Are members of DU generally in support of a Dem President or not?

[Sheepshank]

I guess this is the bottom line for me. Several long time DU'ers have voiced a concern over the changing nature of DU, that it's not the place they recognize anymore. And these are from people I tend to disagree with frequently. On this idea of the changing nature of DU I do agree, but perhaps from a different perspective. They support, rec, justify, coddle and bolster the tone of calling POTUS, the idiot piece of shit, used car salesman.

Good, frequent posting, long time DU'ers (Nancy, Peactrain etc), are run off from this site for being vocally supportive of a Dem President. Other long time supporters here regularly ridiculed, and verbally beaten up for the same, generally making life difficult to offer support and voice that support, without the swarms of negativity and diversionary subject matter, overwhelming their posts.

THIS, is the tone of DU lately..... ridicule any support for POTUS, while simultaneously offering praise to the persons that pronounce disgusting name calling, labelling it as a noble Dem trait.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. I'm hoping a change in DU is coming soon to correct this wrong. nt

[Whisp]

93. I'm hoping so too, but if the jury system stays as it is, Nothing can Change. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

151. That's true. nt

[NoOneMan]

2. Who cares?

What difference does it make? Isn't a better question "Are members of DU generally in support of traditional Democratic positions/policies"?

Or has this become a party devoid of substance, all about personalities and people?

[Scootaloo]

8. Was that a rhetorical question?

Actually I think the party in general is doing okay, but some of hte fan club here on Du are just shitty old Bushbots who jumped ship to the "winning team" - not much else changed about 'em though.

[lark]

101. Bushbots are undercover and often promote Repug policies.

It's the Obamabots that think that drones, sending aid to potential terrorists in Syria, spying on everyone is US, is perfectly fine because President Obama is perfection itself. These people are really cults of personality types and don't seem to care about Democratic values and policies at all. That's what I see happening here - the people who care about policies vs. the people who only care for the person.

[aquart]

113. God, that was a condescending, dismissive statement.

I am not and have never been an "Obamabot" (NASTY, demeaning terminology!) but I do appreciate the international tightropes Obama is walking.

I don't worship personalities and I am OFFENDED to be accused of that for seeing things differently from some other Democrats who seem to perceive everything in black and white absolutes.

There are no good options in Syria. There are, however, millions of desperate refugees destabilizing long-term allies. We can't do nothing. But whatever we do has to consider the short and long-term effects on those allies and still not be paralyzed by how much harm will be done by any choice.

Your analysis is painfully, dangerously simplistic. Yet, oddly, I find this proud rejection of "obamabots" to be a cry from the heart that this president has failed to be 100% perfect in all things. (100% being achieved by agreeing completely with you.)

I wasn't expecting perfect. I've been impressed by Obama's judicious, measured response to international events.

[Hekate]

127. Judicious and measured is what I want, too (Imagine McCain). The Neocons and other warmongers ...

...see "judicious and measured" as weak, vacillating, spineless, Mom-jeans wearing (a not too subtle euphemism for emasculated, in this context) -- all adjectives applied to him on alternate Tuesdays by the disaffected Left as well. Amazing.

[aquart]

141. I had a fantastic international relations professor.

He kept me awake in an unairconditioned classroom on hot summer mornings in New York.

He taught me that only a weak nation must have an immediate, disproportionately aggressive military response to any incursion (see ISRAEL). Strong nations have many, many other options. McCain, Bush, and the other schoolyard bullies calling themselves Republicans behave as if America is a weak nation and act accordingly. They diminished us so much that cooperative economic treaties that LEFT US OUT flourished in the Bush years.

[Sheepshank]

137. I wish I would have said it just like your post....it's where I was trying to go

without being nearly so eloquant....thanks

[Control-Z]

159. Perfectly stated, aquart.

Seriously. Thank you.

[Hekate]

124. That's just ugly on your part. Nt

[pscot]

20. "traditional Democratic positions/policies" definitely

but the traditional Democratic positions/policies have been badly compromised by the avalanche of money and the unstinting embrace of corporate capitalism uber alles.

[NoOneMan]

28. Well we ought to be talking about that

That has merit. The OP doesn't in my opinion. Just more angry meta.

[pscot]

32. Yup

[Sheepshank]

46. errrr, I'm not angry

but I do agree that money im politics is a good point to discuss...and I'm \pretty sure it has been.

[Whisp]

94. I think what they mean is, money should stop going to the Democrats First...

yeh, like changing the rule in Europe about driving on the left side of the highway.

The new law states that buses only must change first.

[Control-Z]

160. I heard no anger at all.

Just disappointment.

[NoOneMan]

161. Ah, I read it as anger masked in whiny disapointment meta

[Control-Z]

162. Of course you did. (nt)

[840high]

65. yes

[Maedhros]

67. Well, we now have New Traditionalists

who view the Clinton Era and it's policies as the "traditional" Democratic platform.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uB-0D-gV8mY/SrbwtHZ0KuI/AAAAAAAAXuQ/oPF-vmTXwoM/s400/devo

[pscot]

89. It's hard to recognize gradual change

We tend to think that the way things are is the way they ought to be. It's hard to realize what's been lost if you haven't experienced it. A large part of the corporate domination of the country is a result of longevity and a consistent world view. Inherited wealth is really pernicious in that regard, and more and more wealth is inherited by the 1%.

[Blue_In_AK]

107. Yes, exactly.

[PrestonLocke]

3. Is there not room for support and criticism? n/t

[Sheepshank]

43. absolutely..there should be both

I don't think I 'd said otherwise.

[lark]

102. +++

Praise when right, criticize when wrong.

[MADem]

120. Plenty of room for support AND criticism.

Name calling and childish histrionics, though--not so much. Calling someone a "piece of shit" isn't criticism, for example.

[LittleBlue]

4. Political forums aren't for the thin-skinned

This is not the place to be if you're unwilling to defend your position.

The alternative is a Freeper-style forum where unanimity is enforced by mods.

[Skidmore]

26. You know what I loathe about this type of argument you make?

It is a lazy one which excuses uncivil discourse. This stuff bleeds into the real world and gets recycled in the virtual world. Rancour and demeaning of others becomes less of an unacceptable way of interacting and becomes amplified. Then we wonder why the denigration of women, the poor, and those with disabilities have become acceptable in the political arena. It is not acceptable to name call and debase others while presenting or defending any political position. Sometimes the frustration and anger you experience is best served by walking away a bit until you can formulate a response that is more civil or before you hit the send button. What you send out into the world comes back.

This is the place we need to be to arrive at consensus and to chart a way with our community and our nation. It can be done without insisting that everyone descend deeper into vitriol and disrespectfulness.

[LittleBlue]

33. We do not need to arrive at a consensus

Find me a large internet political forum with "consensus", and I'll show you one where consensus is enforced.

These threads are little more than a call for a purge dressed as a plea for civility.

[Skidmore]

51. Did I call for a purge?

I did not. I firmly believe in civil discourse is essential to a civil society. What I see on these forums is often variations of agreement being obscured by the clamoring insistence that those who scream the loudest are always worthy and right. Sometimes it becomes verbally abusive. There appears to be no room for reason or nuance. Generally, most of DU patrons agree on liberal principles and are like minded. In the real world, it has been my experience that not every disagreement needs to bet resolved with fisticuffs and bloody noses.

[SwankyXomb]

62. Maybe we *should* have a purge.

There are plenty of people on this site who identify as left, Democrat, or liberal, who routinely post things that would get them welcomed with open arms at a Palin Family Moose Felching.

[Skidmore]

114. I do believe that DU has trolls

and some of them are readily identifiable as such. Others come from forums which love to see how much trouble they can stir up here and run back to their little hidey holes to mock and snicker. One group is known to virtually stalk DUers as part of their schtick. It is up to DUers to decide the tone and tenor of the forums they participate in. If enough people are driven away by the clamorous nastiness, then that will become the nature of the place.

[zeemike]

77. "a call for a purge dressed as a plea for civility"

That is it...and one OP actually said that they should be purged...there seems to be a few here that want that.

[Skidmore]

111. Don't know about that since I didn't see that post.

I do know that I would like to see some civility. I have seen a lot of nasty attacks lately that are uncalled for, regardless of the opinions being conveyed by the poster. Nastiness does not make someone the ultimate holder of "The Truth" or "The Answer" or make them necessarily fully informed or deserving of attention.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

105. I agree with you and the OP.

I don't like the polarizing responders who attack with the "hate him or you're condoning repukism, corp.$$ and everything else that's anti-democratic."


I'm hating the atmosphere that's developed here....if you DON'T "critique" this president in really hostile, volatile ways, you're subjected to hostile, volatile insults here.

It makes it HARDER to look with a reasonable critical eye at the whole picture, positive and negative.

I want to read useful information, learn when I'm missing something. There's too much complexity for one person to understand everything going on. But i don't want to be attacked because I haven't expressed enough hatred.....yet that's what seems to be the dividing line here now.

Also, the interpretation that PBO supports something because he doesn't use the snarky and/or incendiary language we use here is ridiculous. Asinine. Ignorant. Childish.

Also also, thinking that cowboy tactics are what we need to right the sick system that's developed over 30 and more years is about instant gratification.

/end rant.

PS on edit... The extreme PBO bashing doesnt help get more dems elected. Which is critical, because the pukes are dangerous. As in, malignantly, climactically, urgently dangerous.

===
geez...I've already posted this two times elsewhere. Might as well, since this is what I'm thinking every time I feel the wrath of the anti-PBO absolutists around here.

[Sheepshank]

138. Very nice!!!

C&P it often. It's applicable to a lot of recent threads

[BlancheSplanchnik]

153. isn't it though!

Yeesh!

[cry baby]

135. Exactly! Well said, Skidmore. nt

[tkmorris]

5. People run off the site for supporting Obama?

I'm not buying that one at all. How does anyone get "run off" from here anyway, without being tombstoned?

[G_j]

6. +1

[NoOneMan]

11. Mobs will throw bitrocks at you

[hfojvt]

14. the same way one can get run out of a public park

by swarms of gnats.

You get tired of swatting at the pesky little buggers.

[Sheepshank]

66. are you implying that I'm making it up, that it hasn't happened? n/t

[tkmorris]

131. Not really, no

But I guess I am failing to see how anyone even COULD be "run off" this forum for supporting Obama. Surely they didn't get banned?

[lark]

106. Funny, I got the exact opposite impression.

I thought the call was for purging anyone who didn't agree with everything the president did.

[quinnox]

7. If you'd like to see what would happen if BOG- like standards were imposed on all of DU, check out

the ghost town known as the BOG.

[DanTex]

9. It's kinda odd that there even has to be a BOG.

I mean, people on a Democratic message board want to support the president and (gasp!) post pictures of the Obama family without drawing pages of insults, and there needs to be a special forum for that?

[JTFrog]

71. If you support the Democratic president on DU, you have to do it underground.

Odd?

Fucking pathetic is more like it.

[quinnox]

86. Well, I think DU has always been more independent and free-thinking when compared to other political

message boards or forums. That means, a lot of the time, there is not a great deal of agreement or conformity on topics, or political figures.

[hfojvt]

12. well groups in general

do not get the traffic of the "big" forums. All of the state forums seem to be ghost towns as well.

[Sheepshank]

146. I understand why the BOG exists...I even visit occasionally

I like that there is a safe have where the swarms of negativity are kept at bay, the BOG has it's place just as every other forum does. I live in Utah...ever seen how active that forum is? I like that I can post on this forum and get the back and forth play. Why do so many people have a problem with BOG forum? It' is ridiculed and the members are harassed when posting on GD. Why is that necessary?...THAT is the type of unbridled nastiness I am talking about in the OP.

[okaawhatever]

10. I don't assume everyone is here for the same reason. Not all are here to support Democratic

principles and policies. Some are here to create dissension and promote ideas that aren't in keeping with the current Democratic platform. Many of them claim we aren't to the left enough, others have strong anti-American leanings. I ask myself if their complaints on a specific issue are aligned with the current Democratic party platform. Most of the time they aren't.

I'll bet many of the most offensive posters will say things like "debate is healthy" "we need to criticize politicians, it's part of vibrant debate" etc.

[NoOneMan]

16. Why is supporting Democratic principles the same as supporting a government employee with a D?

Democratic principles don't need a smile and a face to exist.

This thread isn't about principles and policies, which ironically, what I always thought this site was about at its core

[okaawhatever]

30. It depends on what government action they are protesting. If the gov't employee with a D next to

their name is behaving consistent with the D platform, then the issue is with the D platform and not the individual. There was a poll on here the other day where the number who considered themselves socialists was about half the respondents. Those individuals will likely have many objections to democratic party issues, but the issue shouldn't be with the politician if the politician is doing what the democratic party platform dictates.

If a Republican doesn't vote for the minimum wage increase bill, I won't call them a bad Democrat. They're a good Republican, which is what I truly have a problem with. If I were a socialist i'd likely have many issues with the Democratic candidates, but my real issue would be that they aren't following the socialist platform, not that they're bad Democrats. I would phrase my complaint as such.

[NoOneMan]

36. OH noes! Socialism!!

Labor has been a major contributing force in the Democratic Party for over a hundred years. Political parties in the US are coalitions due to the two party system, and being such, the Democratic Party has long been where those with socialist leanings have gone (and good thing, or maybe you wouldn't have seen FDR). You ought to learn to accept your fellow members who are responsible for much of the success of the Democratic Party.

Look, if a large group of a coalition feels an employee with a D isn't representing the historical values of the party, its their right to bitch and moan about it. Its your right to not listen. That's about it. If you can't deal with it, take your ball and go home.

[okaawhatever]

48. The Socialists have a different party platform than the Democrats. They will have several objections

to the Democratic party platform, and if that is the case they should argue against the Democratic party platform, not the individual. If the individual elected is elected as a Socialist, I will not argue they are failing in their job if they disagree with me (assuming they're following the Socialist platform). I will criticize the Socialist party platform. A Democratic congressperson isn't bad because they don't agree with the Socialist platform or ideals. Similarly, a Socialist congressperson isn't bad because they don't agree with the Democratic party platform.

[NoOneMan]

52. The Democratic Party is a coalition of many different groups

One of these groups is socialist. This is the consequence of a two party system.


The upside is that you have close to a majority. The downside is that you can't shut out people who wont fawn over pictures of the president.

A Democratic congressperson isn't bad because they don't agree with the Socialist platform or ideals. Similarly, a Socialist congressperson isn't bad because they don't agree with the Democratic party platform.

But that's not what we are talking about. Im only talking about traditional Democratic policies, which socialists contributed to and molded early in the party platform (a faction that remains part of the coalition). Nice try.

[Lamonte]

100. Socialist country

We have more socialism than the USSR ever did. We help our needy citizens. They did not do much for their people n the USSR. Our system has evolved to being a hybrid of a socialist republic and it worked quite well. It is now being torn apart by extremists within. Our enemies have made words like socialism and entitlements bad words. They are nothing to be feared. Any good government will take care of the less fortunate. Our enemy calls them takers, losers stupid and lazy.

[Wait Wut]

13. I'm not running, anymore.

I left DKos because I wasn't 'progressive' enough, along with a few others that found their way here. I have zero people on ignore, though I'm tempted at times like this to fill a book with names. But, I stop myself. Everyone here has said at least one thing that has made me think or at least laugh. No one deserves to be ignored. This week has brought me closer than every before, though.

We've (not DU, but society) have lost the ability to debate, reason, listen and engage in civil discussions.

I will always support a Democratic President. I despised Clinton and still voted for and supported him. I was young and didn't really grasp how complicated politics and legislation could be. I'm older and a tiny bit wiser, now.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. SOP of GD says 'no whining about DU'. You seem to have serious issues with the admins

who run this site in ways that are not to your liking. I think you should go post this as a direct question to the guys in charge in ATA.

[Sheepshank]

31. Actually I don't...have an issue with admin

my question is posed to the membership, as is the example of swarming negativity

[Bluenorthwest]

54. No one can be barred from DU by anyone but admin, yet you claim some are 'run off'

which means the admins did that as no one else has that power.
I wonder how you would have survived being a Democrat when Bill Clinton signed both DOMA and DADT. Would you have supported those policies? Would you have been bothered by the utter trashing he got from the people who elected him only to be betrayed by him? It's not always easy cut and dry time. Would you have made OPs kvetching about critics of DOMA? Would you have found the jokes unbearable?
If other people's opinions vex you so, do not read them. Some of as Democrats have had to endure hearing our own candidates trash talk us while muttering about God and Sanctity. Anything like that happen to you or to your 'run off' crew? Any of you go without rights while OUR candidates furrow brow and say 'I oppose that'?
What a cushy life you and your cohort must have had to make such mountains over such molehills.
You look like the kiddie table to those of us who have been around a bit. You whine that someone said something about a politician who has in fact himself said that he thought God was against my civil rights. Get some perspective. If others can find a way to hear 'I oppose their rights' and still vote for the Democrat, I think you can manage to endure Pitt's surly language or that of others who do not agree with you but also do not stand in opposition to your very basic human rights.
It's too precious for words, this routine you folks are playing. Looking for offense.

[Sheepshank]

84. you can be obtuse and verbose at the same time...clever

I'm pretty sure most poeple understood (admitting so or not is another thing), what i meant by "run off". I think there is a clear understanding that it is different than being tombstoned

btw paragraph breaks would have helped.

[Bluenorthwest]

125. Ah, the 'personal attack when confronted with actual ideas' tactic.

So lacking in good faith.

[Sheepshank]

136. and yet your entire paragraph of judgements of how "I am" was fine? Nope n/t

[bemildred]

17. Anybody who wants to, for any reason they choose, can come here and post whatever they like.

There are few rules, and those are unevenly enforced. That is what DU is. If it was otherwise, it wouldn't be DU. Trying to figure out what it means is a recipe for cognitive disconnect.

[upaloopa]

18. We are diverse as we should be. I think what has happened

is the party of Roosevelt has turned into the party of Nixon. I was born during the Truman administration. I grew up with the New Deal implementation, Truman's desegregation of the military and call for health care for all. I saw the Eisenhower speech about the MIC on TV. I lived through Kennedy's New Fronter and Johnson's Great Society. I took part in civil rights marches and supported equal rights for women minorities and the LGBT community.
But today the Dem party supports NAFTA TPP not single payer health coverage. We give lip service to the poor and middle class and offer cuts to Social Security and Medicare as a bargaining chip. Dems as much as repubs take corporate money. I didn't move away from them as much as they moved away from me.
So yes we should support a Dem President but not with blind loyalty.

[rhett o rick]

19. Fanning the flames with the barrage of threads like this isnt helping. nm

[Rex]

23. Meta threads, seems some cannot quit making them in GD.

nt.

[steve2470]

21. yep nt

[rrneck]

22. Progressives have a little trouble with authority.

Complaining about the leadership doesn't mean we support it. It's our job as responsible citizens to complain.
That's how the system works. Government is supposed to be afraid of the citizens, not the other way around.

So we shouldn't take it personally if somebody complains about Democratic leaders. Most of the controversy surrounding an issue are just differences of opinion about the best way to proceed, not whether or not we support the same values or Democrats.

[PowerToThePeople]

24. We (imo) generally support all who stand for Democratic principles. n/t

[kath]

25. I'm in support of Presidents who BEHAVE LIKE DEMOCRATS. Not those who stick a "D" after their name

But are Trojan Horses.
Like other liberals here, I'm sick to death of Trojan Horses, Third Wayers, DLCers, corporatists, and all the other Republican-lite assholes who have infiltrated the once-great Democratic Party.

[840high]

70. You're not alone.

[polichick]

74. That's what has happened - a lot of people have had enough.

[ChiciB1]

132. Ain't That The Truth! I Want To See

our Democrats who are in a position to lead, to actually take the bull by the horns and PUSH BACK and SPEAK OUT for "we the people" especially if the people worked hard to elect them!

[Nay]

108. Amen. nt

[LondonReign2]

122. Bingo

When he Democratic party types of things? Of course
When he does not-so Democratic party types of things? Not so much

Just because he has a D after his name? Of course not
Because you "like" the person? No

[ChiciB1]

130. YES! And YES Again!

I've been a political activist for a very, very long time. I've always registered as a Democrat, but that doesn't mean I got this way because the dough was rolled out and a cookie cutter shaped just for Democrats produced me. I tend to think that many Repukes might have gone through that kind of process. They see an (R) behind a name and they will vote for that person as if by design.

One of the best lessons I ever learned and never forgot was from my THIRD GRADE TEACHER! I still remember her name even though it was such a long time ago, it was Mrs. Madden. Her advice was this... if you're uncertain or don't understand something that's presented to you... ASK QUESTIONS! It's then up to you to formulate a better opinion or at least one that makes the best sense to you.

I've been a member here for a very long time, so my personal opinion is I find many here who want others to "blindly" accept almost all policies formulated by Democrats as factual and without flaw. Well, that's not me, and I've been distressed to see the Democratic Party I knew turn into one much less Progressive. I'm not asking that others lean as far left as I do, but I would like to see some here take their blinders off.

I heard something this morning that upset me a lot & it came from an enormously if not overwhelmingly powerful man in the Democratic Party. His name is Bill Clinton. He was giving Bill DeBlasio advice about Charter Schools in NYC, and suggested that he should rethink his position regarding the schools! Now, given WHO Bill Clinton is I find that this offends me. I "suspect" that he and Cuomo may have had a "chat" about this and "perhaps" Cuomo wanted his support to use his powerful "influence" to send a message to DeBlasio. I call this playing hard ball, but I don't like playing "ball" this way. I don't agree with Clinton OR Cuomo on this issue and don't mind saying it.

Just an example, but there are those here who will find a way to defend both Clinton & Cuomo. This is much more DLC and less Progressive than what I feel the Democratic Party I once knew.

JMHO

[Kermitt Gribble]

158. ^^THIS^^

Exactly this!

[morningfog]

27. Whining about DU. Meta is closed.

[pscot]

29. Hyperbole

[Sheepshank]

35. what part is hyperbole?

The examples of the people who have left DU?
The examples of the name calling and subsequent recs?
The statement that positive Obama posts are swarmed?

[pscot]

45. Turning isolated events into sweeping generalizations

about DU is hyperbolic. The Obama supporters give as good as they get. At least they've laid off the charge that we're a lot of disappointed pony fanciers.

[Sheepshank]

68. nope...I mention isolated incidents as examples of continuing activity

there was no hypebole.

[pscot]

72. why beholdest thou the mote

that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye

[Sheepshank]

87. quoting biblical verse means very little to me

especially when it appears out of context.

[pscot]

91. Quelle surprise

[LondonReign2]

123. Ponies are passe

Now we are mostly racist Randians

[mackerel]

34. I generally support Obama

"Good, frequent posting, long time DU'ers (Nancy, Peactrain etc), are run off from this site for being vocally supportive of a Dem President. Other long time supporters here regularly ridiculed, and verbally beaten up for the same, generally making life difficult to offer support and voice that support, without the swarms of negativity and diversionary subject matter, overwhelming their posts."

Look the thing about Dems is they rarely agree with each other. Stop worrying about it. Post what you believe and move on. If you feel you need to support your argument then do so but don't expect you'll sway another Dem. LOL

Regardless of what any of you passionate liberals think, me a conservative Dem, I support Obama. I have my complaints but I don't regret having voted for him twice. Not now, not ever.

[hfojvt]

37. many are generally supportive of policies, of principles

We support Democrats because supposedly Democrats are fighting for these policies and principles.

Democrats are supposed to be AGAINST tax cuts for the rich. When Democrats, instead, support tax cuts for the rich, are we supposed to play follow the leader. To say "well, I was against this when Bush was President, but now that Obama is President, I am all for it."

In 2002 we said "It is wrong to invade Iraq". And said the same thing in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. We expect Democrats to say the same thing NOW. If they say something different, then many of us are not gonna rush to support them.

As for people being ridiculed for supporting Obama. That comes from the same basic theme. If a person said "Bush sucks because of X" when Bush was President, and now when Obama does X they support and defend him. Well, that hardly seems intellectually honest.

Of course, often the accusation of hypocrisy is false. That is, when Bush was President, I was not all that excited about signing statements or drones or the death of Saddam's sons. I got slammed for it then too though, was called a Bush supporter. But I am being consistent. The issues I care about are not the same as what the rest of DU cares about. Some are, I guess, deeply concerned about drones. I never was.

I mean, we used to mock Bush supporters and wonder "dang, is there ANYTHING Bush can do that will make them stop supporting him?" Now some of us wonder that about Obama supporters.

Well for me, there was a line. I was an Obama supporter until he caved on the Bush tax cuts. I donated to him in 2008, trying to help defeat Hillary. I supported him right up to the betrayal of 6 December 2010, a date that, as far as I am concerned, should live in infamy.

After that betrayal, it was hard for me to trust him on anything, and I started seeing more and more betrayals everywhere I looked. Lies too, unfortunately.

[polichick]

116. Well said.

[Rex]

38. Nancy? Who is that you are refering to?

Someone named Nancy?

[JoePhilly]

39. GD is now the Perpetually Disgruntled Group.

The top threads are those which attack the President. And if you call him names and use the word F**K, your thread really pops to the top.

Oddly, these oh so very concerned Progressives almost never post an OP about some exciting Progressive candidate that they want to help or promote.

The angry attack OPs out number the constructive OPs about progressive candidates by at least 20-1. More if we just go by the Greatest Page.

The same folks who called for a primary of Obama, never had a candidate in mind.

The same folks also claim they want some one more progressive than Hillary ... do they post OPs to advance such challengers? Not really. Angry OPs attacking Hillary, plenty of those. They're the folks who won't vote for Hillary, period.

They seem to think most Democrats aren't worth voting for.

Do they have a plan for getting better candidates? nope.

[RKP5637]

40. No president is perfect. No president can be all things to all people. Yes, I support him.

Do I always agree with him, no.

[NoOneMan]

44. "Yes, I support him." <--- What does that mean?

He isn't up for re-election so what exactly does support entail and how does it manifest tangibly in the real world. Do you physically hold him upright? Do you send in karmic energy? What does "support" really mean?

Does it just mean you "like" him more than you don't? Who does that effect aside from you?

[RKP5637]

56. Yes, what you said sums it up well. "Does it just mean you "like" him more than you don't?" n/t

[NoOneMan]

58. Just curious. One face value, its a lot like "support the troops"

Which meant nothing more than you "agreed" with war.

"Support" has become cliche. Another problem with the term is that it doesn't necessarily allow one to objectively weigh if a scale tips (you disagree with more policies than you agree with) since you've already made a symbolic pledge. Its just seems like an archaic way to judge reality and weigh in.

I support policies individually. I don't give politicians a ton of thought

[RKP5637]

61. It has. ""Support" has become cliche." Interesting points and very well taken! Thanks! n/t

[Maedhros]

81. "Support" is much clearer when it is applied to policies, rather than individuals.

I support Obama's initiative to curtail the NSA's blanket surveillance activities.

I support Obama's refusal to rattle sabres with Putin over Crimea.

I do not support Obama's pro-Wall Street policies, his refusal to prosecute Bush-era criminals, his policies of indefinite detention and rendition, his massive increase in military involvement in Africa, his extrajudicial killing of American citizens, his offering up Social Security for political bargaining, and his push for the TPP.

As for the man himself, I can't say - I've never met him, so I can't assess his character beyond the policies he supports.

[NoOneMan]

83. "As for the man himself, I can't say - I've never met him..."

That's generally how I feel

[lostincalifornia]

41. Yes

[LeftyMom]

42. That is some seriously revisionist DU history. nt

[KharmaTrain]

47. People Talking Past One Another...

...I now consider myself a former DU member as this place has turned into a school yard with groups of kids in their cliques that are always going after one another for one perceived wrong or another. It's not about politics...it's turned into being about the posters. It's how many "recs" and "+1"s they can get to "prove" their clique is right and anyone who disagrees is obviously a troll or "coprportist" or some other name that has as much venom cast as toward any freeper. Admins here seem to look the other way to the constant shit stirring of some of the "cool kids" that give a wink and nod to even more angst and fighting. I figure if there's special rules for some then let them support this place...I no longer feel welcome here. I used to live on this site...pop in several times a day. Now, I'll pop by once a week and each time the fighting and ego games get worse and worse...

[Zorra]

49. We elected him to the office of President. We did not elect him to the office of Almighty God.

Do we support the president on issues in which his stance on an issue is progressive? Yes.

Do we support him on issues in which his stance on an issue is right of center? No.

Our expectations of Democrats who we elect are this: speak clearly, plainly, and truthfully, clearly and truthfully explain all your actions to your constituents, act like a real Democrat, and progressives will love you.

If an elected Democrat does not act in this manner, they bring upon themselves suspicion and criticism from progressives.

Unlike those who are further to the right than we are, we freely question authority, and hold those we elect to any office accountable for their actions.

[FSogol]

55. Link to someone on DU who claimed Obama was God?

Unrec on your use of a RW meme to criticize DUers for supporting the Democratic President on a Democratic Forum..

[Sheepshank]

88. lol....someone accused me of hyperbole, and clearly missed this one.

so back to the example in the OP, the ones attempting support are hammered, the ones using name calling are given kudos. Go figure.

[Puzzledtraveller]

85. They are more like fans than followers.

If you placed a past dem president in the ovaloffice today the fan outrage would be much smaller if non existant all else being the same.

[JohnRogan]

50. if only these provocateurs would stop messing with our perfect world, damn it! nm

[mwrguy]

53. We are lucky enough to have the best president since FDR,

probably better, even, and I stand with him absolutely.

[mrchips]

57. I Wonder

Are rethuglicans trolling this site pretending to be progressives.

[Thinkingabout]

59. Leave the whining to Rush and Sean, let them continue to make am a$$ of themselves.

Democrats has a mission to accomplish, elect Democrats. We don't need to strengthen and not weaken.

[dilby]

60. The last President was a piece of shit.

If you continue his policies or excuse and justify his illegal actions that makes you a piece of shit too. Is the current President always a piece of shit, no but he can sure stink like one every now and then. Obama is certainly better than Bush but he is Light Years behind Clinton.

[joeglow3]

63. The Democratic Party doesn't mean shit to me

It is the ideals of the Democratic party that I support. Thus, if I feel someone is a DINO, I will call them out.

[Sheepshank]

96. I understand that...i don't think anyone (including OP) said differently

...discussion, critique etc is healthy. That's not what i was talking about in the OP.

[aquart]

119. Didactically rigid, much? This is a big tent party.

Loads of different opinions and approaches in it. I oppose even the hint of a required purity test.

I'm not a big fan of purges. You know, like the Republicans did with their liberals?

[DrDan]

64. how do you feel about posts and posters that call another DUer a RW racist?

and the fact that it is supported by a jury?

Any concern over that "tone"

[madamesilverspurs]

69. I feel right at home.

I live in an area that is not known for welcoming Democrats with open arms. Our rightwing newspaper shut down its comments function because the vitriol got to be too much even for them. Sadly, I'm used to being called names and accused of gross ignorance because of my support for Obama and other Democrats. It was disappointing, but not surprising, when my bumper stickers were taken as invitation to key my car.

Getting my car defaced did not convince me to stop displaying my bumper stickers, and the nastier excesses on DU will not deter my continuing participation here. But the sad difference is that the place where I live does not share any part of its name with my chosen political affiliation.

[NorthCarolina]

73. A Dem President would probably be great. I'm hopeful we get one in the not too distant future. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

82. Forrealz!

[RandoLoodie]

75. show me a Democratic president

and I will support him.

[PowerToThePeople]

80. Enjoy your stay

[RandoLoodie]

95. Same to you

[FiveGoodMen]

76. I'm supportive of people who do the right thing

Examples would include...

Prosecuting war criminals
Genuinely trying to create more jobs and more economic equality
Helping the citizens before helping Wall Street
Active support for the Bill of Rights (not just 2A)
Serious commitment to Due Process (no indefinite detention)
Opposition to NSA overreach
Opposition to Corporate Sovereignty (IOW, fight the TPP!)
and so on.

I'd love a Democratic president who fit that list.

I despise any and ALL who put party before country.

[beerandjesus]

78. Some of us can be "generally supportive" without having to reiterate that fact in every post.

Some of us can be critical of policies while still being "generally supportive".


In fact:

Some of us can be ABSOLUTELY FUCKING RIPSHIT with the President, and STILL be "generally supportive"!

Personally, I'm not ripshit with the President right now. But I have been many times, and I'm generally pretty disgusted with the priorities of the Democratic party as a whole. But I'm not only "generally supportive", but consistently vote for Democrats and encourage others around me to do the same.


I don't think many people on here "ridicule any support for POTUS". I think people ridicule posters who make claims like "Obama made the Iraq war right", and then call those who disagree Rand Paul supporters.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

79. This is a bad Friday for news and talking about news.

A quick assessment of all news outlets (that I trust) proves to be depressing from someone who fears the Ayn Randian Dystopia that lurks just to the right of where we are today. I wish that the president was better able to express the horrors that await us if we don't start pulling together as a nation, rather than putting in so much effort to tear us apart.

This place is the proverbial canary in the coal mine of Dystopia.

[Fred Gilmore]

90. Not Judging, Just Asking............

1-Did this POTUS abandon Democratic principles when he supported the Heritage Foundation healthcare plan, now known as Obamacare, over the truly Democratic plan known as Single Payer?

2-Did this POTUS abandon Democratic principles when he allowed for more than half of the Federal Stimulus Bill of 2009 to be comprised of tax cuts rather than the truly Democratic request for funds available to actually create jobs?

3-Did this POTUS abandon Democratic principles when he refused to investigate and hold accountable, the previous administration for potential war crimes and crimes against humanity?

4-Did this POTUS abandon a Democratic super majority in congress so that he could try and appease the Republican party, just to have them spit in his face?


I see this POTUS as an overall success story for the ages, but I also see great opportunities for this great nation that were wasted because of poor judgments. While miles above and beyond the alternatives presented, it is my opinion, and mine alone, that this POTUS spent a ton of Democratic Capital trying to mend fences that turned out to be stone walls.

[Sheepshank]

103. loaded/push questions...do not serve well for open discussion.

1. Attempting a nationwide healthcare program is a Democratic principal that was derailed via Republican obstinacy. You don't want to see it that way, fine, but that doesn't make Obama an idiotic piece of shit used car salesman.

2. I was not a fan of the bailout. It played its part in stopping the hemorrhaging of jobs initiated under Bush, but that doesn't make Obama an idiotic piece of shit used car salesman.

3. There is more at play than pointing fingers and prosecuting previous POTUS's. The a whole volley of effects and accusations...bad enough we have Issa and Kenneth Star...can't imagine the entire opposing party going on a rampage. Presidents for good or bad stuck in a quagmire in indecision because of a future prosecution. Why is do you attempt to describe this a a purely Democratic principal when it appears to be employed evenly across party lines?.....but that doesn't make Obama an idiotic piece of shit used car salesman.

4. Are you talking about the few weeks there was a super majority in the first term? Why do you imply that there were bills stacked up and ready for a vote during those 8 or so weeks? Now your slip is showing. That still doesn't make Obama an idiotic piece of shit used car salesman.

[Fred Gilmore]

118. OK

Nor did I indicate as much. I have just raised some valued concerns as to why some would feel the way that they do. You cannot, in good conscience, say that this POTUS has not made mistakes, nor used bad judgment at times.

This in no way makes him a POS, used car salesman, or any other derogatory term, it makes him human. He has not been perfect as some would want us to believe. There are a lot of good Democrats who feel the same way as I do, and that is why the level of enthusiasm for our party has declined over the past 6 years.

Do I vote? Yes, at every opportunity. And I vote Democratic, at every opportunity. And yes, I will continue to do so, even though some of the candidates are less than perfect.

Politics has turned sour, They are rotten to the core. The treatment of Bill Clinton demanded the prosecution of the previous administration by Obama. He may as well have spit in the Clinton's faces. Having to listen to the constant bemoaning of Jimmy Carter as the worst president ever will never end. As Democrats, it is high time that we grow a spine and fight back. Turning the other cheek has only moved our party further to the right than it has ever been. We need Bernie Sanders. We need Elizabeth Warren. These are the types of Democrats that we need to LEAD this great nation. 6 years in control of the White House and 8 years in control of the Senate. We haven't even been able to undo the crap that put this nation in the crapper. No bankers in jail. No politicians in jail. No insurance company crooks in jail. Yes, we have a healthcare INSURANCE plan, but no HEALTHCARE plan. By and large, the past 6 years have been wasted. The next 2 are imperative to the legacy of this president. Let us all GOTV and secure the Senate, take back the House, and allow this president to enact some truly Democratic ideals to secure his legacy.

[LWolf]

157. Welcome to DU. nt

[Iggo]

92. Meta!!!

[tea and oranges]

97. It Isn't Just DU

In our own inarticulate way I think we're having the same argument that the national democratoic party is having.

Are we a party who won't address or investigate American war criminals, allowing them to continue to damage our national interests, prosecute financial criminals who have stolen most of our wealth, & can't even make gun safety an issue?

Or are we a party who sticks up for the rights of the many despite the cries of the very few uber-rich, who cares about the quality of life of the American citizen, & upholds the law of the land?

[LWolf]

98. I support having a

left-of-center, socially liberal president.

Not that I expect to ever have that experience.

The political/corporate logo on a president's stationery means little to me. The position, words, and actions on issues are what drives my support. Generally, I find that depending on, supporting, a corporate or political logo to be counter-productive if the issues are the thing. That's the way to keep a political party accountable for issues: make the issues the thing that brings the support. Not the logo. Not the brand name. I know, it's not marketing, but then, I'm not much moved by marketing ploys.

Unfortunately, that recognition is rare among American voters.

[Fearless]

99. Its a two way street

DU needs to accept this. No one is right or wrong all of the time. Call it like you see it. Some need to get off their moral pedestal.

[Blue_In_AK]

104. I am generally in support of a Dem president

when he upholds the ideals of the Democratic Party. When he doesn't, I reserve the right to call him out.

I should clarify that I'm speaking of those old-fashioned Rooseveltian ideals, not the more recent "third-way" variety.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

109. You should have heard me rail against Clinton back in the 90s.

[Bluenorthwest]

126. I asked the OP how he or she dealt with DOMA and DADT under Clinton, as many of us

had to do. OP could not answer that question.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

128. People forget our creed - Question Authority.

[Sheepshank]

145. I must have missed your question, to assume I'm avoiding you is a mischaractarization....

...typical of someone who would jump to find fault, rather than give the benefit of the doubt.

I abhorred DOMA, I hated DADT.

So now what? I am and never have been a single issue voter.

[Hekate]

110. Apparently DUers support a Dem prez only when we have a Republican in the White House

The Dem POTUS at that point exists only in potentia and can be the object of all the projection anyone cares to fantasize about.

Once he (or in the future she) actually takes office, however, reality must intrude on the pink-tinged fantasies and at that point all hell breaks loose in the fantasists' psyches and on the DU board.

I'm not sure what psychology it is that causes once-fairly-rational people to spit that any support of the Democratic POTUS or counter-argument to the outrage du jour is a shrieking demand that no criticism ever be allowed, but it's damned ugly. I have never seen a single person, here or elsewhere, state that POTUS is above criticism, although in sheer self-defense the BOG had to be formed as a safe-house.

Mordantly yours,
Hekate

[Egnever]

115. Well said

[Bobbie Jo]

140. And then when POTUS actually has to govern

some seem to misplace any recognition of basic civics or politics.

It still amazes me how people who spend so much time on a political board can be so naive about the sausage making of politics.

Good post, Hekate.

[Number23]

143. And what gets me is that the folks that exhibit this deranged and pathological behavior

then turn around and are shocked and appalled that NO ONE WANTS TO REPRESENT THEM IN CONGRESS and that their influence, miniscule to begin with, diminishes more and more over time.

[fascisthunter]

112. Generally Yes

But of late I have been very critical, though I keep most of it to myself.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

117. Nonsense!

[DeSwiss]

121. As soon as we get one let me know. Thanks. n/t

[ismnotwasm]

129. Supportive, certainly

Critical where I feel strongly; but in general I don't express these views anywhere near DU. I just trash thread after thread. It's one thing to say "he could have handled that better and this is why I believe this", it's entirely another to call him names or use RW type slander against him.

I'm hoping for a change here as well--I can well understand dissatisfaction with policy but not combined with apparent ignorance of the political process. There are a few posters who still give great information-- too many have left. We also, in my opinion keep getting hit with trolls who doing nothing but cause trouble, which makes popular areas like GD a political ball of confusion

I don't expect Democrats to agree on everything--it's part of the beauty of the left. The anti-Obama sentiment has turned into a hate fest, to the point we needed a protected group to support our president. That was some time ago, and I haven't seen it get better.

The other thing that happens are the "sky is falling" posts speculating what he president is going to do-- posts without substance. This makes thing even worse.

I'll ride it out and wait for elections. For the first time in my nearly 10 years here, I have people on ignore. That is just sad.

[SidDithers]

133. DU rec. Fuck the haters...nt

Sid

[truebrit71]

134. Define "support"...

...blind lock-step 'Obama can do no wrong' then no...

I think you have it precisely backwards though...the swarm rewards support but pounces on criticism with maniacal glee and force...

[oldhippie]

139. Yes ...

... generally.

[Number23]

142. Sheepshank, Nance was just on DU a few days ago!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11875895#post42

We had a good long laugh at the imbeciles here that don't want non-Americans, American expats, Americans that eat foreign food, Americans who have ever left the U.S. for longer than the amount of time it takes to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel to comment on American policy. It's astonishing because 1) these generally tend to be the folks that are the subject of your OP and 2) many of them are the ones that talk endlessly about what's going in other parts of the world but GOD FORBID anyone from any of those other parts actually talks back unless it's in slavish adoration and agreement.

And without even the tiniest shred of irony, these same folks call loyal Dems "bots."

[Hekate]

147. TY for the link, #23! That was a great little exchange....

,,,wish I had read it at the time. "Web-Site Story" -- ha!

[Number23]

148. In addition to being smart she is just such a fun person. She has a wicked sense of humor

As do you! We'd love to see you in the AA forum sometimes.

[Hekate]

150. Well, thank you m'dear. I follow links to there and it always looks so interesting.

I may chime in one day after all -- it does seem like a lot of my friends are there.

[cherokeeprogressive]

144. Generally

[Gothmog]

149. I support a democratic President

I personally am hoping that Hillary Clinton runs and is elected.

Roe v. Wade is hanging by a thread. In Texas, the 5th Circuit just affirmed the Texas TRAP law. We need to elect a Democratic president in 2016

BTW, I am hoping that the rumors about Hillary Clinton being the speaker at the Texas Democratic Party convention are true and that Hillary Clinton campaigns for Wendy Davis

[FarCenter]

152. Support or non-support of Obama is irrelevant -- he has been elected and is a lame duck

He's not going anywhere until Jan 2017.

So the only meaningful political debate is over who should be the Democratic candidate in 2016. Since that person has not yet been selected, there is no one person to support.

[pnwmom]

154. He isn't irrelevant. He still has to try to get work done and he needs our support,

through our pressure on Congress, to succeed.

[FarCenter]

155. So the relevant people to support/non-support are candidates for Congress

You may support them more or less depending on whether they support some policy or initiative that Obama is pursuing, but Obama is still irrelevant.

No one is likely to ever cast a vote for or against Obama again. And working to elect candidates and voting for/against candidates is the only effective action that the average person can take in a democracy. The rest is just noise.

[TheKentuckian]

156. What did the Democratic President do and I'll tell you if I support it or not.

Better than the best TeaPubliKlan? Sure, that it is easy to rise above the garbage water at the bottom of a dumpster, actually supportive of the alternative? No, not really in general, no. The occasion where I am like "not perfect but pretty good" are rare and the "that fucking sucks" come fairly regularly.

TeaPubliKlan suck levels (though dangerously close on the security state, advancing corporate interests, and the drug war)? No.

Suck? Oh yes. I do not embrace the suck and I do not cotton to lectures from supposed representatives about their fucking tables or eating my peas as pithy double talk for austerity plans.

[eridani]

163. I support Democratic Party values

If politicians with a D after their names support those values, then I support them.