Honest question for DU'ers

[1awake]

I've been around since 03 and though I should know the answer to this question, I'm starting to think I really don't.

So basically, here it is.... Is DU a progressive board where people discuss and debate ideas/policies/and issues of the day and hold to ideals, or is this purely a Democratic Party sounding board where Discussing ideas/policies/and issues of the day is cool and all... as long as none of them can be construed to target any Democratic politician (not talking to the admins on this).

What's the answer? ... Is there an answer?


I just need to know, because while I want Democrat's to win pretty much every election, I'm not going to be any political parties sock puppet, and sometimes that's exactly what it feels like. My need to know is greater than any potential flack I might get for this question.

[H2O Man]

1. Honest answer:

It doesn't matter what any other DUer thinks. It's a question you need to answer for yourself.

[1awake]

4. While that totally circumvents my intent, it's probably the most true answer I'll get.

thanks for the reply H2O Man.

[Skittles]

9. if you're referring to the swooner crowd

they'll stop embarrassing DU in 2017 - in the meantime, put them on IGNORE

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

2. life's complicated...

...you're going to have to hide a bunch of threads and posters to create the DU you're looking for.

[winter is coming]

3. Here's the TOS paragraph relevant to your question.

"Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side."

[1awake]

12. And I totally get what its saying and agree. Unfortunately there are a handful of

people who think this section does not or should not exist:

it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them.

[winter is coming]

16. You're never going to change that.

As in meatspace, some people are unable to tolerate or accept any criticism of their fetish objects.

[BainsBane]

18. There are a handful of people who think virtually anything

So what?

As for your original question, my answer is none of the above.

[1awake]

26. thanks. nt

[ConservativeDemocrat]

24. So you're asking not to be subject to the same criticism you heap on the party?

I understand mixed feelings. But most people who bash Democrats on this board do it more or less exclusively. Or worse, outright lie.

And then get butthurt at the push-back they get when they do.


The answer is quite simple. You're able to post almost anything from a Democratic perspective. But you don't have the right to not have your feelings hurt when others dispute your faulty logic, emotional outbursts, or outright falsities.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[1awake]

25. lol... I heap? when? where???

and does the party need cheerleaders to defend every action? The only thing I think I have ever said that could be construed as criticism would be the NSA crap which is very much right wing. Love the butthurt comment, used to hearing from my teenage kids.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

71. I didn't specify "you" as someone who heaps criticism...

...but it is very clear, in general, that bashing Democrats indiscriminately is very common behavior on the D.U.

I disagree with you about the NSA; it was their phone-intercepts that led us to Osama bin Laden. But I don't accuse people of being terrible for thinking the other way about the issue. It's only when they start calling President Obama a "fascist" and start making Nazi analogies that it's unacceptable.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. Like that "butthurt" business? I do. I got it off Fark, which is mostly oriented toward youth.

http://ih1.redbubble.net/image.5571852.2263/sticker,375x360.png

[joshcryer]

40. That wasn't upheld in 2012.

The jury system and community standards has made almost anything allowable.

[Fumesucker]

43. On the other hand the jury system and community standards has made almost anything prohibited

You writes your post and you takes your chances as Skinner kind of sort of put it.

[WillyT]

5. You Mean When We're Not Talking About Woody Allen, Olive Garden And Breast-Feeding Pitbulls ???

I think you will find many thoughtful, well-adjusted, philisophically grounded posters here..

I know... I've met them...

But...

You will also find many partisans here...

I know... I've met them...

[1awake]

7. lol... that made me laugh. nt

[WillyT]

10. That Was My Intent...

[H2O Man]

11. Well said.

I agree 100%. (And I include you in the best of DU.)

[WillyT]

15. Thank You... And You As Well...

[Tx4obama]

6. An orange is: orange in color, round, juicy, and frequently has seeds. n/t

[1awake]

8. But how do I know the orange I see is the same as the orange you see??

Maybe when you see orange.. its really what I see as blue???

[Pretzel_Warrior]

19. Do you by chance live in Colorado? And have you been smoking?

you just blew my mind, man!

[1awake]

23. Just saw Meet the Millers... your vid sooo reminds me of it lol. nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

13. I think it was more progressive when we were all working to oust the Pubbies out of office.

Now, we have split apart into groups:

Those who support the "D" even if it doesn't look, act, talk, legislate anything like a D
Those who support politicians who attempt to adhere to what the Democratic ideal is.
And those in the middle.

We now know that we are not all the same, so we don't "like" each other as much.

In my thoughts, the loudest these days are those who support the letter D above all else, those who have reduced it to an idiotic football game.

[pkdu]

32. Let's take your definitions " as read" for a minute , even tho I don't completely agree with them..

The problem that DU recognizes is that we need all three groups to vote Democratic to get ANYWHERE near progress .

Hence the " Labor Day rule " re posts against (almost) ANY Democratic candidates.

There's only one of these three groups have trouble with that rule .

[Drew Richards]

14. Do not try and bend the spoon that is impossible...only realize there is no spoon then you will see.

that it is not the spoon that bends...but you...

There is no spoon...

[1awake]

22. lol nt

[LeftyMom]

17. As far as I can tell the answer to that question is based on one's sign up date.

I'd guess the break occurs somewhere around '07. If you polled the old skool DUers and the newer ones I think you'd get wildly different answers.

[rrneck]

20. I don't care. nt

[1awake]

21. Cared enough to post you... don't care?? nt

[rrneck]

38. I don't care

what people call themselves. Nor do I care what the members of this board call themselves. This careful parsing of political monikers is an exercise in futility and a fine way to form a circular firing squad.

[steve2470]

27. it's progressive and Democratic/democratic

Therein lies the joy and the debates. You don't have to be a progressive to be a Democrat, and you don't have to be a Democrat to be progressive.

[frazzled]

28. I have an honest question, too

I was thinking about how you said you've been here since 03. So my first question, at first, was going to be: if you've been here that long, why can't you figure that out yourself? But you already said you should know the answer, so just ex out that question and ponder this one instead:

I started thinking: wow, 1,398 posts in ten years ... that's like one post every 2.6 days for ten years. And then all of a sudden you post 8 times in one single thread! Whazzup with that? That's like 21 days of posting in just a brief thread!

So I guess my question is: are you feeling more chatty lately? And if so, why? It's so confusing.

(And I guess my other question would be: why didn't you post something about an idea or policy or issue, instead of just trying to start some kind of internecine war about allegiances? Stop. Don't bother to answer that: I think I have it figured out.)

[ScreamingMeemie]

29. Well, I'm not the OP but I have 63,500-some posts... the majority of them

happened (like 60K of them) between 2003-2007, and then a bit in 2009, and then 2011, and then this year. People take time off. I was really active once upon a time. Now, I take loooooooong breaks. Post counts mean nothing.

[SOteric]

36. ^^^ What Meemie Said.

We have real lives that interrupt our internet obsessions from time to time, too.

Some of my oldest friends from DU have followed me into other aspects of my life. It's not always necessary to come back and survey the level of outrage, especially if some of the bonds you've formed provide productive debate and information outside of the forums.

After a few years here, there are more than a few levels of outrage I can guess with a pretty keen margin for accuracy.

[1awake]

34. moving past your post which is talking to yourself to make a point,

I post in spurts. I fell zero need to post continuously. I feel no need to post every thing that crosses my mind in order to have some huge post count so that it somehow gives me cred lol. There are people who have been here a relatively short time and have 5 figure post counts... that's no necessarily a good thing.

I actually READ posts much like I read the news. I have found if one shuts his/her mouth long enough, they might learn something. Unfortunately for some, they can't get past their own need to be heard so they scream it on boards. Of course I'm not saying you do this, but it happens a lot.

As far as me posting some kind of "internecine war about allegiances"... which looks to me there has been pretty near ZERO arguing in my thread... yea, nice try.

Oh.. and the part about you having it already figured out... I refer you to my second paragraph. And didn't I just post something on WP... oh yea.. it was on the greatest page, thanks for the reminder.

[frazzled]

48. I truly wasn't asking

I was being ironic, but I guess that got lost.

[1awake]

49. No, you were pontificating while attempting to belittle. nt

[frazzled]

51. You got the irony finally: I was doing exactly what you were.

Congratulations!

Your rhetorical question, which wasn't a question at all, but a pontification, needed a response in equal measure.

[1awake]

53. Yep you nailed it. Except I asked DU'ers thoughts on it and then didnt argue with anyone's reponses

except yours. Yea... you nailed it.

[Skip Intro]

30. Some want truth, some want blind worship.

I don't think you can go wrong with the truth side, despite the name-calling and personal attacks from the blind worship crowd.

[CK_John]

31. Do you accept we are a 2 party system and this country has a with us or against us

culture. If not, you probably can not make decisions or are risk adverse or could be classified as a fact finder in the corporate world vs being labeled a decision maker.

It's your world live it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Democratic party <> democratic elected officials and candidates

I think we're here to support the party, including kicking some ass if necessary.

[1awake]

35. Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. nt

[SOteric]

37. As with any place on the internet

the signal to noise ratio can be a bit of a trick to navigate. There's quite a lot of noise here, no question. But also some excellent signal to be found. It's up to you to find and nurture it. Go. Do. Be.

[1awake]

42. Very true, ty. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. In a democracy, it is the peoples' responsibility to hold public servants accountable.

Even those who have a (D) after their names.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

[1awake]

41. +1000 nt

[LWolf]

44. the answer:

There has ALWAYS been a conflict between DU's self-identification, first as a "left-wing" discussion board, and then, at the transfer to DU3, a "liberal" instead of "left-wing" board, reflecting the move away from the left in solidarity with the centrist Democratic President elected.

DU has always been, at its core, a partisan board that allowed "left-wing" and "liberal" discussion that stayed within party lines. A partisan board first, with ideology second.

In those earlier years, it was easier and friendlier to be "left-wing" and "liberal," because there was solidarity against GWB. The schisms showed up during primaries, especially '08.

[1awake]

45. I'd agree with that. I suppose I just don't understand

Those who treat politics like they are rooting for their favorite football team. They have on the jersey and the hat with face paint... big foam #1 on one hand and the other raised in cheer. The only thing that matters is winning, even if they do so in a terrible manner. Even if they cheat or lie, even if they change positions or policies... doesn't matter.

It boils down for me, a person either holds beliefs and ideals dear, or they don't. Betraying those personal beliefs to justify the rightness of your team makes no sense to me. I guess it doesn't have to.

[LWolf]

46. I understand it.

I don't have much respect for it, but I understand it.

Me, I'm an issues person. I've never been a partisan.

[sendero]

47. According to the Terms Of Service....

..... it is more the latter (i.e. about the Democratic Party). But in my experience the former is tolerated so long as it is reasonable. Perhaps if you just signed up you should be circumspect in your criticism of Democrats, but I've been pretty openly critical of certain key Dems without any consequence beyond the bleating of the True Believers.

I think most people can tell if your basic intentions are progressive and if they are you will probably be afforded reasonable latitude here.

[Boom Sound 416]

50. Did you face a jury for this OP

Whether or not you did might be the answer.

[1awake]

54. No, I never have. Nice point. nt

[brooklynite]

52. You're welcome to challenge the policies and principles of the Party and it's members...

...from the point of view of CHANGING the policies and principles of the Party and its members. Ultimately, however, there's an expectation that you'll support the Party's candidates (or at least not overtly oppose their election)
.

The demographic of the group is clearly on the progressive end of the Democratic Party spectrum, but there is also clearly a sub group that advocates a leftist philosophy that tends to prioritize the issues over the Party; for example the "I'll never vote for Hillary Clinton" voices.

[1awake]

56. which is fine until one group shouts down the other. nt

[Laelth]

55. You can find my answer in the thread below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110827379

The situation in Venezuela illustrates this conflict on DU quite nicely.

-Laelth

[1awake]

59. I can see your stated relationship between the two. Great thread.. I had missed it. nt

[Laelth]

63. I'd appreciate it if you could kick that thread.

That is, if you haven't done so already. I think that thread needs greater exposure.

Thanks.

-Laelth

[1awake]

64. Of course. nt

[Laelth]

66. Thanks and a bonus kick for this thread. n/t

-Laelth

[Orsino]

57. More than one member means more than one answer.

I think you'll find that almost everyone here could say the same thing you did: although we generally want Dems to win, our liberal principles may interfere from time to time. No one wants to be thought a patsy.

Still not sure why you want a single answer.

[1awake]

60. Not sure I want a single answer.

I wanted DU'ers opinions. I may not agree with one side of the argument, but that doesn't mean I want anyone to shut up. But I also don't want to be told to shut up either.

[Orsino]

62. Well said. n/t

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

58. I don't think there is an answer...

You leave the door open on the internet, and just about anybody can come in.

I think, like a lot of folks on DU, I support the Democratic Party but that doesn't mean that I agree with the direction that the party is going (or has gone) 100% of the time. The same could be said of the President. Take fracking or the XL Pipeline. Obama has been supportive of these proposals, but I'm pretty sure a very significant majority of DU does not; it doesn't mean we don't support the President in other areas, but we're certainly disappointed in this one.

[1awake]

61. Agreed. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

65. Right now I want the Democrats to win every election because...

it's our only real option. We aren't like other governments, in which we have true options. We don't even have direct vote. Our system is a disaster. So I'll take the better of the only 2 options.

[1awake]

67. I'd agree, but I guess isn't everyone on this site going to vote for a Democrat regardless?

There may be Democrat's at times I don't like or who I feel even betrayed their own principles but... between them and a Republican...?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

68. I would never vote for a Republican, not with what they stand for, and

I would hope all Democrats would also agree. To cause a Republican to win, is (in my view) to want to cause further harm to this country. Right now we don't have any other options BUT Democrats.

[1awake]

69. Neither would I, nor would I fail to vote even though when pissed off I may dream about it. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

70. Same here. I can have all kinds of opinions, but as long as we have no options, a Democrat it is

always. In fact, if I ever show up at the polls and I'm not 100% sure about someone, I select the Democrat. What else can one do when there are no other options? Republicans are not an option, and not voting IS voting for a Republican.