Clues that the post you’re reading on DU might not be sincere

[TwilightZone]

1) A post starts with “I hate to say it, but….”

The reverse, of course, is true. It’s not hate, it’s love. The poster is simply thrilled to be providing you with the information that follows.

Remove the above phrase, and you usually end up with the sincere part.

Example: “I hate to say it, but I think X candidate really is an (insert flame-worthy accusation here)”

2) It includes the phrase “I’ve heard”

What the poster really means is, “Check out the ridiculous assertion that I just invented!”

Anything that follows “I’ve heard” should be disregarded in its entirety. The poster didn’t “hear” anything unless it was the voices in his/her head.

3) It includes some variation of “The Republicans want X candidate to be the nominee”

What the poster really means is “I hate your candidate, but since I can’t be bothered with actually explaining why, I’ll use the Republicans as an excuse.”

“Karl Rove” can be substituted for “The Republicans.”

4) It includes the phrase “I’m worried” or the phrase “I’m afraid”.

What this really means is “please believe the completely irrational assertion that follows shortly”.

Example: “I’m afraid that X candidate will be nominated, and the world will end!”

Example: “I’m worried that X candidate will be nominated, because it will turn the Republicans into a pack of rabid weasels intent on personal destruction!”

Don’t be afraid. Besides, the rabid weasel party is already intent on personal destruction, as I’m sure Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry would confirm.

[Marrah_G]

1. Please add one more

Posts that have some sort of "why bother, we can't win, just stay home" subject.

[TwilightZone]

11. Good one.

I often wonder why people bother to post "why bother" posts in the first place.

I mean...why bother? :)

[unpossibles]

12. because the easiest way to subvert democracy

is to discourage people from voting, or to encourage the memes of "they're all the same" and "it won't change anything."

Maybe the naysayers need to run for office themselves.

[TwilightZone]

14. Good point.

The possibility of a (not so) hidden motive is what makes the "why bother" posts so disconcerting. It's often difficult to tell if the subversion you mentioned is intentional or not.

[unpossibles]

20. to be honest

I am fine with the idea of pointing out problems on our side if they truly exist and if it is something which can reasonably be changed. I would not want us to become like the dittoheads who are incapable of seeing the problems in their own house, so to speak.

That said, I am quite distrustful of the motives of people who seem to be discouraging us from voting ("they're all the same") or who have nothing but venom toward candidates. Infighting is not constructive criticism, and to state that electing Hilary (or Obama or Edwards) would be akin to keeping Bush in power, or worse would be somehow worse than electing any of the Republicans is beyond irresponsible.

We - American citizens, that is, not just Democrats - cannot afford to have more rightwing anti-Constitutional rights judges both in the SCOTUS and in the general judicial branch. That deck is already far too stacked with problems that I'm not sure it would survive another 4 years of authoritarian rights-reduction.

We also do not hold enough of a majority in Congress to override a veto, especially if you include some of the more centrist Democratic Representatives & Senators. Without a Democratic President, our congress will continue to be painted as a "do-nothing" band of weaklings. Yes, in some cases SOME of them have shown they can be without question, but to broad brush the entire Democratic Party because of the votes of a handful of people is disingenuous at best.

Shit, I am not even a Democrat - I have been an independent since I was 18 - but I am a lefty who almost always has voted Dem, and this shit pisses me off. I will support the Democrats because I do see a difference in the parties. Heck, even the more conservative sides of the Democrats are a vast improvement over any of the Republicans.

Despite being a Kucinich supporter, I also will defend stupid attacks against the front runners because it does more harm than good, and because a Centrist who does not represent me will be a better President than a rightwing fascism apologist. When I see someone selfishly say they refuse to vote for ______ (usually Hilary) in the general election if she gets the nod, I have to question either their sanity or their motives.

Hey, if you'd rather have President Guiliani/Romney/Thompson because Hilary was too conservative for you.... um.. yeah. I don't get it.

[TwilightZone]

21. I agree.

I have no problem with pointing out legitimate concerns (and there are many) with our candidates and with Democrats, in general. What I rail against is the insincere garbage that passes for "criticism" about them and the blanket statements that are all too frequently made about them.

We need to push for a more progressive agenda. On that, I think nearly everyone here would agree. As you noted, it's difficult to do so with Bush in office and with the thin majorities we currently have. In my opinion, the only way that we can hope to push a more progressive agenda is if we win the presidency and shore up our majorities in the House and Senate.

I also agree that the "there's no difference" crowd is misguided, at best. One look at the records of our nominees in comparison to their Republican opponents bears that out.

[TwilightZone]

50. .

never mind, wrong place...

[reinhardt]

36. The easiest way to steal money is to pretend you didn't plan on it

The function of all government is to pretend to fail

[TwilightZone]

44. Or generate a budget using a dartboard.

Let's see, the budget for this particular program will be...thunk! $15 billion.

Followed months later by an "adjustment". Oops, our original estimate was wrong. No idea why.

[reinhardt]

52. how did I know

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=tm&bn=19750&tid=1133&mid=1133&tof=-1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1

[EstimatedProphet]

38. Very good point

I think a lot of people would find out how little support their position actually has if they ran for office.

[TwilightZone]

43. As I jokingly said in another thread, if we started a...

Democrats who agree with me on everything party, the number of members would probably be one.

[SteppingRazor]

2. Corollary to rule No. 3:

Karl Rove is especially used as a substitution for Republicans in this way when his name is spelled "KKKarl."

:P

[mmonk]

3. Agree with all except number 4.

Depends on what someone is afraid of.

[TwilightZone]

24. That often isn't elaborated upon.

It's often just a vague claim that certain candidates will increase GOP turnout.

While that may be true, I'm not interested in letting the GOP decide who I support.

Some people are racists. That shouldn't stop us from supporting Obama or Richardson. Some people are sexists. That shouldn't stop us from supporting Hillary. Some people hate lawyers. That shouldn't stop us from supporting about half of the people in Congress.

[durrrty libby]

4. True and annoying as hell

[uppityperson]

5. I hate to say it, but I've heard the Repubs want X to be the nominee, I'm afraid.

Can I have a cookie? Kick.

[MADem]

7. Wow, a TRIFECTA!! Way ta 'catapult the propaganda!!!'

:thumbsup:

:rofl:

Good job!!!

[TwilightZone]

19. That's another good one....

Just about anything with a candidate's name and the word "propaganda" in the same sentence.

Though, actually, that would be quite sincere. :)

[TwilightZone]

9. Nice one.

I don't have a cookie. Will a donut do? :donut:

[MADem]

6. Don't forget: They're ALL ALIKE!!! And if you dare to disagree, you're treated to

pathetic "Bow Down To Your Corporate Masters" snark. That one often accompanies "The End is Near" gripes!

I find the "They're All Alike" types the MOST disingenuous, because clearly, they are NOT all alike. Barney Frank is like George Bush? I don't think so--Barney has a brain, two degrees from Harvard and a gift with the spoken word.

George Bush? George Bush is afraid of horsies...

[TwilightZone]

26. I completely agree.

I think that the "they're all alike" comments are often intended as attention-seeking devices.

[Mandate My Ass]

8. Variation on No. 1

Post that begins with: After listening to both sides and carefully thinking things over, it's obvious that "insert flamebait topic here."

[TwilightZone]

35. Especially when it's obvious that the poster did nothing of the sort.

It's more like, "After I flipped a coin, it's obvious that...."

[Lex]

10. Concern Troll.

Aren't they just the cleverest?

[TwilightZone]

49. I do like that phrase.

I think it's rather appropriate.

[global1]

13. I Heard That All The Dem Candidates Have Some Of Their People Sign In To DU....

and when a post comes up critical to their candidate that they respond and refute and embellish. Any truth to that?

[TwilightZone]

16. They're paid. Paid, I tell ya!

I think that the claims that many DUers are paid (or unpaid, for that matter) campaign staff are probably overblown.

DUers are generally a bunch of political junkies (myself included), posting on a political website. I think it's natural for supporters to get a little emotionally involved in their support of their candidates.

That being said, just like anything in life, it can be taken to extremes. People exaggerate and embellish everywhere, not just in politics. :)

[global1]

22. I Like You Am A Political Junkie And Follow This Site Religiously And Occasionally....

post my feelings, questions and opinions. But I've noticed that almost immediately when someone takes a shot at a presidential candidate that there are responses that are quick to refute and almost sound like talking points. So I'm suspicious that there are political operatives for various candidates whose job it is to watch this board and make sure that they keep their candidate looking good.

[intheflow]

23. Agreed.

A lot of enthusiasm can be attributed to dedicated candidate volunteers, but it's hard to believe that many DUers would walk in lock step with any candidate completely (except maybe Kucinich). I alsways wonder about those "talking point" posts, too.

[TwilightZone]

28. While I suppose that's possible, it would seem like a serious waste of resources.

It would take someone about an hour to figure out that there aren't a lot of minds to change on DU, so having a campaign operative spend a lot of time here trying to deflect the constant barrage of posts would seem like a huge waste of time.

Similar claims were made during the '04 primaries. A few people eventually noted that they were indeed on staff with a campaign, but I don't believe that the majority of DUers are directly affiliated with a campaign. I could certainly be wrong.

[global1]

39. I Never Claimed That A Majority of DUer's Are Directly Affliated With A Campaign....

only that there maybe some from each candidate's campaign staff whose job is to counteract any negative posts about their candidate. When you say there aren't a lot of minds to change on DU - I have to say then - why are the candidates raising so much money to influence Dems that they would be the best candidate for the party? Until the nominee is chosen - that is the job of all of the operatives for all the campaigns. They are out to change Dems minds as to who the best Dem candidate will be. If a DUer post something negative about candidate X and candidate X's operative can refute the post in a positive way - that could go a long way in changing a DUer's mind as to whom to support and maybe even change their mind from a candidate they were currently supporting.

[TwilightZone]

41. Clarifications

By "majority of DUers", I meant that I personally believe that the vast majority of DUers are not part of someone's campaign. I didn't mean to imply that you thought otherwise.

Re: not a lot of minds to change - I simply meant that my general impression is that a lot of DUers have made up their minds already, so there wouldn't be a lot of opportunity on DU to sway too many people to a specific candidate. Part of that comes from my experiences on DU during the '04 primaries when it felt like nearly everyone had a candidate fairly early.

I agree that making positive posts about a candidate should be an effective way to sway DUers. Where we may disagree is the number of DUers that are realistically available to be swayed. Admittedly, it's probably a higher percentage than I think.

[MADem]

30. Shit, I'm undecided, but we all could use some pin money!! WHERE do I sign up???

I've worked on campaigns in the past, and doggone it, no one ever asked me to post on the 'internets'--of course, on those real good campaigns, there weren't any internets, yet!!

DOH!!!!

[TwilightZone]

33. I've been wondering that myself.

If people are getting paid, I want in on the action!

Then, at least I'd have an excuse for wasting...er, spending so much time here!

[OzarkDem]

47. No doubt true

It happened a lot in the 2006 races, campaign staff monitoring and even posting on Dem political forums.

Keep in mind the GOP is doing it also.

[tandot]

15. I just responded to a post that sounded like 1) with a snarky remark

I am just getting tired of all the negativity and doom and gloom, especially directed against the Democrats.

Why do they even bother to post if they really think that the situation is that hopeless?

[MADem]

31. They're from another place, some of them.

They're mad because their team is in the doghouse, and they want to shit on the winners. It makes them feel MANLY, doncha know!!!

[TwilightZone]

34. I recently spent a little time...

at one of those "other" places, for the first time in a couple years.

It made me realize that GD: Politics is only *relatively* insane.

[TahitiNut]

17. "Sorry, the fact is ...."

The person is not sorry - not even close. The "fact" is an opinion, usually about some future event.

:shrug:

[TwilightZone]

18. Excellent.

That's one of the best. Completely forgot that one.

In a similar vein, there's "No offense", which I must admit to using a time or two insincerely. :)

[Forkboy]

25. You're in GD Politics?

[TwilightZone]

27. Yeah, that pretty much covers it.

I could have saved some time.

[Stephanie]

29. "It makes us look bad!"

Claiming to be a "concerned" one of "us". So tired.

[TwilightZone]

32. Yes.

Another good one. The "concern troll" as another poster referred to it. Quite appropriate.

[Fly by night]

37. There are "some people who say" just about all these things here ...

... and often when I check their profile, I find they've posted 500+ DU responses in a week or so.

That kind of fanaticism, I believe, seldom is unpaid and most often comes in red.

I do think there are some paid "topic vultures" here. There are two I have in mind on ER who post immediately whenever anything related to exit polls appears and then seldom post on any other subject. Now I'm about to find if they have a "key words" spybot that will draw them to this thread.

Here, kitty, kitty, kitty ....

[TwilightZone]

42. "Some people say"

That is, of course, a Bush administration favorite, though it unfortunately tends to get used here, as well.

It's basically translated as "Nobody has ever really said this, but...."

Example: Some people say that the Democrats want Osama bin Laden to be president.

[ronnykmarshall]

40. You get a Do Bee star!

[ben_meyers]

45. Well I never listen to that pimple-assed pigboy,

and of course I don't look at the sludge report, and I can't read Man Coulter etc. and so on, but here is what they said or did!

[TwilightZone]

46. "I know this is a right-wing news source, but..."

Since the article or statement happens to fit my agenda, here it is!

Thanks. That's a good one, too.

[Rockholm]

48. Add "I have gay friends, but...." or I have black friends, but....

[IronLionZion]

51. I have a mother/sister/wife etc but... I love liberalism/Dems/DU but nt

[SoCalDem]

53. "Some people say"..n/t

[tjwash]

54. Correct me if I'm wrong...

One of my personal favorites.