We Had Concern Trolls – Now We Have Apathy Trolls

[Median Democrat]

It appears that there is a segment of DU that are avid advocates of inaction. They originally appeared when Hillary Clinton was the front runner, and are now emerging in recent days with respect to Barack Obama, and have argued in response to the new Big Media spin that he is appealing to the center that Obama is not a “real” liberal. Thus, they argue that they will not actively support the Democratic nominee, and they question whether they will even vote for him.

The names of Kucinich are often raised as an example of a proper liberal, but more often then not, no actual candidate is named, since a comparison with most of the other Democratic nominees will show that Obama’s voting record as liberal or more so.

We had some folks threatening inaction if Hillary was chosen as VP. We had some folks threatening inaction if Hillary was not chosen as VP. However, lets make no mistake. Despite the GOP and MSM’s efforts to recast Obama as a flip flopper, there is a world of difference between McCain and Obama. For those wondering what those differences are, here is a thread with ample sources that detail these differences in past voting record and future policy proposals:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6457458&mesg_id=6457458

For example, if you are interested in civil liberties, the ACLU scores Obama at 89% while McCain scores a dismal 17%.

If you are interested in protecting a woman’s right to choose, Planned Parenthood scores Obama 100% while McCain gets ZERO.

If you are interested in the environment, the League of Conservation Voters scores Obama at 67 percent while McCain gets a ZERO.

Yes, these scores may be subjective, but they do show a dramatic difference in the voting records of these two candidates.

In other words, the election represents a true choice, and failure to vote is acquiescence. There is nothing noble about choosing not to support any of the candidates. Rather, this is abdication of your responsibilities as an American citizen, and displays a lack of gratitude to those Americans who fought, marched or demonstrated for the right to vote, which many now take for granted.

A Democracy means responsibility, and complaints about the current state of affairs without actually voting is nothing more than an ineffective whine. Do not render yourself a political eunuch. At a minimum, you must vote. Even better, work, volunteer, and convince your friends and family members to vote.

How relevant are the issues? How important is it to avoid 8 more years of McSame? Consider the impact of continued inaction on issues such as energy and climate change led by climate change deniers such as Senator James Inhofe:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gu_srR55dWSkG1HlkWkYMMEpF8QgD91LU0381

[DJ13]

1. I just dont care any longer

:evilgrin:

[Median Democrat]

3. Who Cares What You Think!

:headbang:

[Cha]

29. You just need a swift

kick in your ennui:kick:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hawkeye-X]

4. Nice self-outage. See ya!

[Beacool]

9. Why?

Obama may be the nominee, but his feet should be held to the fire just as with any other candidate.

[bowens43]

13. there are some who want us, to just sit down and stfu.

I have been and still am an avid obama supporter but I've have been disappointed with Obama's run to the right. Of course , the 'just get in line crowd' doesn't like that.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC_SKP]

24. Were you threatened with a ban?

And if so, by whom?

Personally, I welcome honest dissent.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC_SKP]

34. I'm with you, no use of ignore and definitely never alerted.

And, again, I welcome the voices and comments from folks like you and others who challenge "conventional wisdom" here.

The posts I hate are concern posts, with only a cut and paste and link to an article. It's really chicken poo.

:patriot:

[anonymous171]

7. Sounds like you were on the RNC convention floor in '04.

Or you don't know anything about Obama's positions.

[Beacool]

10. Which positions?

Public finance, FISA, abortion.......

Funny, but as I'm writing this, Leno is doing his monologue and making a joke how Obama's plane had mechanical trouble today because it kept veering to the right.

:7

[anonymous171]

12. What, he's against Abortion now?

I can see your point on FISA but that's about it.

[Beacool]

14. Late term abortion ............... n/t

[Median Democrat]

23. Again, Planned Parenthood Scored Him 100%...

Based on his voting record. Yes, not his speeches, but his actual voting record. If you are interested in protecting a woman’s right to choose, there's Obama who scored 100% and McCain who gets ZERO. Also, are you seriously suggesting that Obama would not appoint justices to the Supreme Court that would uphold Roe v. Wade? If not, then the flip flop charge you make with respect to abortion is misplaced.

[LowerManhattanite]

38. Ahhhh...Jay Leno...

That friend of progressives where every wingnut goes to announce their candidacies and push their talking points.

Thank God for Letterman—who'll call a clown like O'Reilly and other wingnuts on their bullshit.

And thank God Conan's replacing that snickering, unfunny freeptard.

[Beacool]

39. Well, he also made a pretty good joke about McCain.

He tries to be fair to both candidates.

:D

[LowerManhattanite]

42. Ah...that's NOT his history at all.

He's a plastic joke funnel who plays to his in-town-from-bumfuck studio audience and high-powered Beltway freepers and the knuckle-draggers who elect them.

There's a reason they flock there to kick-start their campaigns. It's obvious to anyone with eyes.

[Telly Savalas]

11. Some like the concern trolls. Others are fond of apathy trolls.

But I'm partial to a good ole fashioned troll, with no qualifier.

[ZinZen]

15. Nice to see you embracing

those right wing talking points. The RNC would be proud.

[Beacool]

19. Oh please,

Obama should be criticized when he switches positions, just like any other candidate. I would expect those of you who voted for him in the primary to be upset about his switching positions to the right on FISA, if nothing else.

[anonymous171]

25. I am upset about FISA, which is the only switch or "flip."

But by even using the term "flip-flop" you are reinforcing the RW frame.

[Life Long Dem]

58. Where's the hoo rah rah!! ??

Instead your crying like a bunch of cry babies over what Obama says is not a flip-flop and your "not listening" to Obama!

:woohoo: For Obama!!:woohoo:

[Median Democrat]

18. The [Insert Name] Is A "Politician" Justification Is A Cop-out

Beacool's post underscores the type of trolling I am referring to. References to "politician" and "flip flop" are the types of attacks that Fox News and Karl Rove have used against Bill Clinton, HIllary Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Yet, alleged "democrats" gleefully repeat these smears on this board for no other reason except to diminish enthusiam for the Democratic nominee.

To the extent, beacool is not trying to troll, what issue change turned you from an avid Obama supporter to Apathetic? Repeating GOP talking points suggests an ulterior motive. I understand that people are upset about Obama's position on FISA, and that is a valid ground for disagreement. However, does McCain offer a better alternative? Also, the comment ignores the vast number of issues where the choice between McCain and Obama, as articulated in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6457458&mesg_id=6457458

The "Politician" justification just distracts from the real choice faced by Americans, and to the extent that a person allows themselves to be so easily disenfranchised by a GOP talking point, then they should be ashamed of themselves.

Should Susan B. Anthony or Martin Luther King have been dissuased from fighting for voting rights on the grounds that all they get to elect are politicians who flip flop on issues?

The answer is no, because elections matter. Votes matter. If the past 8 years does not make this clear, then no amount of reasoned discussion will convince you otherwise.

[Beacool]

22. What's with this "troll" business any time somebody disagrees with something?

I'm a lifelong Democrat and should be entitled to voice my opinion when our nominee keeps adjusting his position on various issues.

Furthermore, no one is saying that they are now going to vote for McCain because of Obama's position on FISA. But, that doesn't mean that he should be given a free pass because "where else are we going to go?".

There's valid criticism and some that it's not. The key is to know the difference.

[Median Democrat]

26. Disagreement Is Fine - Its The Advocacy Of Inaction

My thread said nothing about disagreement. In fact, I said that FISA is more than fair game, and I disagree with Obama's stance on this issue. However, does that mean that I am not going to contribute and support the Democratic nominee? No! Disagree all you want, but what I find offensive are the folks who suggest that doing nothing and not voting is somehow noble. Its not.

[Beacool]

36. OK, I see your point.

But the ones who are not voting are probably doing it because a) they are disillusioned with the chosen nominee; b) it's their way to protest against the DNC; c) they stopped caring about the election.

Personally, I don't believe in pressuring anyone, people will do what they choose to do anyway. It's only July, a lot can happen between now and November and these people may change their mind.

[Art_from_Ark]

5. An 89% civil liberties rating?

And he's still supporting FISA???

[chimpymustgo]

6. And then, we have the "emotion police" trolls.

:scared:

[Muttocracy]

8. and "DU history" trolls. nt

[Runcible Spoon]

63. who have been with us all of 2 months.

gotta love this place! takes all kinds...

[QC]

27. Apparently we now have Troll Classification Trolls,

or at least one of them.

[Muttocracy]

30. :)

[lonestarnot]

32. And troll trolls, with trolls strolling with little trolls under their arms.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cirque du So-What]

17. What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?

I don't know and I don't care.

[Lilith Velkor]

20. I suppose I should be concerned, but I really don't give a shit.

:shrug:

[1Hippiechick]

28. LOL

[TreasonousBastard]

21. I am convinced most of them are all talk...

and very little action. Every election there are people who just can't deal with the results and in a primary just won't go along with the winner. But, few of them are in any mood to do anything about it, and most of them can't do anything anyway.

So they pout and whine and become irrelevant. Could they decide an election by staying home or doing something stupid al la Nader? Maybe, but they're likely balanced by their counterparts on the other side.

Thing that gets me is that every one of them refuses to admit that there will be be maybe as many as 175 million people voting in November, and the winner will have to get around half of them. The winner will therefore not be perfect in very many eyes, but will be better than the other guy.

"Perfect" candidates like Kucinich, Edwards, Clinton, or whoever couldn't get most of the Democrats behind them, so how would they be expected to get over half the country as a whole? That's kinda the point of having primaries.

Never forget how half the (voting) Democrats dumped Lieberman in the primary, but he still won the election-- amazing how that works sometimes.

[Beacool]

37. I think Clinton shouldn't be on your list.

Kucinich and Edwards didn't have much traction, but Hillary won as many votes as Obama. There's no comparison with the first two you mentioned.

[Median Democrat]

51. Actually Both Clintons Are Perfect Examples

They are candidates who each had their flaws, yet were pretty successful notwithstanding. Look at Bill. It is an open question as to whether he would have won without Ross Perot splitting the GOP vote. He won with 43% of the popular vote. He had perhaps even more pronounced scandals due to the whole Jennifer Flowers issue, yet despite his flaws, he put together a pretty successful Presidency although not nearly as liberal as a lot of people would have hoped. Hillary bases her experience on her experiences as first lady and essentially a co-president, so the same applies to her.

If Hillary was the nominee I would have supported her. Indeed, I did not contribute to either Obama or Clinton in the primaries because I liked both, and did not want to pay either one to beat up on the other. However, Obama is the nominee, so I started with the contributions to both the DNC and Obama. I was not wedded to a particular candidate during the primaries. I just want the Democrats to win the White House, and I don't see much differnce position wise between Hillary and Obama. If I did, I would have contributed to one of them in the primaries.

HOWEVER, I do see a whole lot of difference between Obama and Hillary versus John McCain. I like Obama. I liked Hillary. I liked Bill. However, the Democratic party, and the issues at stake are much larger than any single candidate. We need the Democrats need to win the White House. I believe that wholeheartedly, which is why I am criticizing folks who brag about how they are going to minimally participate in the election because the candidates are not liberal enough. Worse, some folks say they won't vote.

Well, if you can't see a difference between Obama and McCain, then that is being uninformed or disingenuous. Global warming, a woman's right to choose, the economy, the war. Will we give McCain a mandate to continue Bush's policies. Or, will we give Obama a mandate to change them? Silence is tacit agreement with whatever the results of the election are.

[Zhade]

70. If clinton won as many votes as Obama, you'd have a point.

NT!

[Cha]

33. What I want to know is..why are they allowed on

DU? Why are we even discussing them?

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-11-08 01:33 PM

Original message
Welcome to the General Election. So, what does this mean for Democratic Underground?

Now that the Democratic presidential primaries are over, and the seven-day transitional period here on DU has passed, it's time to start looking forward to the General Election between Barack Obama and John McCain.

I think the switch to General Election mode has gone better than expected so far, and I honestly believe that the vast majority of visitors to this website have not had any difficulty moving forward and coming together to support our presidential nominee. Indeed, most of the people who were very active in the heated primary discussions of the past six to nine months have already made great efforts to rebuild the bridges they burned during that time. I'm very glad to see this - but not entirely surprised, considering that the differences between Senator Obama and Senator McCain are so vast and so glaringly obvious.

Unfortunately, there will be a very small number of people on both sides of the former Obama-Clinton divide who want to keep fighting the primaries. I know from previous experience that some of these people will not be able to let it go for years, and may never fully come to terms with what has happened. Hopefully these people will be able to find solace elsewhere because as of today there is no place on DU for those who seem committed to a never-ending rehash of the 2008 Democratic primaries.

If you are wondering what will be permitted here from now on, here is a short excerpt from our rules:


Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.


That pretty much covers everything you need to know...

* Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party: Permitted.
* Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks against Democrats: Not permitted.
* Using this message board to work for the defeat of any Democratic Party nominee for any political office: Not permitted.

If you follow those rules, you'll be just fine. If you try to find a way around those rules, you take your chances with the moderators. It's that simple.

SO, WHAT DOES THAT ALL REALLY MEAN?

It is really easy to tell you what is permitted and what is not but in practice it is often very difficult to enforce the guidelines that we set, and that is particularly true in this case. We want to make DU a more civil and unified community where members can support the Democratic nominee, but we do not want to go overboard and disallow honest and open discussion of certain issues. This means that we can rarely draw a bright line and say "Do not cross."

With this in mind, here are a few issues to consider:

Now that Senator Obama is our presumptive nominee, he holds a special position in the party, and on Democratic Underground. Barack Obama is now the only person on the planet who can stop John McCain and finally put an end to the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration. You don't have to love the guy. Heck, you don't even have to particularly like him. But if you act like you want him to lose in November we're not going to cut you a great deal of slack.

You're still allowed to criticize Democrats. And you're even allowed to criticize Barack Obama. But if your criticism smells like a partisan political attack designed to tear down our candidates and help our Republican opponents, we're likely to conclude that it is.

Believing or spreading certain right-wing smears about Senator Obama or Michelle Obama could earn you an immediate tombstone. Ignorance is not an excuse -- everyone on Democratic Underground should know better on this stuff. Some examples: The suggestion that Senator Obama is a Muslim; xeonophobic use of his middle name; spreading rumors about secret videotapes with racist rants. If you're acting like a Freeper or a "concern troll," we'll assume that you are one.

<conclusion>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6344459

[redqueen]

54. Good questions. (nt)

[Zhade]

71. You're certainly not applying that to "I'm not enthusiastic" supporters, right?

I mean, expecting everyone to be JUST AS EXCITED as you is insane - and there's no rule stating we all have to have the same levels of enthusiasm.

[LowerManhattanite]

40. Fuck 'em both. Griefers and “Take my ball and go home”-ers. n/t

[jgraz]

41. For many of us, it's not a choice between Obama and McCain

It's a choice between Obama + pressure vs Obama w/o pressure. Personally, I think we'll get a better candidate and a better president if we keep the pressure on him.

[Beacool]

44. Hear, hear!!!

That was my point too.

[elkston]

46. Nope. Pressure him when he's in office.

Close RANKS now and focus all energies on attacking Republicans and fortifying Obama's good image.

This selfish dissention helps no-one at the moment.

[jgraz]

47. You mean *after* he's locked-in as another center-right Democrat? No thanks.

We tried that with Clinton and it got us DADT, Welfare "Reform" and NAFTA. If you don't mind, I think I'll try a different tack this time around.

[Median Democrat]

56. So, You Favor McCain? Also, Center-Right? What positions are center-right?

These labels really aren't that helpful are they? Will you please show me a list of positions and votes that are center-right? I included a link that shows Obama's past votes and his current positions. Is bankruptcy reform center right? Is appointing Supreme Court justices who would uphold Roe v. Wade center right?

Again, there is nothing noble about sitting out an election, then bitching after the damage is done. By all means criticize Obama on actual issue. But name calling and threatening to stay at home on election day just makes a person a whiner.

Change requires action. Martin Luther King could have simply stayed home, and bitched about how politicians are corrupt anyways, so why fight for voting rights and access to government services. But he did not do that. Look at Lyndon Johnson. He was no paragon of civil rights before he became President. However, Johnson signed the civil rights bill.

[jgraz]

60. Nuance isn't really your strong point, is it?

No one said anything about sitting out the election, let alone voting for McSame.

As for center-right positions, you seem a bit confused as to the political spectrum in this country. You may want to do some googling before we talk again.

[Median Democrat]

68. Tried Googling Obama Center Right - Nothing Came Up On News

Tried "Obama Center Right" in google news. I have yet to find any article describing Barack Obama as a center right politician. Do you have an article in mind? I found some articles saying that Obama was shifting or moving to the center, but no article suggests that he is there, let alone that he is "center right."

[Zhade]

73. I think the poster meant about general political ideology around the world...

...not about Obama specifically.

For example, the fact that "centrists" here are (correctly) viewed as rightwing in the entire rest of the world.

[canichelouis]

48. Hear, hear elkston

Focused and reasonable

[Zhade]

72. Dissent is not selfish. Thank goodness you weren't a Founding Father.

NT!

[Hoof Hearted]

45. Well then - thank ye gods we have purity police.

[Greyskye]

49. Fight Apathy or Don't

[LVjinx]

50. And "I'm going to write a post about trolling" trolls.

[TheKentuckian]

52. In general terms I'd say fire to the feet time is for a candidate

and then when you have a nominee it's electing time.

This cycle even more so. The alternatives are bleak. There is no stick. I wish there were, but if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast our nets.
Not fumbling around with the trigger of a loaded gun pointed at your head is not apathy but survival instinct, in my opinion.

You've got-stick to your/my guns on this, that, or the other or
I'll A) gripe, keep my money, and vote for you anyway (aka 1/4 vote for McSame*)
B) Vote McSame* or vote McSame* by proxy by voting for someone else
or
C) Stay home (aka 1/2 vote for McSame*).

I don't think the party or the country are in shape for any protest of this candidate. What pressure can we apply that doesn't come with a more negative result for the country. All we have is the nuclear option and we all know that's not really an option.

* illustrates continuation of the neocon agenda running unchecked and out in the open as the official direction of our government.

[windoe]

53. There is a 'Don't rock the boat' trollhood

-but when the boat is the Titanic and 1- there is an iceburg dead ahead or 2-we already hit the iceburg or 3- we are aready sinking... some of us are busy looking for lifeboats while other people are still concerned about rocking the freaking boat. Best way I can describe the phenomena....

[Alter Ego]

55. Man fuck this I'm gonna go play Halo 2

[Runcible Spoon]

64. think I'll join you! this thread is an epic waste of bandwidth

:headbang:

[NC_Nurse]

57. So are you concerned about apathy?

:o

[BooScout]

59. First they care too much......

Then they don't care enough..............when you make your mind up............will you please let us know which troll category Clinton Fans are supposed to be in......tyvm & have a lovely bubbly day.

[Geek_Girl]

61. I guess I'm an apathy troll because I believe that Obama is a centrist

I'm going to support and vote for Obama. But he is a centrist not much different than Hillary. I'm not sure why so many thought he was the champion of champion of liberals. He is was and always will be a centrist.

The dems rallied around 2 centrist this primary season and there was not much opportunity for a liberal candidate to win.

Oh well maybe next time the country will realize us Lefties are right and will get a real "bleeding heart pinko" as our candidate. :-)

But in the mean time I'll pick the sane candidate to support and vote for. Because the other guy quite frankly seems "bat shit crazy."

[Runcible Spoon]

62. you've been here a little over 2 months. what the FUCK do YOU know about what DU has?

get a fucking hobby, because we don't need another fucking flamemaster.

[Orsino]

65. Judging a candidate's "liberalism" on the basis of votes cast...

...on the hard-right legislation of the Bush era is tricky at best. Liberal compared to the rest of Congress is still conservative.

[KoKo]

66. Really? That's just AMAZING ....what you say...Incredible that there are people like that

out there posting on this site. It's really disgusting....isn't it...:puke:

[sourmilk]

67. "At a minimum, you must vote?" WTF?

At a minimum, you must vote "OBAMA."

Sheesh. Progressives are not fools or idiots. We know that Obama butters wa-ay more bread than McThuselah.

[Zhade]

69. You know, not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll.

I know it's a simplistic, easy-to-swallow excuse not to look at why those people disagree with you, but in no way does it make your assertion true.