helpful hint for those trying to defeat Clinton's primary candidacy:

[geek tragedy]

Posting and recommending hit pieces from rightwing websites makes you look like you're obsessed with her personally, and are acting out of personal animosity instead of policy disagreement.

Flogging stuff like Benghazi emails and editorials from Investors Business Daily, whose views are reflected in this piece:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/041312-607800-obamacare-ominously-similar-to-soviet-socialized-medicine.htm

is generally what trolls, rightwingers, and straight-up haters engage in.

Respectfully,

Democrats who aren't in love with Clinton but despise rightwing talking points

[HassleCat]

1. Be Smart

Even if you hate Clinton, and I mean really HATE her, the smart thing to do is recognize the high probability that she will be the Democratic nominee, and think of ways to influence her to embrace more things you like. It's OK to support Bernie Sanders or someone else, but not wise to get caught up in some "anybody but Hillary" movement. Otherwise, just vote for the Republican and see how that works out for you.

[geek tragedy]

2. Yup. I'm voting for Sanders in NY's primary.

But, when I see stuff from Rush Limbaugh being pushed here. . .

[Hutzpa]

24. ^^ This ^^

nt

[cali]

3. absolutely

The NY Post
Reason (Koch Brothers)
National Review
The Blaze
Daily Caller
Townhall

and many more

All illegitimate sources.

[geek tragedy]

5. the "Clinton Foundation only gives 15% of its money away" smear from Rush Limbaugh

got posted here and was on its way to the rec list (4 quick recs) when it got hidden.

you keep it clean, on policy, even if I don't agree.

[seabeyond]

4. results from rw crap.

On Wed Apr 29, 2015, 09:47 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

The Other Clinton Foundation Scandal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026588831

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Right wing hit piece

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:04 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It's like something you would find on Fox. We don't have to let right wingers post right wing hit pieces.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Wingnut site
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I dont support HRC, but this is ridiculous. *smh*
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I would assume 99% of the folks on DU will be voting for the Democratic nominee. Who we need to convince are the people we know who are uncertain. If this is a 'right wing hit piece' then educate as to why this is the case. That way, when we are confronted with it outside DU we will have an answer for it. Simply ignoring it does us little good.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: right wing shit. this is a progressive democratic board.

[geek tragedy]

6. Thanks. As it turns out, of course, Rush Limbaugh and IBD were being dishonest.

Imagine that.

[onehandle]

7. Barely getting it hidden. The trolls that control the juries must be napping. nt

[bunnies]

13. I was #5. Couldnt believe it was that close. nt

[seabeyond]

14. it was good to read juror 5. can you figure out which juror i was? nt

[bunnies]

17. 7?

[seabeyond]

18. brilliant. i know i held back a tad.

[bunnies]

19. haha!!

Just a tad.

[jwirr]

8. While I hear what you are saying - when we are not in a campaign we often post rw junk to

illustrate their stupidity and or let us know what we are fighting against.

I actually posted to that limbah post. I refuted it by telling people that all they needed to do to see it was not true was to check it out on one of the charity rating sites. I was seeing it as unfair to Hillary.

[geek tragedy]

9. true dat, but there's a little too much eagerness to latch onto anything anti-Clinton.

One person told me, literally, "I recommend anything anti-Clinton"

[jwirr]

10. Okay. Well I am not that person. I am very aware that I may have to support her as my candidate

in the general election.

[geek tragedy]

11. yeah I'm not her biggest fan either (was an Obama 2008 person)

but we can't afford to hobble our next nominee

[ieoeja]

12. I don't see how this will be a problem for Bernie.

[geek tragedy]

16. Not a problem at all. See my avatar. nt

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

26. And such an attitude can only mean one thing, they are rightwingers.

Anything anti-clinton is what the right does, no actual liberal or democrat does that

[cyberswede]

15. Right? Let's talk about differences in policy positions between our primary candidates

Everything else is really counterproductive.

[libdem4life]

20. I second that.

[Jim Lane]

21. What do people think about posting RW hit pieces to elicit comment?

For example, someone posts, "Limbaugh just made the following accusation: _____. I don't know the facts of this matter. Is it completely fabricated, or what Limbaugh says is true as far as it goes but he ignores this other fact that negates any inference of impropriety, or there is a problem but Limbaugh is making a mountain out of a molehill, or is this a serious issue?"

It seems to me that such posts should be allowed. The RWNJ's love to live inside their Fox News bubble where facts about the real world are not allowed to intrude, but I don't think we should emulate that attitude.

[geek tragedy]

22. That is largely unobjectionable

Debunking is part of the limited value we can provide to the larger cause here.

[Jim Lane]

25. Thanks, I agree. Now for the tough part...

My example post goes way out of its way to make clear that the post isn't endorsing the reported RW attack. In real life, posts that lend themselves to the debunking you and I support will be more ambiguous.

Even if it's unambiguous in the other direction -- even if someone enthusiastically endorses a Limbaugh smear and says "This is why Clinton shouldn't be our nominee" -- I'd see a value to the debunking. If it's quickly hidden, then no one can reply to point out that Limbaugh's source has subsequently retracted the key allegation, or whatever the facts might be.

[geek tragedy]

27. the problem is that attacks degrade people's perceptions of the attacked, even if the attacks

are later proven to be completely false

also, inherent in that creating room for that debunking is promotion and validation of rightwing ideas, agitprop, and propaganda outlets--the debunking is allowed only because someone else is allowed to use this place as a platform for rightwing nonsense.

also, the debunking generally will occur in an atmosphere of a foodfight rather than actual debate, with the person citing Limbaugh or Breitbart being accused of being a rightwing troll, countercharges of being Clinton bootlickers, etc.

We don't need to make this place Discussionist II.

[Jim Lane]

28. But that "degrading" can occur even if the poster expressly disagrees with the attack

For example, the right-wingers sometimes recycle old garbage. A DUer might post "Here's what Breitbart says and I seem to recall that this was floated a few years ago and discredited then, so does anyone remember what the facts are?" Even if it was discredited then, and someone promptly posts with the discrediting information, one could argue that the reporting of the repeat of the attack has affected people's perceptions of the target.

I lean toward giving DUers more credit than the typical denizen of Discussionist (talk about a low bar). A thread here that contains a new or recycled RW attack and also its refutation isn't likely to affect anyone's vote.

[geek tragedy]

29. problem is that if we throw the floor open to the discussionist crowd and they

feel welcome to post their bilge here, they will.

Websites attract people who are made to feel welcome

Most people come here so we can have one--just one--place where we can discuss things without being bombarded by the rightwing noise machine.

Why invite the rightwing noise machine inside our tent?

[Jim Lane]

31. I don't know if they'll "feel welcome" if they're constantly refuted.

I do understand that many people want to avoid the right-wing noise machine, though.

Maybe we should have a Right-Wing Watch Group. People who want to know the facts behind the latest Limbaugh lunacy could check to see if someone had posted and refuted it. People who want that "just one place" to stay away from such stuff could trash the group.

[geek tragedy]

33. there's a debunking group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1022

[Jim Lane]

35. Thanks, I didn't even know about that group!

I've subscribed.

For the kinds of posts we're talking about here, I think the best solution (if the post is an OP) is to lock the thread and instruct the poster to repost in Propaganda Debunking. Admittedly, if it's not an OP, things are a little more complicated.

[Hutzpa]

23. Good job

[Blue_Tires]

30. This message needs to be pinned to the top

it's a LONG way to Summer 2016...

[Robbins]

32. well

I am supporting Bernie sanders but will hold my noise and vote for her in november 2016 In Missouri if she is nominee

however I think

1:Benghazi
2:The clinton foundation claim without evidance

are BS stories.

Any republican is worse than her.

[hifiguy]

34. Excellent.

Stick with POLICY and her associations with the likes of Blankfein, Dimon and war criminal Kissinger. There's more than enough legit ammo there.

[Damansarajaya]

36. Amen. If you want that shit, go over to the cesspool

that has become DI.