Keep your eyes open. Posts will become more common here

[MineralMan]

That cast aspersions on good, progressives running for office in 2018. The accusations may not be truthful. We saw much of that in the last election. Let's try not to fall for such divisive tactics again.

Thanks.

[TomSlick]

1. Well timed warning.

A healthy skepticism can be helpful. It is a good idea not to jump too quickly to full fury based on disputed allegations.

[rurallib]

2. can't rec this one enough

good warning!

[a kennedy]

3. Should I throw up the tainting of joy here???

or not.....it’s all related isn’t it??

[Tribalceltic]

5. Please Do!

[Honeycombe8]

47. I think that's different. She's not running for office...

and is not one of the highest rated programs on MSNBC. I read the original post complaining of her and reporting about the award taken away from her. It seemed legit (although I didn't agree, based on the substance of the post & underlying article...lot of conclusions but very few facts and quotes).

We want to support liberal people, but that doesn't mean no criticism, where it's warranted, does it?

[lunatica]

65. Someone in DU is using her story to trash

Sander’s supporters, inferring his supporters are racists. I supported Bernie in the Primaries but was happy to vote for Hillary.

I’m also not a racist or misogynist for supporting him. When I objected and said the poster was insulting, my post was removed. I defended myself to the admins but don’t expect to be heard. I don’t even care if my post is put up again, but blaming Bernie supporters for what’s happening to Joy is wrong.

[Honeycombe8]

66. Whoa. I missed all that. Just saw the Joy Reid OP, one of them.

But it's a running meme that Sanders has said or done things that are racist, from what I can tell. I don't know. I don't follow Sanders closely. He's not a Democrat, even though he caucuses with them and ran on the Dem ticket. There are times when his position is at odds with the Democratic Party position. So I don't view him as a Democrat; if he were, he'd have a "D" by his name.

I don't know about Joy Reid, either. I didn't see anything convincing about anti-LGBT, but I didn't research it.

[lunatica]

67. If he were a racist I wouldnt have supported him

He got in trouble with the Black Lives Matter group very early when they first started the movement, and it was because he said all lives matter. In protest they took over his podium. The result was he listened to their message and championed them.

Taken out of context he can be smeared as a racist which he has been, but that’s all history now. I refuse to be part of that fight, which I refused to be part of even then. We have very important elections coming up and it’s important for Democrats to unite.

But this poster was attacking Bernie supporters, not Bernie directly. He was claiming Bernie’s supporters are racist’s and going after Joy. I admire Joy immensely and felt insulted and said so.

[Honeycombe8]

68. I see.

Why would Bernie supporters go after Joy Reid? Makes no sense. She doesn't have a top rated weekday show on MSNBC. She's not one of the most influential talk show hosts at the station. Did she say some things against Bernie, you think?

[lunatica]

69. Why would Bernie supporters be grouped as racists!?

I’m a Progressive Democratic Socialist. Since when am I even remotely a racist?

[Honeycombe8]

71. FWIW, neither thing makes sense.

Bernie supporters being racist, or Bernie supporters going after Joy Reid. Neither of those things make sense. As Judge Judy says, if it doesn't make sense, it's not true.

I've read a couple of posts about Joy a few minutes ago. Some of those posts that are supposedly written by Joy Reid are so vulgar and offensive that it seems clear to me that she did not write them. Someone with a rising career isn't going to speak that way publicly, even if they think that, for one thing. And I don't read her as the kind of person to speak that way. Looks to me like a troll carried a few posts too far, so that it can be recognized not to be real.

It seems obvious to me that if she had said those things, people would have remembered and would have been hounding her about it for years.

Joan Walsh has vouched for her, that she never saw tweets like that, knows her, and that's not the way Joy has ever handled herself, to Joan's knowledge. That's a pretty strong testament.

[lunatica]

72. My post was taken down because I said

The poster seemed to be trying to be divisive and that he was acting like a troll.

The reason I even brought this up is because MineralMan started this thread to warn against trolls and disrupters. Thanks for responding to me in a credible way.

[Honeycombe8]

80. Yeah...

the "T" word is dangerous around here.

[Amaryllis]

4. Franken.

[TheSmarterDog]

15. And Joy Reid, Test runs for the new algorithm.

[Honeycombe8]

48. Franken, yes. They piled on...and what was being said wasn't true. nt

[SergeStorms]

62. There are SOME PEOPLE...

who I can never forgive for tearing down the best Senator the Democrats had at this time. We really need more people like Franken now, not less, and we could do without other 'people' who jump at conclusions and demand resignations before any evidence is presented. I'm not going to name "those people", but "they" know who "they" are.

[Honeycombe8]

70. Me, too.

I will not forget it.

[Amaryllis]

78. It was so obvious that it was a hit job. So frustrating that they fell for it. But then,

stolen elections are so obvious to some of us as well.

[revmclaren]

6. Absolutely!

We need to call out those posting ops bashing Democratic leaders and supporters. Differing opinions are fine but most of us have been here long enough to be able to tell the difference between genuine opinions and trolling.

If an post seems off, or is using a questionable source... Question it point by point. If sure of a TOS violation, alert. We can't let the disrupter's get a foothold again.

This is Democratic Underground!

GOTV!

Only! 2018 - 2020

[Maven]

7. A good rule of thumb

If Wikileaks, Glenn Greenwald and alt-righters like Jack Posobiec are all pushing the same story...don't.

[peabody]

8. THIS!!!

Good grief people--THINK! Don't get suckered again!

[Honeycombe8]

49. Yes. Also, if Trump would like the post....beware.

Because he signs onto wacko rightwingnut alternate theories, and he lies about everything, large and small. He wouldn't like a true post.

[certainot]

61. one way to detect that crap is monitor talk radio, now poss thnks to AI

artificial intelligence made it a lot easier and cheaper to transcribe talk radio, the original and most effective swiftboat tool.

now possible at sonix.ai for $5/hr for eg. that means what the R-con think tank and kremlin troll ops want to push on radio can be detected and discredited just by searching a few of the major blowhards for patterns and repetition - no need for facebook to spend millions on algorithms

[shraby]

9. If I say to myself, WTF more than three times, I quit reading that garbage cause I

smell a rat.

[PatrickforO]

18. I like that...the WTF test.

And no replies to those. Let them languish.

Or, if they are really bad, alert the administrators on them.

I've only done that several times, in what I feel are egregious cases, because I heartily dislike censorship. But we don't need trolls on here stirring things up, either.

[zentrum]

10. Thanks.

[BobTheSubgenius]

11. Sadly, it's not that difficult for them to sow mistrust and discontent.

As mentioned above...the last Pres. election is a great example. Or a terrible example, depending on one's POV.

[JohnnyRingo]

12. Others will cast much aspersion upon democrats that

...don't pass a strict litmus test for liberal.

We saw a whole lot of that last election, and most of it was indeed not true.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. Lets start maintaining a standard of providing credible links to claims. And extraordinary

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The most respectable sources or multiple credible sources.

[Silver Gaia]

14. Thank you.

We all need to be vigilant about this.

[PatrickforO]

16. Do you think we might be being trolled?

I've sometimes thought that on some posts. A few, maybe. Not too many.

But yeah, I remember how furious I was with the memes flowing back and forth during the Bernie/Hillary primary battle. Social justice or economic justice, which should we demand first? Sigh.

I'd just add this to what you said: Before you take a criticism of someone, pour the salt of research on it. Your research. Go on that person's website. Find out what they are actually saying. Then make up your own mind.

Passions can run high on here.

[George II]

19. Don't forget, with Clinton WAY ahead, DU got hacked and shut down hours before the polls closed.

[mythology]

23. This is incorrect. It's flat out wrong.

Clinton was ahead in the last national polls before the election by 3 points. She won the popular vote by 2 points. That is closer than the polls were in 2012. Please stop passing on obviously factually incorrect things.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/how-much-did-polls-miss-the-mark-on-trump-and-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f1a9689bc892

Clinton won the national popular vote by two percentage points according to certified vote tallies compiled by David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report. Most individual surveys found Clinton holding a small single-digit edge over Trump, averaging to a three-point margin.

http://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/198155/national-polling-accurately-nails-popular-vote.aspx

In terms of predicting the national popular vote outcome, the national polls did remarkably well in 2016. As was the case in 2012, the Democratic candidate's popular vote margin is growing as vote counting continues in the weeks after Election Day. As of this writing, Clinton is ahead of Trump by 1.5 percentage points (48.1% to 46.6%), representing the fact that she has received over 2 million more votes than Trump. The margin could grow to two points. Clinton will, therefore, win the popular vote by a larger margin than was the case for Al Gore over George W. Bush in 2000, Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and John F. Kennedy over Richard Nixon in 1960. Clinton will have won by a greater popular vote margin than two other candidates who won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College (Gore and Grover Cleveland in 1888), as well as five other candidates who won on both measures (Nixon, Kennedy, Cleveland in 1884, James Garfield in 1880 and James Polk in 1844).

The average "gap" estimate on the national popular vote as calculated by RealClear Politics prior to the election was 3.3 points. This means the national popular vote estimate will end up being significantly closer to the actual result than was the case in 2012, and well within the margin of error. To come within less than two percentage points on the gap is a remarkable polling achievement and should be applauded.

[FarPoint]

26. Jill Stein was popular too.

Many donated to her post election of tRump to challenge elections in a few states...
She or shall I sense Russian Trolls got lots of our money.

[PatrickforO]

41. I think the Greens are pretty discredited at this point.

There is that picture of Stein in Russia.

Now, don't get me wrong, until Bernie and his supporters drove the Democratic platform a bit to the left, I liked some of the Green positions.

The problem is that a vote for Stein is a wasted vote. One, she's never going to be elected; two, a vote for her takes away a vote for the Democratic candidate, which in 2016 was disastrous; and three, just my opinion, but I have never, ever thought her qualified to be president. She's just not.

Plus - the Greens and the Libertarians both have quite a few people of the type John McCain calls 'the crazies.'

Our party has just a few, very few of those. The Republicans...well, that's where most of the 'crazies' are. Makin' 'Murika grate, doan you know...

[George II]

17. And there is an amazing absence of a number of members here. No surprise!

[IronLionZion]

20. If I'm ever disgusted or disappointed by a Dem in an election year,

it's best to check if any reputable sources confirm it or if it's just trolls trying to bury the Dems deep Underground.

For example, red state Dems may seem a little less liberal when running in elections in red states. This perception can be exacerbated by ratfuckers promoting a punishment mentality.

[Hekate]

21. KnR

[berni_mccoy]

22. You mean like the ones that cast aspersions on Bernie Sanders?

Because he’s running for office in 2018. And there are plenty of the posts against him that you are talking about.

[democratisphere]

29. Bernie is not a Democrat. Plain and simple truth.

Last I checked, this is not the independentunderground.com.

[berni_mccoy]

30. Post doesnt mention Democrats... it says progressives

And according to Skinner, you know the guy who runs this site, Bernie is a Democrat for all intents and purposes.

[democratisphere]

31. In 2018 Bernie is running as an Independent (I), which is not a Democrat.

[Autumn]

50. Has he announced yet? I must have missed it.

[NYC Liberal]

56. Yes:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/356650-sanders-to-run-as-an-independent-in-2018

He was only a Democrat when it suited his purposes. He'll probably become a Democrat again in 2020 if he runs.

[Autumn]

57. He has always run as an Independent for his Senate seat, he's never run

as a Dem for his seat in VT. If he were to run in 2020 and I don't think he will, I don't think he will run as a Dem. He would have no need to.

[Stargazer99]

75. who gives a damn

[democratisphere]

79. Democrats give a damn.

[dalton99a]

24. Rule 1: The Internet Research Agency specializes in alternative facts and is not our friend.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

25. K&R. Vigilance is necessary everywhere on the WEB.

Not only on DU, but also with public media and we need to be far more careful about providing personal data. After the Facebook fiasco, I'm now assuming personal info can and probably will wind up being fed into databases that may be used for sinister purposes.

Accusations posted anywhere should be backed up with reliable, credible sources. Even when that's done, it's impossible to verify the true motives of sources.

....... ........

[airmid]

27. I don't remember who told me how to trash threads, but that's what I am doing. I will use my own

critical thinking skills to decide for myself.

[democratisphere]

28. 6 months until the elections. Check poster profiles and journals to aid

in identifying trolls. It was bad before and expect it to be worse now and going forward. We need to be united to win!
Trust nothing, verify everything!

[BlueJac]

32. K&R

[HipChick]

33. Thank you MM....sad DU'ers are falling for this..

[bucolic_frolic]

34. They work on softening your mind on every subject so you'll be more malleable

to their well placed deliberately sewn doubts

For months no one's disagreed with almost all of my posts. Now I get pushback on even non-political subjects.

Mind control is an art. They won't flummox me. Weaker folks though, are no sure bet.

[Progressive dog]

35. They're ramping up for the 2018 election

and it isn't just here.

[ehrnst]

36. Indeed. Already seeing them. (nt)

[MineralMan]

37. Yes. That's what prompted my post in the first place.

There are forces attempting to throw as many Democrats under the bus as possible. They're ramping up their activities, here and elsewhere. Some do it under the guise of progressivism. You'd think we'd learn...

[ehrnst]

39. The Joy Reid hacking is one volley that has hit the target...(nt)

[OhNo-Really]

38. I often wonder if their is a covert team of bullshit artists trolling the site.

If their purpose is to drive people away fro DU, rankle the divides, distract energy away from important news, slander good people, and weaken unity

perhaps

we could ask "does this post pass the smell test" by asking "does it do any/all things mentioned in first paragraph above

imho, too high a content doesn't pass

appears like too many follow the newest "shiny distraction". Joy Reid for example

A brave woman. very possibly slandered, instantly character questioned by the "progressives" she is trying to help.

😳😕🙄🙄

[disillusioned73]

40. You are so right..

let's keep an eye out for this kind of stuff..

"So it is perhaps predictable that this young Democratic candidate would become the subject of a withering political attack. Branded a “Washington insider” and a carpetbagger, Moser has been maligned in recent days for harboring an “outright disgust for life in Texas”.

[link:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/26/democratic-party-laura-moser-texas|

[stonecutter357]

42. K&R

[Nitram]

43. Absolutely correct MineralMan.

It happened during thee primaries and during the election, and I am reading some comments every day that give me pause. They are designed to put us at each other's throats, to confuse us, and to distract us from the facts. It can be difficult to distinguish between a genuinely passionate but immature poster, from a genuine troll, from a provocation designed by a foreign entity. Let's try to give fellow liberals the benefit of the doubt - except when they attack Democrats, progressives and liberals.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

44. "This is Microsoft Security. There's a problem with your computer."

Wait; wrong script.

[Wounded Bear]

45. K & R...for truth...

...and getting more and more important.

Check references and sources.

Try hard to set aside personal prejudices and evaluate issues objectively, as much as possible.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Loyalty is important. Blind loyalty is dangerous. Loyalty to ideals and principles out-weigh loyalties to persons.

As one of my favorite Repubs to hate said: Trust but verify.

This year is gonna be a shit storm, I think.

[Honeycombe8]

52. I agree. Loyal...but truth. This is not a "let's not criticize any Democrat" forum.

If the facts warrant it, anyone has a right to post about it.

But check the facts, and post FACTS, not conclusions. Example: Don't post that Joy Reid is anti-LGBT and tweeted homophobic statements. Those are CONCLUSIONS, not facts. Two people might read the same statement by Joy and conclude that they are not anti-LGBT. Stick to facts...then add your conclusion. (And it's always best to also post the person's responses to those statements that are supposedly bad.)

It's like being in a court. Show up in court and say, "I declare that Mr. Smith has been discriminating against minorities! I rest my case."
You'll lose the case because you didn't present any FACTS to support your CONCLUSION.

When you're damaging someone's reputation, it's the least you can do. Imagine it's a post about you. That's a good guide.

[spanone]

46. Yep, there's a reason the GOP has done nothing about russian interference.

[RandySF]

51. Im trashing all Bernie and Joy Reid posts.

[Honeycombe8]

53. Well, those aren't Democratic Party politicians.

I read posts and look for facts. If it's just conclusions and bashing, I move on.

But criticism based on fact is not bashing.

I disregarded the first post I read about Joy, because there were few facts there. All sorts of conclusions. I suspect there's fire there, since an award was taken from her, and she's not a target by Repubs because she's not one of the highest rated programs on MSNBC. Still, I didn't see much there.

As for Bernie, he caucuses with the Dems and is a good friend to the Dem Party, but he's not a Democrat and sometimes goes rogue, off on his own thing, and at times damages Democratic Party politicians. So criticism is justified, where based on facts.

Franken is an example of jumping on board to railroad and destroy a good, strong Democratic Party politician. I saw some people who were flat wrong about what they thought were the facts, or based their decision to approve the railroading on others' conclusions, and didn't even know the facts themselves.

But the trolls will be out for the mid-terms, and they will be going after strong Democratic Party politicians and pundits. I don't think they'll bother with lesser Dem politicians or pundits. And they may push politicians who don't belong to the Dem Party (like Jill Stein), to the detriment of a Democratic Party candidate.

[R B Garr]

77. Some do it under the guise of insisting their state is too big

for anyone to notice they do not support the Democrat, but rather are pushing for some "ideas." We all know what that means.

[Caliman73]

54. How do we differentiate between legitimate questions and trolling?

I know that most of the people on DU are pretty good at critical thinking, and I know that for me personally, I can usually make a good discernment based on several factors, my question however, is more to try to understand what people are thinking about when they say troll or "divisive tactics".

Is it like "pornography"? You know it when you see it?

I would likely vote for many of the people who have been floated in the last year:

Kamala Harris
Corey Booker
Elizabeth Warren
etc...

I like politicians like Mark Pocan and Raul Grijalva who are outspoken (even though they are lower profile). But I also have legitimate questions regarding most politicians, which unless they are deal breakers (I.E. Anti-Choice, for private for profit education and jails, and other things that are easily anti-progressive stances) are just issues that I like to get other people's opinions about.

I have seen some DU'ers jump on people who have had what I thought were legitimate questions about candidates, (I.E. Booker taking funding from pharmaceutical companies) which in the long run, would not dissuade me from voting for him, but might give me a moment of pause and make me want to research what was going on there.

Anyway, that is my 2 cents. Just wanting to know what people's opinions about what constitutes the difference.

[Reader Rabbit]

55. Thank you for asking this.

We need to find a balance that allows legitimate criticisms of candidates' positions or platforms without those pointing out weaknesses or flaws being condemned for it.

For example, many people here are supportive of a potential run by Cory Booker. As a teacher, I have grave concerns over his support of education "reform" and charter schools. Would I be allowed to mention this concerns? Or would I be vilified for doing so?

[Caliman73]

58. I would rather have a dialogue, discussion, or even a debate.

I thought that President Obama was a superb human being and a great president, but I agree with your concern as a teacher (I am not a teacher, just acknowledging your profession and my support for teachers). President Obama appointed Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education and Duncan was an ardent proponent of "education reform". The only reform in education we need is to provide better facilities, more social services, and more support to teachers and students in our public school system. We have models like Finland's schools or many other European models that we can look to for guidance.

It is a legitimate question. Your question would make me look at Booker's positions and votes, and on what he was saying about the issue now. It might not ultimately change my view or vote, especially in the General Election (As I think that the worst Democratic politician is usually better on most issues than the best Republican politician), but it might sway me in the primary though I tend to vote based on the total of a candidates positions not on one alone. If Booker's Democratic opponent had better stances, I would go there, but if they were a little better on schools and way worse on things like military spending or wanting to "reform" Social Security, I might have to go with Booker despite not liking his stand on schools.

[Blue_Adept]

59. If you see something, say something

[lunatica]

60. We should resist our own purity police too

I’m as fed up with our own throwing everyone with any differences to their own “holy” black and white dogmatic opinions under the bus. Especially without even the benefit of the constitutional right to a defense.

Guilty by unfounded smear is no way to judge others.

[Azathoth]

63. Dude, everything from you is cryptic nonsense

Keep your eyes open! Saboteurs will be posting in our midst!

Don't look now, we are being ratf***cked again!

I'm watching to see who the subversives are that post about topics I don't like!!!


What's next? Beware! The Darkness is Coming!!!

Ok, Gandalf

[MineralMan]

73. Oddly, though, over 200 people seem to

understand it OK.

[FreepFryer]

64. Yerp (n/t)

[Pathwalker]

74. Remember the Let it Sink" campaign, where we simply

refused to post on the offending posts, letting them sink into oblivion? That might discourage *some*,
when they fail to get a response.

[guillaumeb]

76. The perfect fighting with the good? eom

[Scurrilous]

81. Boink.