself a Democrat.

My question is generic. I don't see why I need to draw the line except to say they say the same things as Russian trolls without the same motive.

I didn't become a member of this site to be deceived and influenced by trolls. Neither did the majority of Duers. We came here in good faith.

If you see something you're suspicious of, say something. Set the record straight when you see obvious disinformation , provacation, etc.

Again, you don't have to hurl accusations, just challenge premises,attitudes. Remaining silent is complicity.

"I can criticize Democrats and still not be a Russia troll" defense.

I have not said that isn't true, mind you. But there's nothing stopping a Russian troll from asserting it.

Here is an example: several ex-friends of mine insisted that Hillary Clinton would be prosecuted in the e-mail non-scandal, rendering them indistinguable (to me) from Russian trolls.

That's their problem ,not mine.

Let me reiterate , hurling accusations is not necessary. Calling out b.s. doesn't mean hurling labels.

.

The inference is that the responder was accused of being a russian troll.

Beg my pardon, if I drew the wrong inference.

the Party's platform and values.

"I didn't become a member of this site to be deceived and influenced by trolls."

This deserves to repeated and highlighted.

One wants to create chaos in our country( Russians)...the other simply hates the Democratic Party.

You seem to want clarity and specific definitions that apply consistently in call cases about that, which by its very nature, is inconsistent and attempts vagary and misrepresentation.

"should lump them together?"
My guess is simply use your best judgement in each case you come across ("examine all things, and hold fast to that which is good" ) ; and further avoid the belief that there is one, homogeneous denominator of trolls and other internet boors that can be applied in every case.

I'm fine with generalizations.

I am amused at how defensive some get. I find that more telling than anything.

Then they aren’t Democrats.

But then they object and say not nice things about me.

And support those candidates who espouse those values and policies, but still have a strong distaste for party politics, pandering for donations, back room shenanigans, etc.

My two adult millennial kids and many of their friends fall into that group; should the Democratic Party:

1) ignore these young voters' concerns?
2) assume they have these millenials' votes anyway, and continue party business as usual?
3) listen to these young voters' concerns, in order to keep the party responsive to the needs and values of a new generation of voters, which in turn will generate stronger motivation to turn out at the polls?
4) disdainfully "DemSplain" that this is just how things work in a two party system, and they should trust that those that run the party know what's best for them?

something, you end up with exactly the same dynamics.

And young adults should know this. In high school social studies classes, this is discussed and at least in my case, we played out numerous scenarios that demonstrated this to be the case with the students participating.

My expectation is that any adult should be mature and clear thinking enough to get this.

Big difference between critiquing the party and wishing for its destruction, so I hope you're not conflating the two.

=========

If you can make the distinction why would you assume that I didn't?

Didn't mean to insult you. Historically, there have been some here that don't make that distinction.

==========

Did it occur to you that perhaps I intended to be vague?

I don't accuse you of anything with my next vague comment, but others here have used "clarifying" as a ploy. I am not insulted. I have adapted to this ploy over the years and am still evolving.

not talking cross purposes is considered a ploy. If anything, clarification and clearing up of vague assertions and assumptions is what we need to be working toward. I find that creates far better outcomes during discussions. On this particular subject it becomes even more important, and I think some of the comments on this thread demonstrate that point. You see many people have different thresholds of "purity" for what they considered a democrat and what they consider an anti-democrat. For example, you may view this as a discussion about people who actively campaign against democrats using similar petty smear tactics and lies and being anti-democrat. I think most people would probably agree that anyone pushing conspiracies about Clinton murders and Pizzagate is probably not a friendly. So, while that may be what you intended by anti-democrat (or not), there is someone in this thread who has much stricter tests for this and they think people who don't agree with them on the 2nd amendment are anti-democratic party. You may or not feel the same way. We don't know unless we ask for more details on precisely what you mean. Once that's cleared up then a far more useful conversation can be had.

We can apply this to the other side too. Let's say there is a conservative republican who is pretty much a staunch conservative on everything, but maybe this person is pro-choice or they support universal health care. Would you no longer consider those people republican and anti-republican for those few beliefs that may not be lockstep with most other conservatives? Probably not, right? I mean, they still have backward views on a host of other issues.

again.

Again.

If I see someone who obviously has not bothered to garner actual information about politics, or political situations instead just repeats memes, half truths and bullshit, there isn’t anymore point in listening to them OR trolls. It’s just sloppy thinking. The Democratic Party does gets hit with accurate criticism from time to time. As it should. In those cases, the criticism is fairly specific, and has a solution(s).

I also don’t listen to people who seem to have one foot out the door ie “I don’t know if I can stay in a party that (reason of choice)” while I understand this to a point, I wasn’t a Democrat until the year 2000, I leaned Socialist for a long time, but I don’t listen to those people either.

Here are a couple of examples of sloppy thinking; “The Democratic Party doesn’t stand for anything” “Where are the Democrats? There aren’t fighting (topic of choice)”

There is no way to distinguish genuine people with sloppy thinking and trolls of any sort to my mind. People who are simply politically ignorant can learn of course. I learn new things all the time.

properly. They need to 'get their message out'.

I live in a state with strong Democrats, so that one has always puzzled me. I look at other states, and it looks likes Democrats are messaging fine as well. So who are the Democrats without “messaging” skills?

And we will work our way through it. Without a defined name the question isn't possible to delve into.

We are under attack. MIRT and EarlG do a pretty good job.

I’m really not sure but am appreciative for all you do. I don’t envy the job but have a lot of respect for it.