for the love of god, stop telling us what to write...

[whereisjustice]

If there is a candidate who doesn't represent the best interests of the average working Americans and who has a history of supporting and being supported by Wall Street, has an aggressive pro-military posture, then we better damn well speak up about it.

What could be more democratic than this?

And, stop with the bullshit concern attacks against anyone who points out the inconvenient truth that some Democrats support many core Republican principals - such as Wall Street deregulation, tax benefits for large corporations, off shoring of US jobs, horrible welfare reforms, free trade agreements, oil drilling and fracking in wilderness areas, etc.

You have a choice.

If you want to hear carefully scripted views designed not to offend the status quo, then go watch CNN.

[BainsBane]

1. Stop telling us what to write

by stopping writing.

[Buzz Clik]

10. +1

This is another "quit suppressing my rights!" moment.

[sheshe2]

11. Yup~

Bains~

[alphafemale]

19. Yeah. That jumped right out at me.

A real stop talking when I'm interrupting moment.

And for the record I've not picked a candidate yet and will support and vote for the Democratic nominee.

[uppityperson]

2. You don't like people asking others to write things in a certain way in their thread, so you tell us

to write things in a certain way in all threads?

[whereisjustice]

3. hmmm, I did? Let me see, hmmm, not in that paragraph, maybe down here... nope, I guess you

must be one of those people who thinks we shouldn't point out when a candidate really isn't a good choice for the democratic nomination because, you know, negative.

[uppityperson]

4. Yes, you did and now you jump to quite the wild conclusion about me. Done with you. nt

[BainsBane]

5. No, I think she is one of those people

Who finds irony in telling people to stop writing about what you say they don't want you to write about.

[uppityperson]

6. You mean finding irony in "stop telling us what to write"?

Yup.

[BainsBane]

7. Yeah, it got my head spinning

It's hard to keep track of so many layers of absurdity.

[Aerows]

8. I'm about as likely

to stop speaking my mind and speaking up for the candidates I support as I am to elect sticking my finger on a hot stove.

Not going to happen. I support Sanders. Sanders slander just makes the people doing it look bad.

[merrily]

17. Yep. All 22 of them.

[Thinkingabout]

9. Yes we have a choice, and we can will make the choice. The stop telling us what to write goes

both ways. Honesty would be nice also.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. Actually, CNN makes you give up....

They tell you both sides do it.

It's always been this way.

It's always going to be this way.

And,...

....of course,...

There is NOTHING you can do about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. I'm not going to tell you one thing

both sides are entertaining as hell.

Silly season, now with more spleen (TM)

Want some?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

14. Stop telling me not to write about what you shouldn't write!

No seriously, to use your own words....

If there is a DUer who doesn't represent the best interests of the average working Americans and who has a history of throwing screaming hissy fits, lying about Democratic candidates, then we better damn well speak up about it.

What could be more democratic than this?

And, stop with the bullshit concern attacks against anyone who points out the inconvenient truth that some DUers aren't really Democrats at all, but frustrated socialists and communists, angry that Democrats aren't all against free trade.

You have a choice.

If you want to hear carefully scripted views designed not to offend the leftist purity trolls, then go to revleft.com.



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

[merrily]

16. You have an odd concept of truth, convenient or otherwise.

[merrily]

15. Each DUer gets to control the posts of only one poster. In my case, it's my own posts.

Allowing wannabe control freaks of DU's minority to shame you and blame you out of posting something you want to post is a choice you can make or reject. I recommend rejecting it.

[HughBeaumont]

18. A while back, it used to be worse, believe it or not.

That prompted me to ask this question.

I edited this to add clarification to this question. By "Pro-Republican economics", I mean "Belief and Support of one or more of the following theories":

* The prime function of a business or corporation is to care for the shareholder's needs only, by which I mostly mean "major".

* Business functions best as a "top down" model; hypothetically speaking, of course.

* You CAN "feed the birds by giving the horse more oats".

* That this country's economic problems have more to do with "high taxes", "high wages" and "strangling regulations" than wealth inequality and top-heavy greed.

* It's absolutely not possible to pay workers a better wage and still be profitable (an idea that completely ignores the very real fact that Middle/Working/Poor wages haven't risen in real dollars since 1979 while income of the wealthy has outpaced inflation, productivity, their cost of living and lotteries).

* The post-WWII boom cannot be replicated (no one's really saying it HAS to be; that doesn't mean we have no choice but to accept "Trickle-On" . . . there ARE happy mediums).

* The Republican model of Free Trade, a zero-sum proposition that surmises because the price of tchotchkes are going down, the worker is better off . . . among other things (this ignores the very real fact that it's ever-increasing-in-price necessities (i.e. education, housing, health care, transportation, food, etc) that are killing the average American's pocketbooks).

* The Republican model of Globalization, a zero-sum proposition that dictates (for all nations involved) environmental standards, worker rights, worker wages, worker morale, worker safety and business regulations must be destroyed in proportion to the enormous increase in company productivity on the BACKS of those strained workers, layoffs, profits, CEO/management salaries, perk packages, stock options, exit packages and, as we're tragically seeing, governmental influence.

* The Republican model of offshore outsourcing, another zero-sum proposition that laughably states "While we ship low-skill work over THUR, it frees up better jobs fur the higher-skill 'Murkin workers over HERRR!" (yet again ignoring the fact that high-skilled work is ALSO being shipped overseas and companies are getting tax breaks to DO so).

* Americans simply have to accept a lower standard of living adherent to their inevitably lower wages (There's never a discussion on how wages can keep up with the cost of living, productivity and inflation . . . only that we can't participate in a consumer-based economy by proxy, but the wealthy absolutely HAVE to have THEIR needs met first, foremost and often times, ONLY).

[pampango]

20. Some come to Democratic Underground to support one Democrat or another rather than

to trash one Democrat or another. Leave that to Rush and the boys at freeperville. They do a great job of telling us how bad Democratic politicians are and trashing whichever Democrat happens to be up in the polls at any given moment and will change their target at a moment's notice if and when the polls change.

Most DU'ers know that none of our Democratic politicians is perfect. Our assessment of their relative strengths and 'imperfections' is what makes us support one or the other. Anyone who thinks that any candidate is perfect is bound for immense disappointment. That type of 'worship' is criticized regularly here for good reason.

[davidpdx]

23. The problem is what is considered trashing or being a (fill-in-the-blank) "hater"?

What you think is and what I think is are probably different and I'd bet if we picked any other two DUers at random neither of those would agree with either of us.

My question isn't necessarily to you, but to everyone (I just happened to see your post and it looked like a good one to reply to) what is trashing a candidate?

Asking where what stance they have on a particular issue?
Pointing out that he or she took money from certain special interests?
Pointing out that he or she is 50+ points down in a (hypothetical) polls a year and a half out from the election?
Stating the person is a conservative Democrat or a socialist?

I'm attempting to be fair here and pull examples from what I've seen on DU. I could probably go on all day (but I'd rather not).

I've seen people on DU say we shouldn't attack one candidate and then turn around and attack another one. A bit of hypocrisy.

[Scuba]

21. Hey, ya know what?

[Bluenorthwest]

22. I don't like Meta posts. I don't like Fox News style personal attacks on candidates, and I don't

care for unsupported characterizations presented as if they were uncontested fact and yet here is your OP, full of all of those things, because that's what you like to post. See how it works?

[FSogol]

24. Help, help, I'm being repressed!

[fadedrose]

25. Not true in all cases

There's a few guys/gals on CNN who I think are more honest....
I don't like Jake Tapper, but he is rough on guests, so is Chris Cuomo.