What is the point of even talking about Ron Paul or any Republicans here?

[Bonobo]

We are all different flavors of Democrats here, so what are we trying to put our energy towards?

The Republicans will not change no matter what we say about their kookiness, their hair, their bellies, their wives, their corruption, etc.

If we want to change things, it is the Democrats that we need to use our influence with.

So what is the purpose of all the endless talk about how nutty Ron Paul is?

In my opinion, we could and should be better directed towards discussing what kind of Democratic representation we want and then working towards that by using this place as a loudspeaker to magnify our voices.

Talking about Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Glenn Greenwald, Cenk Ungur may be entertaining, but it is essentially the equivalent of masturbating in a movie theater.

If that's what you're into, then go for it but don't pretend that you are there to enlighten yourselves or others.

[FarLeftFist]

1. I hope people put this much energy into getting more Libs/Progressives elected.

[jberryhill]

2. Be the change you want

Nobody is stopping you.

[Bonobo]

3. I think you must have replied to the wrong OP.

I don't think I mentioned anything about being stopped...

[jberryhill]

4. When I'm in a group...

...and I want to suggest a new topic for discussion, then what I usually do is to introduce a new topic for discussion, instead of telling everyone else what I don't like them talking about.

[Bonobo]

6. And no one is stopping you from doing what you want in your group.

Furthermore, I think I asked a very meaningful question if you bothered to look past the fact that it threatens your own world view.

[jberryhill]

11. Oooh tell me about my world view!

Now there's a topic on which I gather you are an expert!

[Bonobo]

13. Seems fairly reactionary to me.

Opposed to ideas that are too threatening to the status quo.

That is based on many years of reading your posts.

[joshcryer]

16. What is the point of even talking about Ron Paul or any Republicans here?

I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul or any Republicans ideas are not too threatening to the status quo, in fact, I've spent quite a bit of time vehemently arguing against their ideas. And we saw it tonight with Ron Paul's stump speech that he's already moving to the center on Afghanistan. as he moves to the center to appease South Carolina, and his views match that of Obama's, are we still going to talk about Ron Paul or any Republicans here?

So what is the purpose of all the endless talk about how threatening to the status quo Ron Paul is?

It's simply untrue.

[jberryhill]

20. I think DU needs more threads about me

Since I'm a topic you enjoy discussing, perhaps we could start a forum just for talking about me. You could surely start a number of threads explaining how you've become well acquainted with each one of my personality flaws!

[Bonobo]

28. jberryhill: " Oooh tell me about my world view!" nt

[joshcryer]

9. Pretty much.

[edgineered]

5. Jan 31st in FL is my purpose

At the end of December the "D" became and "R" for me. Just call it demographics for now.

It is still too early to know how to most effectively vote in the primary here. Reading posts, many posts, gives me something most of the "R"'s don't have - information.

I'll have my "D" back in Februay.!

[joshcryer]

7. I'll note you don't say anything about favorable posts about 'em.

I've started a total of two Ron Paul threads in the past month, both of which sank and didn't garner many replies.

I, however, have no intention of letting Ron Paul's voice be heard here on Democratic Underground without critical opposition to those views.

[Bonobo]

10. Oh you'll "note" it, will you?

So now there isn't just a list for people that say "nice" things about Ron Paul's positions, there is a list for people that don't actively jump into anti-Ron Paul threads and condemn him? Jeebus.

[joshcryer]

12. Sorry, I assumed this was a general thread about boring Ron Paul threads.

But instead it was a general thread about threads calling Ron Paul nutty.

It would've been interesting if the contents of your post at least tried to reflect the title.

[Bonobo]

14. Huh? The title asked a question.

The body of the OP went into deeper detail about why I thought it was futile effort to waste breath talking about RP and Repukes when we should be working harder towards improving our own party --the only one we have the chance to have an effect on.

Does that clear it up?

[joshcryer]

18. Not really. The party doesn't exist on DU to any extent. And I'm not a party member.

The content of your message veered to talking about how "nutty Ron Paul is" and compared that act, not talking about Republicans, but calling Ron Paul nutty, to "masturbating in a movie theater."

It's hardly a general indictment on "talking about Ron Paul or any Republicans," as it does not talk about favorable views of Ron Paul, and it completely neglects the strategic usefulness of knowing what Republicans are doing in the campaigns (thus talking about Ron Paul or any Republicans should be merited on that basis alone!).

[downwardly_mobile]

8. Because most of us are politics-mavens as well as Democrats --

Even the strongest Yankee fan still cares about what's going on in the National League if he loves the game.

[Mosaic]

15. Know your enemy

It is wise to know your enemy, so you can defeat them handily. That's why we talk about the bastards.

[PurityOfEssence]

46. Absolutely

The self-congratulatory echo chamber here gets tiresome. There are reasons why many people are conservative, and dismissing these impulses and reinforcing our views is fun and empowering, but doesn't do squat to analyze what's going on with the enemy or devise strategies against them.

Know the enemy.

It's also just pruriently fascinating to see people of such alien mindsets in action, and their foibles are often a hoot.

[A Simple Game]

66. But nobody is talking about "the bastards".

They are only talking about one "bastard", Ron Paul. There are other posts that are critical of liberals critical of President Obama.

If your theory of "Know your enemy" was right, why wouldn't there be threads about the Republican leader, Mitt Romney? I rarely see any mention of him.

It is my theory that the President Obama defenders are posting about Ron Paul, Glenn Greenwald, etc. as diversions. You can almost depend upon one prolific poster to start a diversionary thread two or three times a day.

[MADem]

17. HIDE THREAD is your friend!

You'll probably get more done if you spend less time trying to control the behaviors of others.

[Bonobo]

19. I present you with...

the Ironic Post of the Year award.

[MADem]

22. I don't get your "irony" point. I don't have any problem with this thread. No wish to hide it.

You, though, seem annoyed that people are doing things that don't interest you.

You apparently mistake a friendly suggestion that might aid your distress for something "ironic."

You'll have to spell it out for me, I'm afraid--I entirely am not taking your POV.

[jberryhill]

25. Happy Hour Has Hit The Pacific Rim, IMHO

A big muscular guy walks into a bar and yells "All y'all on this side of the bar are sonsabiches and all y'all on that side of the bar are mf'ers!"

The room falls silent, as some kinda thin, kinda short guy gets up from his stool and starts walking..

"Just where do you think you're going, fella?" bellows the bully.

"Oh, I just realized I'm sitting on the wrong side of the bar."

[MADem]

34. OK, now that was funny! nt

[Selatius]

21. Americans are an egocentric lot. Find one person to voice your views, and then you follow him.

He talks a good game about fighting against government power with respect to defending the 4th Amendment in the face of a security state like ours, and he hits all the correct anti-war talking points whenever it comes to withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, closing the huge footprint of military bases abroad, and slashing the military budget in a post-Cold War world.

But the fact is organizations like the ACLU, the NAACP, and other organizations have been fighting to uphold protections in the Bill of Rights for years against fear-mongering politicians bent on security at the expense of freedom, and anti-war groups like IVAW and the reconstituted VVAW and a plethora of other anti-war groups have been front and center for years opposing needless war.

The big difference is that Ron Paul is actually getting airtime, and all these good organizations run by good people have largely been silenced by the corporate-owned media that would rather you concentrate on choices between mediocre and just plain bad.

And on top of that these concerns are not being voiced by a charismatic leader on the left who embodies what they want. Ron Paul is a stand-in for that missing element. Barack Obama would be the next logical figurehead to be the vessel for those concerns, but he never campaigned as an anti-war left-wing civil libertarian. He simply had to say he wasn't another George W. Bush Republican, and he had the election in the bag.

[pinboy3niner]

23. Entertaining is good, too

When we lose our sense of humor, I'll really start to worry!

[joshcryer]

24. Heh heh

It's all theater and drama, and it's wonderful.

[pinboy3niner]

27. Luckily, the admins appreciate humor (and at times are the instigators)

Yes, Virginia, there are still things we can laugh about. What a great country!

[MilesColtrane]

30. "It's all theater and drama"

...and every actor wants to be a director.

[Bonobo]

31. And it's more painful to look at your own flaws than to point out how others are worse. nt

[pinboy3niner]

43. And what a dreary world it would be, Virginia...

...if all we did was obsess about our own flaws.

[aikoaiko]

26. They want beat us and they can if we're not careful. Therefore it behooves us to discuss them.

[Bonobo]

29. We cannot change them.

We will vote against them, but we cannot change them because we have zero leverage over them.

We CAN change our own party.

[joshcryer]

32. The poster was discussing beating them, not changing them.

[Bonobo]

37. Well how does discussing them here do that?

No one here is voting for Ron Paul and if there IS anyone, it would be perhaps .01% of DU.

So is all this effort aimed at reaching that .01%?

Seems more like it all amounts to "Look how crazy/bad/vile they are."

The problem is that if you NEVER look at your own self and try to improve, then you just keep going downhill.

It's like a 500 pound person refusing to admit that they have to do something to improve themselves by pointing at a person that weighs 1,000 pounds.

The reality is that the 500 pound person ONLY has the power to change himself.

[joshcryer]

40. Fascinating. Blaming the victim stuff there. Love it.

The 500 pound person has no business criticizing the corporate food culture that got them where they are today!

[Bonobo]

48. That was lame, Josh.

You owe me an apology for that but if you can't admit it, that's fine.

I will just "note" your cheap-ass attack tactics.

[joshcryer]

51. I find the "fat person" analogy repugnant, and not getting to the matter.

There's no expression how the "1000 lb fat person" actually likes eating a lot, actually likes the corporations, actually likes all the crappy stuff. And the other guy just wants to lose weight. But because of policies by the 1000 lb guy, that guy isn't allowed to.

You're acting as if they are ideologically similar, and that's what's so annoying abut all of this. It's "comparable to masturbating in a theater" to call these fascists nutty, but oh, buddy, we can tout them all we want!

[jberryhill]

44. Because most DUers have actual real life friends, co-workers, etc.

And those people in the circles of influence of DUers include a lot of people who are uninformed, misinformed, or only mildly and vaguely interested in politics except maybe to go vote once every four years.

DU is a lifeline for a lot of people to understand critically what is going on, and to be able to articulate it to others who are NOT on DU.

A good deal of DU is as a support group for Democrats who aren't looking for encounter therapy.

[Jim Lane]

56. I agree. We can pass the information on to non-DUers who *might* vote Republican.

As another example, there's this thread -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/101414893 -- in which onehandle posted Rick Santorum's saber-rattling about bombing Iran. I, for one, hadn't been aware of that. With the information I gained from DU, I edited the frothy one's Wikipedia bio to include this point -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Iran_nuclear_capability for the current version.

Now, I'll admit that, along with that high-minded explanation, there's also the giggle factor. Even with Bachmann and Cain gone, the rest of them are still capable of providing hours of amusement with their antics.

Bonobo, you're right that we should work to improve the Democratic Party. But, gee, can't we take some time out along the way to have a little fun by laughing at the Republicans?

[aikoaiko]

38. I agree, but the more we hone our criticism of them, the better we are able to

persuade uncommitted middle of the road voters to come with us.

[jberryhill]

33. Because a lot of DUers live and work in the US

And some of them in very red areas, workplaces, families, and social acquaintances.

Some DUers have to spend hours a day with ditto-heads, wingnuts, birthers, Bible thumpers and the other products of Koch Industries.

What they get from DU, as I did when working in a majority R environment, is simple confirmation that they are not crazy, alone, or bereft of answers when treated as the "commie liberal Democrat" punching bag by those around them. It's also a great place for blowing off steam at the kind of crap that gets quoted their way from the Fox talking points du jour.

People have their own reasons for discussing what they want to discuss. Throw some topics out there. Suggest some changes.

But you don't have to put down and go after folks who feel like discussing stuff you don't find interesting.

You know what? Some people enjoy masturbating in a movie theater. If they all want to get together and do that, do you really have to run up and down the aisles with a flashlight yelling at them to stop?

[MADem]

35. Better than stealing cars or hubcaps, that's for sure!

The visual imagery of your commentary....! Priceless!

Pee Wee Herman would no doubt feel vindicated!

[jberryhill]

36. I mean, who does that?

Y'know?

The police raid an X-rated adults only movie theater and arrest people for masturbating?

It's like going to an amusement park and handing out speeding tickets at the roller coaster.

That's what they are there to do!

[Bonobo]

39. I have no problem as long as they clean up the floor and don't try to share my popcorn. nt

[REP]

41. I don't want to change the Republicans; I wish to crush them in the polls

It's pretty common to speak of one's opponent in any contest, n'est ce pas?

[G_j]

42. you said Republicans

though some of the people you mention are not Republicans.

[jberryhill]

45. It's a broader list of folks we are not supposed to discuss

He doesn't want DU to discuss anyone on that list.

This could work if we add them to ch----ails in the TOS.

That is, if we have the complete list of persons whom we may not discuss without a movie projector and lube.

[pinboy3niner]

47. As long as you're still fair game...

[jberryhill]

50. I have six people ignoring me

I always wanted to start something called Assbook. It would be just like Facebook, but you'd have enemies instead of friends.

Then I'd figure out a way for people to connect their Facebook to their Assbook.

[pinboy3niner]

52. The GOP is way ahead of you

They've had their Facebook up their Assbook for some time now.

[jberryhill]

53. Lol

Hey, it's your turn to clean the floor tonight, right?

[pinboy3niner]

55. I plan to raise some legal issues about that

It could be MONTHS before they sort it out. If they want it done right away, they're probably gonna need someone with the appropriate legal expertise to handle that chore.

[pinto]

49. I think there's room to do both here.

And think we should do both. Highlight a broad Dem agenda and highlight the narrow Repub sound bite. One takes time and the other buys us time.

Agree, some of the stuff is kind of pointless. Yet some is telling. I mean, much of what they propose is laughable. Ron Paul's platform is nutty. Why not mention it?

You make a good point - "discussing what kind of Democratic representation we want and then working towards that by using this place as a loudspeaker to magnify our voices".

Suggest you don't discount some of the jib jab that's a part of politics along the way, though.

[Major Hogwash]

69. Well, let them get their own room then. Like a small, dark broom closet.

Because it doesn't say "Republican Underground" at the top of the forum.
I have waited my whole life for the Democrats to support a Black President of the United States enough for him to get elected.

For some of us, this is a dream come true.
I think that even to this day, some people are still in shock over it.
Like that stoopid book that just came out saying that Michelle Obama is an "angry, black woman."

So, I'm just not willing to spend a lot of time listening to a bunch of whining about what President Obama has been able to accomplish in light of the fact of the total obstructionism that the Republicans have put up against him for the last 3 years.

[RZM]

54. it's a political discussion board

I don't know about you, but I love political contests. I've always said it's sports for nerds

[Hugabear]

57. I'll be sure to add to this to my List Of Things We Are Not Supposed To Discuss

I'll see if I can find that list...it's around here somewhere...I think it's next to the List of Things I Don't Give A Fuck About

[pampango]

58. NPR: Progressive Man-Crushes On Ron Paul

What is it with progressive mancrushes on right-wing Republicans? For years, until he actually got nominated, John McCain was the recipient of lefty smooches equaled only by those bestowed upon Barack Obama before he had to start governing. You might disagree with what McCain stood for, went the argument, but he had integrity, and charisma, and some shiny mavericky positions — on campaign finance reform and gun control and... well, those two anyway.

Now Ron Paul is getting the love. At Truthdig, Robert Scheer calls him "a profound and principled contributor to a much-needed national debate on the limits of federal power." In The Nation, John Nichols praises his "pure conservatism," "values" and "principle." Salon's Glenn Greenwald is so outraged that progressives haven't abandoned the warmongering, drone-sending, indefinite-detention-supporting Obama for Paul that he accuses them of supporting the murder of Muslim children. There's a Paul fan base in the Occupy movement and at Counterpunch, where Alexander Cockburn is a longtime admirer. Paul is a regular guest of Jon Stewart, who has yet to ask him a tough question. And yes, these are all white men; if there are leftish white women and people of color who admire Paul, they're keeping pretty quiet.

It's a little strange to see people who inveigh against Obama's healthcare compromises wave away, as a detail, Paul's opposition to any government involvement in healthcare. In Ron Paul's America, if you weren't prudent enough or wealthy enough to buy private insurance — and the exact policy that covers what's ailing you now — you find a charity or die. And if civil liberties are so important, how can Paul's progressive fans overlook his opposition to abortion and his signing of the personhood pledge, which could ban many birth control methods? Last time I checked, women were half the population (the less important half, apparently).

It's all pretty incoherent for a man often praised as principled and consistent and profound — if states could turn themselves into a Christian theocracy, could they also turn themselves into socialist mini-republics? If they can ban contraception, can they also compel contraception? For people who see Paul as an antiwar candidate who will restore the Bill of Rights, it's almost bad manners to bring up his opposition to just about every piece of progressive legislation passed in the last 200 years, from the Occupational Safety and Health Act and membership in the UN to Federal Deposit Insurance and requirements that undocumented immigrants be permitted treatment in ERs.

If Ron Paul was interested in peace, he wouldn't be a Republican ...

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/06/144783916/the-nation-progressive-man-crushes-on-ron-paul

[Major Hogwash]

70. His voting record doesn't match his rhetoric.

Just like every other Republican I have ever heard speak!!

[just1voice]

59. Our culture has been overwhelmed by propaganda and its false sense of validity

People discuss propaganda as if it's real, never questioning the basic premise of it. I've been telling people for years that propping up some repuke in a discussion as if the repuke is representative of some other side of an issue is absurd, the repuke will just invent any lie to play along with the discussion -- a true psychopath.

Propaganda is so big, so pervasive that many people can't even recognize it.

[SomethingFishy]

60. Well, I think what you say makes sense

but Democrats can't be discussed reasonably here. It all degenerates into "haters/cheerleaders". Since the inception of DU3 it has gotten much worse.

What we seem to have on DU, once you eliminate the trolls, the paid sycophants, and the disrupters, is 2 factions. Democrats who "support" Obama, and liberals who "vote" for Obama.

I fall solidly into the "votes" for Obama category so anything I say is biased from that perspective.

Eventually these two factions are going to have to unite if we don't want President Loonyasallfuck. But how do we do this?

Well I seriously doubt you will get any Obama "voters" to actually support the man unless he makes a hard left turn. We can argue all day about "Republican Obstructionism" but he's made enough mistakes on his own for people to question his loyalty. I also doubt you will get any of Obama's "supporters" to loosen up a bit and admit that the man could have done much better.

The only way I see to get together is through the common enemy.

I gotta be honest here, I have been coming around less and less. I just haven't been enjoying myself here. However on Monday I came in and lo and behold, there were a ton of "attack republicans" threads, nothing slamming or praising Obama, very few people attacking each other and a couple of Straight Story's awesomely weird news stories. . I actually was enjoying it so much I spent a couple hours here.

[Bonobo]

61. Holy shit, an incredibly honest, truthful and insightful response!

Thank you. I think your analysis is spot on.

[McCamy Taylor]

62. Saving up ammo to use in the general. The GOP is winning Obama's election for him.

[McCamy Taylor]

63. Oh, and talking about how crappy the GOP is helps to encourage Democratic solidarity.

So, of course, the GOP would much rather we spend all our time complaining about Democrats flaws rather than discussing how absolutely bat shit crazy the alternatives are.

[Bonobo]

64. I think that is perhaps its only function.

But at the same time, it is like patting yourself on the back. It is self-congratulatory -like a person saying they did a good job on the test by getting a C+ because there were lots of people that got D's.

[McCamy Taylor]

65. Don't discount Dem solidarity. Divide and Conquer is the GOP's no. 1 political weapon.

[woo me with science]

67. Here is the answer to your question:

The faux freakout over Ron Paul
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002154246

[Bonobo]

68. "Paul is being used as a scourge to keep liberals in line this year. "

Yup. Anyone that defends ANY of Paul's stated positions, anyone that has been seen with him or can in ANY WAY be linked to him can be muddied up to suit the agenda of certain DINOs.

As proof, one only needs to have seen the swift boating of Kucinich (for supposedly having said something not horrible about Paul), or the same for Nader or Greenwald.

Are we supposed to truly believe that hard leftists like Kucinich, Nader and Greenwald have suddenly decided to work for Republicans??? Who would fall for such drivel? so it is guilt by association.

I was even attacked on this thread -not for SUPPORTING Ron Paul --but for not sufficiently participating in threads that ATTACK him. LOLOL. How do you like that shit?

[cpwm17]

71. You're right

This is a liberal vs authoritarian issue, and Ron Paul is a convenient straw man to bash liberals.

It's telling that it is on issues of war and government's violations of our civil rights that expose the authoritarians' tactics. Authoritarians support aggressive wars and government violations of civil rights, or at least there're really not too concerned about these important issues.